Media Bias: Perceived or Real? To what extent, and where?

[mr_genius]

FYI, here are some of the pieces that were cut out ny ABC in the palin interview. Selective editing? I think it is blatently dishonest when they edit the interview in such a way as they cut off parts of her answers to make it seem that she gave an incomplete or wrong answer. Here is just one example, the bolded part is what was edited out from the broadcast.

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

 

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

 

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

 

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

 

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

 

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

 

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

 

Nothing like reporting only what you want reported.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...palin-interview

 

what a bunch of hacks. no integrity.

[Texsox]

what a bunch of hacks. no integrity.

 

We should stop newspapers and just read transcripts. f***ing lazy people. And no more TV news or talk radio programs, just watch news conferences and get the whole story.

[mr_genius]

We should stop newspapers and just read transcripts. f***ing lazy people. And no more TV news or talk radio programs, just watch news conferences and get the whole story.

 

?

 

your post doesn't make any sense. what are you getting at?

[EvilMonkey]

?

 

your post doesn't make any sense. what are you getting at?

He's all or nothing.

[mr_genius]

He's all or nothing.

 

Ah I see. Sorts of like the Rob Deer of the filibuster.

[Texsox]

That's what reporters do. They take big, long events, and pare them down. When you see the TV news, you are not getting the entire event. So you can look at every newspaper story and find stuff like this. And yes, thousands of newspapers and tens of thousands of television and radio stations are all against conservatives. So do NOT believe anything they tell you. They have secret meetings and everything. I don't even think they are Americans, why else would they forget little R and D?

 

/popping corn, watching the show

[mr_genius]

That's what reporters do. They take big, long events, and pare them down. When you see the TV news, you are not getting the entire event. So you can look at every newspaper story and find stuff like this. And yes, thousands of newspapers and tens of thousands of television and radio stations are all against conservatives. So do NOT believe anything they tell you. They have secret meetings and everything. I don't even think they are Americans, why else would they forget little R and D?

 

/popping corn, watching the show

 

There's a difference in putting a news story out and cutting and pasting parts of an interview to show the person being interviewed to appear to be answering a certain question, when in fact they were responding to a question the viewer was not allowed to see. That type of editing is irresponsible, this is just common sense here.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Texsox, this thread was created with the sole purpose of discussing media bias and giving critiques. If you don't like to read about media bias, as you seem to only respond with sarcasm and usually don't lend much to the argument, why do you even read our posts? This thread can easily be avoided. Just like I try to stay out of the Democrat thread, as me posting sarcastic, smart alecky posts really doesn't ad to the debate.

[Texsox]

Texsox, this thread was created with the sole purpose of discussing media bias and giving critiques. If you don't like to read about media bias, as you seem to only respond with sarcasm and usually don't lend much to the argument, why do you even read our posts? This thread can easily be avoided. Just like I try to stay out of the Democrat thread, as me posting sarcastic, smart alecky posts really doesn't ad to the debate.

 

I love to read about the perception of media bias. I have a great deal of respect for the GOP for coming up with this strategy. It will go down in history as perhaps the greatest political coup of all time. They have wiped out their biggest watchdogs. Brilliant. Those poor disenfranchised millionaire conservative candidates that can't get a break from the mean, rotten, BIASED!!, media. Thank GOD they have multiple channels of 24/7 media talk radio to tell you how misleading all that negative news is.

 

Don't read the article just look at how they didn't mention D or R!! Don't read the article, look at the placement of the headline. Attack the messenger!!

 

TASS didn't have it this good.

[mr_genius]

I love to read about the perception of media bias. I have a great deal of respect for the GOP for coming up with this strategy. It will go down in history as perhaps the greatest political coup of all time. They have wiped out their biggest watchdogs. Brilliant. Those poor disenfranchised millionaire conservative candidates that can't get a break from the mean, rotten, BIASED!!, media. Thank GOD they have multiple channels of 24/7 media talk radio to tell you how misleading all that negative news is.

 

Don't read the article just look at how they didn't mention D or R!! Don't read the article, look at the placement of the headline. Attack the messenger!!

 

TASS didn't have it this good.

 

It's not too hard to convince someone it's raining during a downpour. The only thing that will go down in history is how the media completely imploded and totally abandoned objectivity. As far as the millionaire candidates....uh the Democrats run millionaires all the time (just about every election). I am glad that the majority of citizens in our fine country understand that the MSM is sloppy and pro-Democrat.

 

Even conservative Democrats are beginning to tune out the MSM. Honestly, there are so many new media sources, the MSM is rapidly becoming less and less valuable to the Democrats. As far as I'm concerned to more the media shows a blatant bias the more other sources of information will thrive.

 

 

[Texsox]

It's not too hard to convince someone it's raining during a downpour. The only thing that will go down in history is how the media completely imploded and totally abandoned objectivity. As far as the millionaire candidates....uh the Democrats run millionaires all the time (just about every election). I am glad that the majority of citizens in our fine country understand that the MSM is sloppy and pro-Democrat.

 

Even conservative Democrats are beginning to tune out the MSM. Honestly, there are so many new media sources, the MSM is rapidly becoming less and less valuable to the Democrats. As far as I'm concerned to more the media shows a blatant bias the more other sources of information will thrive.

 

I certainly will go with the all wet analogy And THE WSJ and Fox easily balance MSM in the bias department. I never have watched MSM, so I honestly cannot comment on their coverage.

 

But keep paying attention to the messager and not the message. The GOP likes that.

[mr_genius]

I certainly will go with the all wet analogy And THE WSJ and Fox easily balance MSM in the bias department. I never have watched MSM, so I honestly cannot comment on their coverage.

 

But keep paying attention to the messager and not the message. The GOP likes that.

 

false message and faulty messenger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Man that guy was awesome. What was hilarious is the Iraqi army seemed to genuinely have no clue that he was full of s*** when 3rd ID got there because they didn't know any better, and actually believed him when he said there were no Americans anywhere in Baghdad.

[EvilMonkey]

Tex, can you look at the link I posted, see all the parts that they edited out, and think that they still gave a fair representation of palin to the public? You and I may take the time to look up the transcripts, but a lot of people who may be swayed will not go that extra distance and see if what was presented to them was accurate. I think it was a hatchet job in the editing that either was done with the intention of making her look bad, or was done by someone who was so inept that I would expect to see themout of a job very soon. You can't just cut out parts of answers you don't like and leave the rest there, that is unfair to her, and to the viewing public. Forget the media as a whole with bias. In THIS interview, do you agree or disagree that the edited version that appeared on TV makes her answers seem worse than they do when you read the tyranscript? Do you think that it is unfair and irresponsible for a reporter or editor to only show you PART of her answer to a question, leaving out important parts of the answer in the process?

[Texsox]

And if I look I will find a poor reporting job that makes a Dem look bad. There are errors. But they all even out, and that is all we can ask from a free press. You want transcripts and no editing. But then the complaint will be why some transcript wasn't added. Last year someone died from drinking too much water in a radio promotion. Hundreds of people drowned last year. See, that proves that water is dangerous and we need to get rid of it.

 

But keep believing that the world is out to get Reps and you need to circle the wagons. That bunker mentality is what they want. You and them against the world.

 

/back to lurking.

[EvilMonkey]

And if I look I will find a poor reporting job that makes a Dem look bad. There are errors. But they all even out, and that is all we can ask from a free press. You want transcripts and no editing. But then the complaint will be why some transcript wasn't added. Last year someone died from drinking too much water in a radio promotion. Hundreds of people drowned last year. See, that proves that water is dangerous and we need to get rid of it.

 

But keep believing that the world is out to get Reps and you need to circle the wagons. That bunker mentality is what they want. You and them against the world.

 

/back to lurking.

Tex, I asked you two pretty direct questions. Care to answer them?

[EvilMonkey]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ister-mag-cover

Lib Photographer Admits Making McCain Look Sinister for Mag Cover

More at the link.

[Texsox]

Tex, I asked you two pretty direct questions. Care to answer them?

No it was not accurate. Based on the transcript (is the transcript accurate? Was it from an unbiased source)

 

Yes I think it is entirely fair to report partial questions and answers, it's what reporters do. Space is limited. The choice is simple, report less questions in their entirety (and have you claim bias in which questions were omitted) or report more answers, but abridged.

 

Tens of thousands of newspaper articles are printed every day. Some are by reporters who are not very good at their craft and some articles are very good. If finding a few examples, out of those tens of thousands of articles, that are poorly written confirms the GOP party line of media bias, fine, you believe and the GOP loves you. I prefer to keep faith in the watchdogs.

 

But you have to love the Grand Old Party's strategy, it is brilliant. As soon as a negative article comes out, find flaws in the article and start screaming. There doesn't even have to be flaws, just find something. And if a positive article comes out about an opponent, start screaming about where's my coverage? Then everybody starts discussing media bias and ignores the story. I love it, I wish my candidates thought of it first.

 

I'll only ask one direct question from you. Since our system sucks so bad and has such terrible bias, care to point me to a better one?

[EvilMonkey]

No it was not accurate. Based on the transcript (is the transcript accurate? Was it from an unbiased source)

 

Yes I think it is entirely fair to report partial questions and answers, it's what reporters do. Space is limited. The choice is simple, report less questions in their entirety (and have you claim bias in which questions were omitted) or report more answers, but abridged.

 

Tens of thousands of newspaper articles are printed every day. Some are by reporters who are not very good at their craft and some articles are very good. If finding a few examples, out of those tens of thousands of articles, that are poorly written confirms the GOP party line of media bias, fine, you believe and the GOP loves you. I prefer to keep faith in the watchdogs.

 

But you have to love the Grand Old Party's strategy, it is brilliant. As soon as a negative article comes out, find flaws in the article and start screaming. There doesn't even have to be flaws, just find something. And if a positive article comes out about an opponent, start screaming about where's my coverage? Then everybody starts discussing media bias and ignores the story. I love it, I wish my candidates thought of it first.

 

I'll only ask one direct question from you. Since our system sucks so bad and has such terrible bias, care to point me to a better one?

Our system of what? News reporting? If that is what you are referring to, then they need to do 2 things. 1) make sure the line between commentary and reporting is clear. A huge problem today is that it is not, and you have people getting their 'news' from Hannity and Olbermann. Even alot of the talking head shows are not news but come off seeming that way. 2) report the facts. I understand the need to edit, say to fit the allotted space, but when your editing changes a story dramaticly, find more space. 'Some say' is a crutch for reporters of either stripe to get their opinions into a story when they really don't have anything to back it up. leave out descriptive words that convey your opinion or feelings, like 'His speech at the convention was a work of brilliance'. Now if they quote someone saying that, that is ok. Otherwise, that is the reporters opinion, not a fact. Every person has their own filter that they see and interpret things thru. Journalists are supposed to be able to circumvent that to get to the facts and report the facts, not report how they feel about the facts or which facts they decide we should know.

[Texsox]

I agree basically with what you posted. I think there is plenty of separation and most adults understand the difference. It's more manufactured attacks at the media to render them useless. Which is what every politician wants. When the politicians control what you hear and believe, they have won the battle. The GOP is almost there.

[EvilMonkey]

I agree basically with what you posted. I think there is plenty of separation and most adults understand the difference. It's more manufactured attacks at the media to render them useless. Which is what every politician wants. When the politicians control what you hear and believe, they have won the battle. The GOP is almost there.

So, reporters with an agenda is a better alternative? They both suck.

[Texsox]

So, reporters with an agenda is a better alternative? They both suck.

 

The agenda is reporting the news.

[Texsox]

Think about this for a moment, how would McCarthyism have turned out if Edward Murrow was labeled as just some liberaly biased media type, or worst a communist? I do not think it is hyperbole to compare McCarthy's hunt for communist with the current hunt for liberal bias.

 

 

[bmags]

Think about this for a moment, how would McCarthyism have turned out if Edward Murrow was labeled as just some liberaly biased media type, or worst a communist? I do not think it is hyperbole to compare McCarthy's hunt for communist with the current hunt for liberal bias.

 

he was labeled as that.

[mr_genius]

And if I look I will find a poor reporting job that makes a Dem look bad. There are errors. But they all even out, and that is all we can ask from a free press. You want transcripts and no editing. But then the complaint will be why some transcript wasn't added. Last year someone died from drinking too much water in a radio promotion. Hundreds of people drowned last year. See, that proves that water is dangerous and we need to get rid of it.

 

I don't think anyone has stated they want to get rid of the pro-Dem MSM. No one wants to ban crappy journalism. We are merely stating observations and using examples to show dishonest journalism.