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

[NorthSideSox72]

If we're going to disqualify commentators, well, then what are we talking about? Nothing?

I think this gets at one of the REAL problems in mainstream media, particularly TV media - the blending of commentary/editorial with news reporting. The two have become merged into one big mess. That allows for all sorts of bias from both sides or non-sides to leak into the "news". This is why TV news is nearly useless. Unfortunately, its where many Americans get their "news".

 

Then there is the internet, where anyone can say anything and try to pass it off as fact.

 

And then there is the whole time-shortening phenomenon, resulting in the information overload style of reporting. All flash, no substance. And this lends itself towards the usual suspects - sex, politics, scandal, controversy, death...

 

IMO, you want a place where news is still news for the most part, go to the high end papers - NYT, WaPo, Trib, even WSJ for a certain segment. They still understand the difference between news and opinion. Read the NEWS.

 

So considering all that, I think its tough to determine a left-right bias in the "MSM". Depends on who is in the MSM, and which outlet we are talking about. Also, are we talking commentators, or news anchors, or story selection, or what? And further, I think the media "bias" changes over time. It follows American angst, which right now is heavily against the GOP. I'd say the main TV news channels - CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3 - are probably, on a net basis, slightly left of center.

 

[lostfan]

I think this gets at one of the REAL problems in mainstream media, particularly TV media - the blending of commentary/editorial with news reporting. The two have become merged into one big mess. That allows for all sorts of bias from both sides or non-sides to leak into the "news". This is why TV news is nearly useless. Unfortunately, its where many Americans get their "news".

 

Then there is the internet, where anyone can say anything and try to pass it off as fact.

 

And then there is the whole time-shortening phenomenon, resulting in the information overload style of reporting. All flash, no substance. And this lends itself towards the usual suspects - sex, politics, scandal, controversy, death...

 

IMO, you want a place where news is still news for the most part, go to the high end papers - NYT, WaPo, Trib, even WSJ for a certain segment. They still understand the difference between news and opinion. Read the NEWS.

 

So considering all that, I think its tough to determine a left-right bias in the "MSM". Depends on who is in the MSM, and which outlet we are talking about. Also, are we talking commentators, or news anchors, or story selection, or what? And further, I think the media "bias" changes over time. It follows American angst, which right now is heavily against the GOP. I'd say the main TV news channels - CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3 - are probably, on a net basis, slightly left of center.

Well-said.

[EvilMonkey]

I think this gets at one of the REAL problems in mainstream media, particularly TV media - the blending of commentary/editorial with news reporting. The two have become merged into one big mess. That allows for all sorts of bias from both sides or non-sides to leak into the "news". This is why TV news is nearly useless. Unfortunately, its where many Americans get their "news".

 

Then there is the internet, where anyone can say anything and try to pass it off as fact.

 

And then there is the whole time-shortening phenomenon, resulting in the information overload style of reporting. All flash, no substance. And this lends itself towards the usual suspects - sex, politics, scandal, controversy, death...

 

IMO, you want a place where news is still news for the most part, go to the high end papers - NYT, WaPo, Trib, even WSJ for a certain segment. They still understand the difference between news and opinion. Read the NEWS.

 

So considering all that, I think its tough to determine a left-right bias in the "MSM". Depends on who is in the MSM, and which outlet we are talking about. Also, are we talking commentators, or news anchors, or story selection, or what? And further, I think the media "bias" changes over time. It follows American angst, which right now is heavily against the GOP. I'd say the main TV news channels - CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3 - are probably, on a net basis, slightly left of center.

Well said. however, even in the newspapers, is it laziness or willing deceit that they forget to mention that Kwame Kilpatrick is a Democrat but blare in the first sentance that Larry Craig is a Republican. And yes, I know one is a Senator and one is a mayor, but there isn't an official style sheet that says only list party designations if it is a Senator or US Rep. Some reporters truncate quotes, or use the infamous 'some say' to bring up a point that they thinke needs mentioning. Some are lazy, some have agendas, some have favorites that color their writing styles, some ask softball questions to people they like, some are just plain idiots.

[Texsox]

Some are lazy, some have agendas, some have favorites that color their writing styles, some ask softball questions to people they like, some are just plain idiots.

 

Why aren't any of them conservative? Why haven't conservative owners not surfaced to buy newspapers? Could it be that the GOP is happy with the way things are?

[EvilMonkey]

Why aren't any of them conservative? Why haven't conservative owners not surfaced to buy newspapers? Could it be that the GOP is happy with the way things are?

Could it be that with the massive consolidation of newspapers today and the shrinking market, even at firesale prices, not many of them are attractive buys?

[NorthSideSox72]

Well said. however, even in the newspapers, is it laziness or willing deceit that they forget to mention that Kwame Kilpatrick is a Democrat but blare in the first sentance that Larry Craig is a Republican. And yes, I know one is a Senator and one is a mayor, but there isn't an official style sheet that says only list party designations if it is a Senator or US Rep. Some reporters truncate quotes, or use the infamous 'some say' to bring up a point that they thinke needs mentioning. Some are lazy, some have agendas, some have favorites that color their writing styles, some ask softball questions to people they like, some are just plain idiots.

Oh sure, I wasn't saying there isn't SOME bias even in the pure reporting. There is. I don't think its 100% in one slot or the other, but in the net, its probably slightly left. I think that's the nature of who tends to become journalists. But in that area, the real newsies, I think the bias is minimal on a net basis, and not nearly as bad as the TV MSM and the blogosphere.

 

[EvilMonkey]

...this barely qualifies.

US didn't seem to have any interest in Edwards baby scandal, but front page cover for Palin? Maybe she should have announced that Edwards was the baby's father, that would have kept them all quiet, for Elizabeth's sake.

 

Also, just and interesting fyi, Us publisher Jann Wenner is a prominent Obama donor.

 

Edited September 3, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[NorthSideSox72]

US didn't seem to have any interest in Edwards baby scandal, but front page cover for Palin? Maybe she should have announced that Edwards was the baby's father, that would have kept them all quiet, for Elizabeth's sake.

Its US magazine. I really don't see how you can make any point one way or another about news media and use them as an example.

 

[Texsox]

I believe Palin has hit a level that Edwards has not, apparent VP running mate. She is the first GOP female to be in that position. Add it all up and there are enough firsts to make her a bigger story then Edwards.

 

Perhaps they should have compared the Edwards coverage and limited this coverage, or maybe went back and added some more Edwards for balance. But that seems really silly.

[EvilMonkey]

Its US magazine. I really don't see how you can make any point one way or another about news media and use them as an example.

I was merely referenceing the US posts, that's all. But to think that things like this also don't affebt people's preceptions would be wrong. Hopefully, not too many people look to US for their news!

[Texsox]

I was merely referenceing the US posts, that's all. But to think that things like this also don't affebt people's preceptions would be wrong. Hopefully, not too many people look to US for their news!

 

It all influences people's opinions. Friends, People Mag, WSJ, classes in school, they all shape opinions.

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe Palin has hit a level that Edwards has not, apparent VP running mate. She is the first GOP female to be in that position. Add it all up and there are enough firsts to make her a bigger story then Edwards.

 

Perhaps they should have compared the Edwards coverage and limited this coverage, or maybe went back and added some more Edwards for balance. But that seems really silly.

Well yeah, obviously if Edwards was the VP candidate, that story would be ALL that the MS was discussing.

 

[southsider2k5]

I believe Palin has hit a level that Edwards has not, apparent VP running mate. She is the first GOP female to be in that position. Add it all up and there are enough firsts to make her a bigger story then Edwards.

 

Perhaps they should have compared the Edwards coverage and limited this coverage, or maybe went back and added some more Edwards for balance. But that seems really silly.

 

FWIW, when the story surfaced, he was still a candidate for President.

[EvilMonkey]

Well yeah, obviously if Edwards was the VP candidate, that story would be ALL that the MS was discussing.

Even though they ignored it when he was still running for President? They didn't cover it as it was until their hand was forced. I think one of the papers said something about wanting to 'protect Elizabeth'.

[Texsox]

FWIW, when the story surfaced, he was still a candidate for President.

 

Again, we are back to McCain issuing a press release. We can chase our tails with predictable results, but we will never know if this would have been treated just like Edwards by the media. They may have dug this up and substantiated an Enquirer article, but McCain served it up on a silver platter, rubbed their nose in it, then complained about the coverage. It was probably his best strategy, and he could play the biased media card. And we know the biased media card was talked about before they released the news.

[southsider2k5]

Again, we are back to McCain issuing a press release. We can chase our tails with predictable results, but we will never know if this would have been treated just like Edwards by the media. They may have dug this up and substantiated an Enquirer article, but McCain served it up on a silver platter, rubbed their nose in it, then complained about the coverage. It was probably his best strategy, and he could play the biased media card. And we know the biased media card was talked about before they released the news.

 

Edwards also flat out lied to the media about it when asked, so that doesn't help either. But there was still no real investigation, except by the enquirer.

[Texsox]

Edwards also flat out lied to the media about it when asked, so that doesn't help either. But there was still no real investigation, except by the enquirer.

 

I have not read the Enquirer in years, but from what I remember, isn't the paper filled with stories like this that always seem to be false? If a credible newspaper used an Enquirer story as a source, wouldn't that seem strange?

 

Why didn't Rush, Hannity, WSJ, or any of the Conservative journalists investigate the Enquirer claims? In hind sight, they should have, I wish they had. But I have a hard time faulting any media types for not taking an Enquirer article serious. Now we'll all feel stupid if we find out Bush really IS an alien, Elvis is alive, Brad and whomever are getting back together, etc.

[Texsox]

If you are an Editor of a newspaper, how many people will you employ to track down Enquirer stories? How many politicians are on your list to investigate to find out if they have a child out of wedlock? I guess I would be frightened if we had journalists placing a bunch of politicians on surveillance just in case they find something. If they received a credible lead, check it out, but to just follow politicians (of course an equal number Dem and GOP) like some sleazy private eye, just doesn't feel right to me.

 

This story was handed to the media on a silver platter. It was from a credible source.

 

Why didn't the media in Alaska cover this story a couple months ago? Why were they ignoring it?

[bmags]

more than that, Edwards then was a former senator, former presidential candidate when the story finally came to light. Right now there is a huge election going on, situation in Georgia, situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, how reluctant would you be as an editor to waste precious resources on a sex scandal reported by the enquirer?

[bmags]

Well said. however, even in the newspapers, is it laziness or willing deceit that they forget to mention that Kwame Kilpatrick is a Democrat but blare in the first sentance that Larry Craig is a Republican. And yes, I know one is a Senator and one is a mayor, but there isn't an official style sheet that says only list party designations if it is a Senator or US Rep. Some reporters truncate quotes, or use the infamous 'some say' to bring up a point that they thinke needs mentioning. Some are lazy, some have agendas, some have favorites that color their writing styles, some ask softball questions to people they like, some are just plain idiots.

 

I disagree with you, there is an official style sheet for the AP. I don't think I've ever put affiliation for local politics. State level, yes. But local, even if they affiliate themselves to a party sometimes it's meaningless. Obviously for detroit it is something, but at the local level I've never seen us put party affiliation. I've never seen it on articles of Guiliani or Daley either.

[Balta1701]

Could it be that with the massive consolidation of newspapers today and the shrinking market, even at firesale prices, not many of them are attractive buys?

Here's the rub of that statement though...2 of the biggest right wing newspapers in the country, the Washington Times and NY Post, are pretty darn unprofitable, especially the Washington Times. Their owners, 2 guys named Rev. Sung Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, have dumped an awful lot of money in to them to keep them running. Rev. Moon has dumped somewhere over $2 billion in to running the Washington Times to this date.

[whitesoxfan101]

The media bias, overall, is VERY real and, for the most part, very to the left. I'm not sure how anybody could or would ever even argue that to be honest. The question is, how much of an affect does the obvious and real bias have on the American people? That one I'm not sure the answer to. I think it has to have SOME affect, but it doesn't seem like it has much of an affect. Then again, there are a lot of stupid people out there, so it's certainly possible media bias affects them.

Edited September 3, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[EvilMonkey]

Here's the rub of that statement though...2 of the biggest right wing newspapers in the country, the Washington Times and NY Post, are pretty darn unprofitable, especially the Washington Times. Their owners, 2 guys named Rev. Sung Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, have dumped an awful lot of money in to them to keep them running. Rev. Moon has dumped somewhere over $2 billion in to running the Washington Times to this date.

Well, that both refutes Tex since conservatives HAVE bought papers, and supported me, showing that even those they bought do not seem to be making money.

[Texsox]

Well, that both refutes Tex since conservatives HAVE bought papers, and supported me, showing that even those they bought do not seem to be making money.

 

So why do conservatives allow such liberal media bias?

[whitesoxfan101]

So why do conservatives allow such liberal media bias?

 

THAT is a great question. The only thing I can ever think of when I wonder about that is the higher education system in America. The university system in this country, especially at the bigger and more prominent schools is VERY liberal, far moreso than even the media is. I would guess there is a connection.