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

[mr_genius]

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.

 

again, no one is 'hunting' for pro-Dem journalists to be banned. As far as I'm concerned they are COMPLETELY within their rights to do what they are doing.

 

and we are COMPLETELY within our rights to critique.

 

why are you trying to 'McCarthy' us out of our freedom of speech? why do you have this conservative witch hunt to silence our dissention?

Edited September 14, 2008 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

again, no one is 'hunting' for pro-Dem journalists to be banned. As far as I'm concerned they are COMPLETELY within their rights to do what they are doing.

 

and we are COMPLETELY within our rights to critique.

 

why are you trying to 'McCarthy' us out of our freedom of speech? why do you have this conservative witch hunt to silence our dissention?

 

Not trying to get them banned, but when what they write is ignored because they dropped an R or had the D in paragraph 3 instead of 2, it's as good as banned. The end result of the GOP strategy is you will not believe anything in the media, only what the GOP or their surrogates tell you. Then functionally you have the old TASS system.

[EvilMonkey]

Not trying to get them banned, but when what they write is ignored because they dropped an R or had the D in paragraph 3 instead of 2, it's as good as banned. The end result of the GOP strategy is you will not believe anything in the media, only what the GOP or their surrogates tell you. Then functionally you have the old TASS system.

More like paragraph 13 instead of 2, if they mention it at all.

[southsider2k5]

Not trying to get them banned, but when what they write is ignored because they dropped an R or had the D in paragraph 3 instead of 2, it's as good as banned. The end result of the GOP strategy is you will not believe anything in the media, only what the GOP or their surrogates tell you. Then functionally you have the old TASS system.

 

Didn't you just post something about ignoring posters based on who they were and their political philosophies?

[Texsox]

Didn't you just post something about ignoring posters based on who they were and their political philosophies?

 

I don't think so.

[lostfan]

I think Tex's McCarthyism comparison was good, actually. The more I thought about it the more it made sense. Both of them took a truth (in this case, the Communist threat and liberal bias) and hysterically exaggerate them to the point where people think it's much bigger than it really is, and incorrect claims and accusations go unchallenged, and are used as a rallying cry.

[Texsox]

And of course there is bias in the media. There are the biases from the person who is being reported on, the reporter, the editor, the page designer, and the reader. Of all those, the reader arguable has the greatest bias and no ethical considerations to remove it. Not to pick on by buddy Alpha but I will, we all know his pet peeve (bias) is the placement, or omission, of party affiliation. That will determine, in part, how he feels about the article's authenticity and accuracy. When all of the biases line up no bias is detected. That is why liberals see the conservative bias in the media and conservatives see the liberal bias.

 

If you gather up the million of articles that will be written this year, you will find subtle and not so subtle bias for and against each party. It is impossible to write every article neutral. Edwards gets caught with a mistress and a baby, no way that can't be a negative article, and it would be terribly wrong to try and find a negative GOP article to provide "balance". It is what it is. No need to list every REP who fathered a baby out of wedlock and silly to find some historical article and measure the column inches. If readers are interested, report more, if they are not, report less.

 

The danger as I see it is when we remove the watchdogs. Either by force or benign neglect. The public has been well served for over 200 years by our media.

[EvilMonkey]

Tex, it isn't balance in what is a fair subject that I write about, it is balance in the way comparable subjects are reported. Simply because they identify Larry Craig as a R in the first sentance doesn't mean he isn't a scumbag, he is. Saying "Oh, we wrote 3 positive stories about the Messiah this week, we need to go find somethign good to say about McCain" is not what it is about either. But you know that. It is not about balancing the NUMBER of stories about both sides, its about putting the information out there for the reader to be informed. If you only give them half the facts, or make up s*** to put in the story, you are not doing your job. It is all about spin, and how you shape the story for the reader. I post a concrete example where the interview was chopped up to misrepresent the interviewee, and you respond by saying I am calling for McCarty-style investigations into the media. I posted how I saw John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN, and he said 'How should "we" respond to Republican attacks on Democrats'. But that was ignored by you, your next reply instead referring to my disgust at our senators getting paid while not working. The lack or addition of a D or an R doesn't make ne belive the story any more or less. At least in politics, I don't believe much of what is written on either side, until I can conform it somehow.

[Texsox]

You write so much and I cannot respond to it all.

[lostfan]

Was Roberts talking "we" as in, the media as an entity, or "we" as in Democrats?

[Texsox]

Alpha allow me an example of why you will always see bias.

 

Imagine a press conference where someone covers twenty topics. The transcript will fill four pages. The story is allotted one. If the reporter tries to briefly capture all twenty, you will find a missing fact and show bias. If he chooses ten, you will look over the omitted topics and show bias. Doesn't matter if the reporter picked the ten most important or popular stories, you will find bias. If the reporter picked five positive and five negative you will point to a more important topic that was positive for the Republican and a negative topic and show bias.

 

As soon as a reporter pares down the story, you have "proof".

 

So you win. I bow to your irrefutable proof and lay down my pen

[mr_genius]

Not trying to get them banned, but when what they write is ignored because they dropped an R or had the D in paragraph 3 instead of 2, it's as good as banned. The end result of the GOP strategy is you will not believe anything in the media, only what the GOP or their surrogates tell you. Then functionally you have the old TASS system.

 

It's nothing like that. People are free to put forward whatever stories they like. If a certain news source goes with biased reporting they may lose some credibility. A government news network, which is the only source of information allowed, is not even comparable to our system. The analogy isn't a good one. We don't have a government run monopoly on media. There are many sources you can go to for news. It's up to the news consumer to decide which sources they use, not an authoritarian government.

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha allow me an example of why you will always see bias.

 

Imagine a press conference where someone covers twenty topics. The transcript will fill four pages. The story is allotted one. If the reporter tries to briefly capture all twenty, you will find a missing fact and show bias. If he chooses ten, you will look over the omitted topics and show bias. Doesn't matter if the reporter picked the ten most important or popular stories, you will find bias. If the reporter picked five positive and five negative you will point to a more important topic that was positive for the Republican and a negative topic and show bias.

 

As soon as a reporter pares down the story, you have "proof".

 

So you win. I bow to your irrefutable proof and lay down my pen

It's one thing to edit out some questions to fit time/space. When you edit the given answers so as to change the meaning of the answer, that is wrong.

[mr_genius]

I think Tex's McCarthyism comparison was good, actually. The more I thought about it the more it made sense. Both of them took a truth (in this case, the Communist threat and liberal bias) and hysterically exaggerate them to the point where people think it's much bigger than it really is, and incorrect claims and accusations go unchallenged, and are used as a rallying cry.

 

Again, this is totally different. No one is suggesting the any news source is silenced. I understand that many Democrats get very angry and come out with wild accusations any time a conservative critiques the media, but it really is an overreaction. We are fully entitled to have any opinion we choose of the media. I don't want a government run media. I don't want pro-Democrat news banned.

 

I do not want hysterical accusations such as this bogus 'McCarthyism' cries or 'You want the Soviet Union style news!' directed towards anyone whom dissents. It is completely false and totally out of line. It's the typical attack of comparing anyone who disagrees with you with some sort of great wrong perpetrated in the past. The funny thing is there is no fricking way I would want any speech silenced.

Edited September 15, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Again, this is totally different. No one is suggesting the any news source is silenced. I understand that many Democrats get very angry and come out with wild accusations any time a conservative critiques the media, but it really is an overreaction. We are fully entitled to have any opinion we choose of the media. I don't want a government run media. I don't want pro-Democrat news banned.

 

I also do not want hysterical accusations such as this bogus 'McCarthyism' cries or 'You want the Soviet Union style news!' directed towards me. It is completely false and totally out of line. It's the typical attack of comparing anyone who disagrees with you with some sort of great wrong perpetrated in the past. The funny thing is there is no fricking way I would want any speech silenced.

None of anything I said is necessarily directed at you. Although, obviously, I don't agree with you on the extent of bias in the media and the reasons for it, and I question some of the things you consider bias. I mean, some of the things I hear used as examples of bias are pretty absurd.

[daa84]

i typically stay out of the buster and political discussion, and i certainly havent read this thread entirely, and i know its not a "news" show but more of an opinion and editorial type show, but there is no bigger asshole on tv than chris matthews....hardball went from a decent show to the most unwatchable, biased show on tv...the guy is just an outright douchebag to anyone who is on the republican side of the debate, while i feel that fox news is certainly biased (certainly some of their morons like hannity), i dont think they are nearly as outwardly nasty and outspoken as matthews, and its a real shame that there even exists the two sides like that, instead of meaningful shows that intelligently discuss the issues with reasonable time and opportunity to fair and respectful rebuttal to each others points

Edited September 15, 2008 by daa84

[mr_genius]

None of anything I said is necessarily directed at you. Although, obviously, I don't agree with you on the extent of bias in the media and the reasons for it, and I question some of the things you consider bias. I mean, some of the things I hear used as examples of bias are pretty absurd.

 

To each their own. Honestly, I don't see why you guys get so worked up when someone cites bias. It's interesting that you claim posters here use absurd examples right after you defend an example claiming we are on a McCarthy like witch hunt. Pot Kettle Black I suppose.

Edited September 15, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

To each their own. Honestly, I don't see why you guys get so worked up when someone cites bias. It's interesting you claim posters here use absurd examples when you think we are on a McCarthy like witch hunt. Pot Kettle Black I suppose.

I don't even disagree with you nearly as much as you think I do.

[Texsox]

It's one thing to edit out some questions to fit time/space. When you edit the given answers so as to change the meaning of the answer, that is wrong.

It is absolutely wrong. Why that error occurred is open to interpretation. Our bias will dictate our conclusion. I will call it incompetence until shown otherwise, you will term it liberal bias or incompetence, based on which political ideology comes out looking better. We agree it is wrong, we differ on the origins.

[southsider2k5]

McCarthyism sounds about right...

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/obam...iew-journalist/

 

Obama’s character assassins target another National Review journalist

posted at 7:46 am on September 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

 

David Freddoso attempted to appear on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio show last night, and just as when Stanley Kurtz tried to talk on the same show, the Barack Obama campaign organized a disruption of the show. The campaign sent out an e-mail to supporters in the area sliming Freddoso as an “extreme” hate monger, a “smear merchant”, and attempted to silence him despite Rosenberg having an Obama surrogate on the show:

 

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.

 

It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an “Obama Action Wire” alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat. …

 

The Tribune-owned station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama’s ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers.

 

A WGN producer said Monday night’s response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.

 

Here’s the “Obama Action Wire” in its entirety, courtesy of Guy Benson:

 

The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don’t gain credibility.

 

David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering, even calling legislation to protect people from hate crimes the “Thought Police.”

 

And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.

 

Freddoso will be on WGN tonight from 9:00 to 11:00 to promote his new attack book against Barack.

 

Tell WGN that by providing Freddoso with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

 

Call into the “Extension 720″ show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200

 

(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)

 

Then report back on your call at http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

 

A couple weeks ago, we asked you to call into Rosenberg’s radio show when he hosted unapologetic smear artist Stanley Kurtz’ incoherent rantings about Barack and William Ayers.

 

And you responded. Rosenberg’s producer said the flood of calls and emails the show received was the biggest response ever for something like this.

 

Calling will only take a minute, and it will make a huge difference if we show that our grassroots movement can go toe-to-toe with their media smear machine.

 

Confront Freddoso tonight before this goes any further:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

 

Please forward this email to everyone you know who can make a call tonight.

 

Keep fighting the good fight,

 

Obama Action Wire

 

Who is Freddoso, anyway? David Freddoso had the temerity to commit actual journalism in investigating Barack Obama’s record in public life. That resulted in his book, The Case Against Barack Obama, which has apparently angered The One to the point where he believes Freddoso shouldn’t get a chance to speak in public. Like with Kurtz, who committed the sin of journalism in attempting to get the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge released, Obama has spewed invective at Freddoso for daring to dissent in print.

 

Where is the rest of the media on this? It’s the second time in three weeks that the campaign itself has organized a brute squad to intimidate journalists into silence. This kind of insane, hysterical reaction to criticism is apparently what we can expect from an Obama administration, and the rest of the media seems content to allow it.

 

We worry about the Fairness Doctrine. It appears that an Obama administration would be more comfortable with encouraging mobs to intimidate critics into silence. Hope and change, indeed.

 

Guy will have more on this at The Media Blog later this morning. In the meantime, here’s the link to David’s book:

 

Here’s the show in which I interviewed Freddoso about his book. (I removed the embed on this post because of the auto-play feature.)

 

Update: Guy has his post up at Media Blog. It’s another eyewitness account of the mob swarm, only Guy gets extra points for mentioning Notre Dame (who beat Michigan on Saturday) and leprechauns.

 

Update II: Here’s a link to the podcast.

[lostfan]

If that book is what I think it is, then it actually is a book full of lies.

[mr_genius]

NBC had an interview with the former CEO of HP

 

Mitchell: "Do you think Sarah Palin could run a corporation?"

 

Fiorina: No, I don't she could, or John McCain, or Barack Obama, or Joe Biden"

 

 

 

What did NBC air?

 

Mitchell: "Do you think Sarah Palin could run a corporation?"

 

Fiorina: "No, I don't think she could, or John McCain."

 

That ended what they showed of the interview. lol.

Edited September 16, 2008 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

NBC had an interview with the former CEO of HP

 

Mitchell: "Do you think Sarah Palin could run a corporation?"

 

Fiorina: No, I don't she could, or John McCain, or Barack Obama, or Joe Biden"

 

 

 

What did NBC air?

 

Mitchell: "Do you think Sarah Palin could run a corporation?"

 

Fiorina: "No, I don't think she could, or John McCain."

 

That ended what they showed of the interview. lol.

 

To be fair, its not news to badmouth the other guy. It is news to badmouth your own.

[mr_genius]

To be fair, its not news to badmouth the other guy. It is news to badmouth your own.

 

it completely distorts the interview to do something like that. her point was that she doesn't think anyone on either ticket could be a CEO. NBC cut and pasted it to appear like she only thinks McCain and Palin couldn't be a CEO.

 

there is no defense for this type of journalism

Edited September 16, 2008 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

it completely distorts the interview to do something like that. her point was that she doesn't think anyone on either ticket could be a CEO. NBC cut and pasted it to appear like she only thinks McCain and Palin couldn't be a CEO.

 

there is no defense for this type of journalism

Those extra 6 words take up valuable space! get with the program!