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

[bmags]

Yep, about the same value, I think.

 

That's why I do like the WSJ - GENERALLY - they report the news and you just decide (Fox cliche aside), although their board tends to lean to the right a bit.

 

You know, as I've said before, some times newspapers get an unfair wrap because of their editorials. I read the WSJ, I just don't go to their editorials. Their bias is towards business reporting, and they are wonderful writers, but I don't find their political reporting particularly biased, and when I say this, I mean I don't think about it at all. Their writers are so good at making nuance simple, it bleeds from highly complicated business writings to political writings.

[bmags]

I just think US is bad because it literally sits in the checkout lanes at super markets and it draws a lot of attention from people that dont really follow politics. It just seems irresponsible to have a cover like this and the only coverage of Obama is "Why Barack loves Michelle."

 

I understand that, but if we are to define on the outset what we are talking about in terms of media, I don't think any of us were going to put US weekly's and that ilk inside of it. Their specialty is stupid sex scandals and all that B.S. and it will feed into that garbage.

 

It stands reiterating, any liberal on this site has seen the pregnancy "scandal" not in even questioning palin, but raising concerns on how much thought and research was put into McCain's decision.

[Balta1701]

A week ago, the AP ran this article within 26 minutes of the end of Senator Obama's speech.

Barack Obama, whose campaign theme is "change we can believe in," promised Thursday to "spell out exactly what that change would mean."

 

But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer. The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula: tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are unhappy with the incumbent.

 

Of course, no candidate can outline every initiative in a 44-minute speech — especially one that also must inspire voters, acknowledge key friends, and toss in some autobiography for the newly-interested. And Obama did touch on nitty-gritty subjects, such as the capital gains tax and biofuel investments.

Last night's AP article on McCain's speech was this one: (Came out a little over 1 hour after his speech)

Not merely a Republican. Not merely a candidate. John McCain cast himself as a leader for all Americans, regardless of party or status.

 

After several days of Democratic bashing by his supporters, the Arizona senator struck a nonpartisan stance and promised that he wouldn't be bound by political party in the White House as he accepted the GOP presidential nomination Thursday before thousands of Republican loyalists.

 

"We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other," McCain told the Republican Convention, deriding "constant partisan rancor" that causes Washington gridlock. He rejected those in Washington who he said "work for themselves and not you."

 

McCain marched through a series of big issues — defense, taxes, education, energy independence among them — without offering many specifics. Instead, there were generic promises to "make it better," of "rewarding hard work," and the like.

 

He marked the pinnacle of his political life by delivering a speech in his preferred setting — surrounded by people. In this case, they were the GOP convention delegates who granted him the nomination that had eluded him in 2000.

 

"I don't work for a party," he declared. "I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you."

It seemed to be not until this mornign that the AP put out a negative sounding article on McCain's speech, and they left that to the "AP television writer" to do it.

 

The AP is sort of the standard wire service for so many newspapers...basically, the earlier they put stuff out the more papers pick it up. So probably hundreds of newspapers carried each of those first articles, one bashing Obama's speech and one praising McCain's speech.

[bmags]

A week ago, the AP ran this article within 26 minutes of the end of Senator Obama's speech.

 

Last night's AP article on McCain's speech was this one: (Came out a little over 1 hour after his speech)

It seemed to be not until this mornign that the AP put out a negative sounding article on McCain's speech, and they left that to the "AP television writer" to do it.

 

The AP is sort of the standard wire service for so many newspapers...basically, the earlier they put stuff out the more papers pick it up. So probably hundreds of newspapers carried each of those first articles, one bashing Obama's speech and one praising McCain's speech.

 

The AP under Ron Fornier

[Balta1701]

The AP under Ron Fornier

Worth noting his tag line wasn't on either of those articles...but yeah, a guy who almost went to work for the McCain campaign happens to be their head guy in Washington right now...and conveniently, that's how the AP responded to each speech.

[EvilMonkey]

The AP under Ron Fornier

Did you really think that writeup of Obama's speech was that bad? Yeah, he didn't like Obama's balls, but he didn't say anything bad about it. It wasn't anything special in the way of speeches, especially considering all the ones he had done previously. He said nothing new, and the article points out that it helped his base, but would piss off Republicans. McCain's, on the other hand, DID say something new, which is why it seemed to get more positive coverage right afterwards.

[EvilMonkey]

US magazine may not be MSM, but they are suffering just the same it seems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26549704/

Angry readers dump Us Magazine over Palin

 

By Courtney Hazlett

The Scoop

MSNBC

updated 8:08 a.m. CT, Fri., Sept. 5, 2008

 

 

Courtney Hazlett

The Scoop

 

 

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Three celebrity weeklies — OK!, People and Us Weekly — featured Sarah Palin on their cover, but one of those magazines is reportedly losing subscribers because of it.

 

Us Weekly, which unlike People and OK!, chose a rather caustic cover line (“Babies, Lies and Scandal”) is said to have lost thousands of subscribers in just the first 24 hours following the printing of the issue.

 

“I’m hearing it’s 5,000, maybe more,” says one well-placed source in the industry. Another source claimed that as many as 10,000 readers have already cancelled their subscriptions. A spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further.

Five thousand might not seem like a large number at first glance, but it’s significant in the context of Us’s printing schedule. The magazine goes to press Monday night, which means subscribers don’t receive their issues until Friday or Saturday. In other words, the cancellations are coming from subscribers who, in many cases, haven’t even gotten their hands on the actual issue.

 

“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart," says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the magazine when there’s so much press around it to know to be upset.”

 

Upset might be an understatement: One Us advertiser has admitted that they’ve received calls from angry former subscribers threatening to boycott their products. “(Us publisher) Jann Wenner supports Obama, Wenner media decided to follow the buzz around Palin before her speech, and now subscribers feel like a vote has been cast on their behalf," says another magazine editor. “It’s going to be tough to bounce back from this one. Especially if the advertisers get involved. If they get nervous, that can hurt all of us.”

 

Meanwhile, Oprah Winfrey has issued a statement responding to a report that she'll have Palin on her show. “The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue,” Winfrey's statement read. “There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”

 

It has been coming to my house for years, despite my protest. I just get so sick seeing all the fake celebs on the cover (Heidi Montag, anyone?) and have been trying to convince Mrs. Alpha Dog to cancel it for years. but since she got some deal for like $10 a year, she hasn't wanted to. She saw a story on the cover page, and now I get to stop that crap from coming into my house! Yah! It really is a rag.

[bmags]

Worth noting his tag line wasn't on either of those articles...but yeah, a guy who almost went to work for the McCain campaign happens to be their head guy in Washington right now...and conveniently, that's how the AP responded to each speech.

 

I believe he is their editor.

[bmags]

US magazine may not be MSM, but they are suffering just the same it seems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26549704/

 

 

It has been coming to my house for years, despite my protest. I just get so sick seeing all the fake celebs on the cover (Heidi Montag, anyone?) and have been trying to convince Mrs. Alpha Dog to cancel it for years. but since she got some deal for like $10 a year, she hasn't wanted to. She saw a story on the cover page, and now I get to stop that crap from coming into my house! Yah! It really is a rag.

 

lucky man. I prefer people, if I had the choice.

[BigSqwert]

Will Ron Fournier break out his abacus again?

 

Last week, in an apparent effort to paint Sen. Hillary Clinton as self-absorbed, the AP's Ron Fournier counted the number of times she used "some variation of the pronoun 'I'" in her convention speech. Fournier came up with 17. Media Matters checked his work, and found 21 such uses. But Fournier's point was undermined by the fact that at least 13 of those uses of the pronoun were about Clinton's support for Obama, the importance of the 2008 election, or what matters in the election.

 

So ... when can we expect Fournier to tally up the number of times John "cause greater than self" McCain used the pronoun "I" in his convention speech? It's well over 100 -- and that doesn't even count variations.

 

Or has Ron Fournier suddenly realized that such an exercise would be pointless? He'd be right, but you have to wonder about the timing of his epiphany.

 

LINK

[Balta1701]

Did you really think that writeup of Obama's speech was that bad? Yeah, he didn't like Obama's balls, but he didn't say anything bad about it. It wasn't anything special in the way of speeches, especially considering all the ones he had done previously. He said nothing new, and the article points out that it helped his base, but would piss off Republicans. McCain's, on the other hand, DID say something new, which is why it seemed to get more positive coverage right afterwards.

Just out of curiosity, what new stuff did Senator McCain say?

[EvilMonkey]

Just out of curiosity, what new stuff did Senator McCain say?

You don't think him saying that 'Washington change us" was new? Even if the whole world knew it, not many politicians say it. He was even nice to Obama in his speech, you know, we are more alike than different, etc.

[EvilMonkey]

I keep getting told that the papers only mention the party affiliation when they are national politicians like Senators or Reps.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/nyregion...amp;oref=slogin

 

Charlie Rangel, CHAIRMAN of the House Ways and means Committee, which WRITES the federal Tax Code, FORGOT to pay taxes on rental income. "Mr. Davis said the congressman did not realize he had to declare the money as income,". He is a DEMOCRAT, which you don't find out about for 15 paragraphs. poor Mr. Rangel. Maybe all those tax laws are just too complicated for someone to follow.

[Balta1701]

So, you complain about how they don't mention the party affiliation, and then say that oh wait, they mentioned it, just not soon enough for your taste.

[knightni]

Glad to see that everyone glossed over my thoughts on the matter.

 

[EvilMonkey]

So, you complain about how they don't mention the party affiliation, and then say that oh wait, they mentioned it, just not soon enough for your taste.

Wrongo, o great one. I mentioned earlier that often when the Do mention it, it is way at the end of the story, where most readers don't go. Oh, and i just realized that that wasn't an AP story. AP waits 7 paragraphs to mention it, despite the obvious opening in the first line.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_..._vacation_villa

 

Why can't they just be consistent?

[Rex Kickass]

Not to add fuel to the fire... but I seem to recall a lot of media coverage over John Edwards' 400 dollar haircut. People brought it up all the time.

 

Yet when do we hear about McCain's $550 shoes? Or Cindy McCain's $300,000 outfit for the McCain's acceptance speech. You heard a lot about his homes, but only because he couldn't answer how many he has.

 

I think the media creates a narrative and they do everything they can to fit the candidate into that specific narrative.

 

Gore was a liar.

Kerry was a flip-flopper.

Bush was a cowboy.

McCain is a maverick and is old.

Obama is a "celebrity," etc.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business...agewanted=print

 

The money paragraphs:

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of “NBC Nightly News,” have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

 

Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had “gone too far” at times, but emphasized they were “not the only voices” on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.

 

[Texsox]

TAAS had it right, news directly from the government, no bias.

[NorthSideSox72]

TAAS had it right, news directly from the government, no bias.

Do you mean TASS? As in ITAR-TASS, the Russian government-run news agency?

 

[Texsox]

Do you mean TASS? As in ITAR-TASS, the Russian government-run news agency?

 

Sorry, mistypes. Yes, TASS. Bush would not have any problems with his message being reported wrong, we would get exactly what the government is saying. As soon as that mews starts to get filtered, bias comes into play, and it seems that is not something we want. Theirs was a totally unbiased (by the media) system.

 

You see it is impossible to have an unbiased system with independent reporters and editors. They will not report what the government is telling them, instead they will go out and search for other sources. That starts to change the government story and introduces the possibility of bias. And the only bias we are worried about is the bias between Dems and Reps. Seemingly there is no other bias in the media.

[EvilMonkey]

Sorry, mistypes. Yes, TASS. Bush would not have any problems with his message being reported wrong, we would get exactly what the government is saying. As soon as that mews starts to get filtered, bias comes into play, and it seems that is not something we want. Theirs was a totally unbiased (by the media) system.

 

You see it is impossible to have an unbiased system with independent reporters and editors. They will not report what the government is telling them, instead they will go out and search for other sources. That starts to change the government story and introduces the possibility of bias. And the only bias we are worried about is the bias between Dems and Reps. Seemingly there is no other bias in the media.

What ever happened to 'who', 'what', where', when'? When did it turn into 'this is why I think it happened and why I think you should care'? When you read the stories and you can hear the feelings coming from whoever wrote them, they didn't do their job right. Unless they are a columnist/editorialist. But if you are a newsreader or reporter, you are supposed to report, not interpret. Sure, dig for more info if you want to be 'investigative', but still only report what you find, not what you HOPED to find and were disappointed NOT to find and are SURE is correct even though you couldn't find ANY evidence whatsoever.

[Texsox]

What ever happened to 'who', 'what', where', when'? When did it turn into 'this is why I think it happened and why I think you should care'? When you read the stories and you can hear the feelings coming from whoever wrote them, they didn't do their job right. Unless they are a columnist/editorialist. But if you are a newsreader or reporter, you are supposed to report, not interpret. Sure, dig for more info if you want to be 'investigative', but still only report what you find, not what you HOPED to find and were disappointed NOT to find and are SURE is correct even though you couldn't find ANY evidence whatsoever.

 

Exactly, the interpretation begins as soon as they seek to verify something the government has said or even begins to rewrite something. A word for word transcript eliminates that chance of bias. A direct from the government to you story also eliminates that possibility. They are reporting exactly the "w"s.

 

And as soon as they begin an investigation they would usually have to have something specific to investigate. How else would they have caught say Clinton or Edwards? They wouldn't start out we're going to investigate every member of Congress or every intern. They need something to check out or investigate. So why even have a press that investigates? That is an immediate bias.

[EvilMonkey]

Exactly, the interpretation begins as soon as they seek to verify something the government has said or even begins to rewrite something. A word for word transcript eliminates that chance of bias. A direct from the government to you story also eliminates that possibility. They are reporting exactly the "w"s.

 

And as soon as they begin an investigation they would usually have to have something specific to investigate. How else would they have caught say Clinton or Edwards? They wouldn't start out we're going to investigate every member of Congress or every intern. They need something to check out or investigate. So why even have a press that investigates? That is an immediate bias.

You and I will never agree here. Investigate, even let your biases lead your investigation, but simply report what you find, not infuse it with your glee and finding somethign bad about the other side, your disappointment at not finding anything or a bunch of made up crap to make it seem like you found something when you really didn't. Which one of these looks like it has an agenda?

 

"Reporters acting on a tip investigated today whether or not Barack Obama had fathered 17 kids out of wedlock as he is rumored to have done. The source of the rumor was tracked down to John A. Whackypants, who told us that 'he delivered every last one of them himself". Our reporters managed to get access to the hospital records which show that no such births occurred, and that Mr. Whackpants is not a licensed doctor in this, or any other state, and had been recently released from a mental institution."

 

vs.

"Reporters today acting on a tip investigated today whether or not Barack Obama fathered 17 kids out of wedlock, as he is rumored to have done. The source of the rumor was tracked down to a John A. Whackpants, who told us that 'he delivered every last one of them himself". Clearly a man with a political vendetta, we researched Mr Whackypants to find out if what he asserts was true. What we found was that there are no hospital records, he is not a licensed doctor and that he voted Republican in the last election. "This just shows the levels that some people will stoop to in order to win an election", an Obama spokesperson said. "The other side is going to try and scare you because he doesn't look like them, because he is different." The McCain camp was unavailable for comment.

[mr_genius]

TAAS had it right, news directly from the government, no bias.

 

a government run media will be more biased than our current media could ever dream to be. in the US there are different points of view and multiple media sources to get information from. also, i would like to add that there is nothing wrong with criticism of media sources.