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

[Balta1701]

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

 

The money paragraphs:

Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann's role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor -- someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he's not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.

 

The Washington Post's Howie Kurtz -- while repeatedly lamenting the ascent of Olbermann (and Maddow) as a threat to objective journalism -- proclaims that "Hume is no partisan brawler" while Charlie Gibson gushes: "He has a wonderful style which makes you want to hear what Brit has to say, in an age when so many people are in your face." The Associated Press recently declared that Fox News has never gone as far as MSNBC in producing partisan news coverage, asserting that "Olbermann's popularity and evolving image as an idealogue (sic) has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity" and that "Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result."

Response outsourced

[lostfan]

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.

Absolutely

[lostfan]

Response outsourced

Olbermann is not really an anchor, he is a personality. He is there for a target audience, if somebody doesn't like him, then don't watch, same reason I tune out Sean Hannity. I don't really see the problem here.

[kapkomet]

Olbermann is not really an anchor, he is a personality. He is there for a target audience, if somebody doesn't like him, then don't watch, same reason I tune out Sean Hannity. I don't really see the problem here.

Sean Hannity has to be one of the most annoying people ever.

 

*Holds nose and squeaks*

 

"Do you hear about blah blah blah? Do you hear blah blah blah?"

 

"The most comprehensive (biased) election coverage anywhere".

 

PUKE.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Sean Hannity has to be one of the most annoying people ever.

 

*Holds nose and squeaks*

 

"Do you hear about blah blah blah? Do you hear blah blah blah?"

 

"The most comprehensive (biased) election coverage anywhere".

 

PUKE.

Seriously, I want to punch him in the face every time I'm flipping channels and I see him yapping. I have a friend who regularly cites Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh when he's trying to make points to me (he at least has enough common sense to not cite Coulter). I love the guy, but he needs to stray from Newsmax once in a while and take in some more objective sources. He makes me laugh.

[EvilMonkey]

Sean Hannity has to be one of the most annoying people ever.

 

*Holds nose and squeaks*

 

"Do you hear about blah blah blah? Do you hear blah blah blah?"

 

"The most comprehensive (biased) election coverage anywhere".

 

PUKE.

I would have to agree with you there.

[EvilMonkey]

Response outsourced

Glen Greenwald? Come on, that's like saying response outsourced to Sean Hannity.

[Balta1701]

Glen Greenwald? Come on, that's like saying response outsourced to Sean Hannity.

Fine outsource something to Hannity and then I'll respond to the substantive points. Nothing you've said makes it clear why Brit Hume is ok and Olbermann isn't.

[EvilMonkey]

Fine outsource something to Hannity and then I'll respond to the substantive points. Nothing you've said makes it clear why Brit Hume is ok and Olbermann isn't.

Did you watch MSNBC at all during either convention? if you honestly believe that Olbermann doesn't dream of being on his knees in front of the alter of Obama, then we have nothing to talk about. He is not a reporter, he is an over-opinionated gasbag. And when he tries to 'report', he can't hide it. MSNBC wouldn't make any lineup change if it wasn't in their own interest, finalcially or otherwise. That's all I keep hearing from the liberal side, 'the media isn't biased, unless it is biased towards making money'. oh, and Donohue's show wasn't cancelled for ideological reasons, it was cancelled because he couldn't even outdraw Connie Chung! Nice try, Glen, but no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/business...df0&ei=5070

 

Oh, as for his third point? yeah, we all know that the media overwhelmingly donate to and vote republican. Try again, Glen.

[Balta1701]

Oh, as for his third point? yeah, we all know that the media overwhelmingly donate to and vote republican. Try again, Glen.

Wow, you managed to go on one hell of a rant there without addressing the subject at all. Why is Brit Hume for example allowed to anchor a news show whereas Olbermann is not?

 

I have no problem with Olbermann being removed. I think it's a fair response to some of his actions during the conventions. But that doesn't explain why an other network gets to run out a far right guy, call him an anchor, and have no one complain at all. The only time anyone raises a stink is when it's a left-leaning person on the air doing so. Scarborough doesn't get his time in the morning cut back (at least not yet) after his behavior at the convention which was just as bad as KO's.

 

An extra liberal gets a show and suddenly the mainstream press freaks out over how partisan the networks are getting. Glenn Beck gets a show and then even guest hosts on CNN fairly often and no one bats an eye except at his low ratings. Obama tries to boycott Fox News for basically trying to paint him as a muslim extremist, and oooh, he's hurting himself with those voters. McCain's campaign threatens MSNBC, and oh, that's just him taking on the media, go get em John!

[EvilMonkey]

Wow, you managed to go on one hell of a rant there without addressing the subject at all. Why is Brit Hume for example allowed to anchor a news show whereas Olbermann is not?

 

I have no problem with Olbermann being removed. I think it's a fair response to some of his actions during the conventions. But that doesn't explain why an other network gets to run out a far right guy, call him an anchor, and have no one complain at all. The only time anyone raises a stink is when it's a left-leaning person on the air doing so. Scarborough doesn't get his time in the morning cut back (at least not yet) after his behavior at the convention which was just as bad as KO's.

Complain all you want, nobody is stopping you. Every time Rush opens his yap a liberal dies a lttle inside. How long did his MNF gig last? And FYI, compared to Olberman, Hume is as middle of the road as possible. Do any of his actions even compare to Olbermann on a good day? No.

[bmags]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/brit_hume

[Balta1701]

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/brit_hume

Unfortunately, linking to MMFA isn't going to prove anything no matter how well they document things.

[bmags]

Well, I gave up long ago. To me there is a large difference between Olbermann's job and Hume's job. I don't think there is any question that when people turn into countdown they see it as an editorial show, whereas Hume's was passed off as a news hour. Perhaps MSNBC should've treated the conventions differently, ala CNN, where his role would've been no different than a Donna Brazile, and MSNBC providing a moderator between the different opinions. The difference b/w MSNBC in my opinion, is MSNBC has Maddow and Olbermann in addition to Scarborough, undoubtedly more a conservative voice, and a fairly strong one. Whereas Fox has Alan Colmes as their liberal. There isn't a liberal in the world who likes the guy, and so they set up this puppet posing as the voice for liberals. And so anyways, MSNBC finds two liberal personalities that people like - and obviously, besides demographic differences the reason there has been so many more successful conservative personalities than liberals is talent - and their ratings go up during the primaries, and then all they are too liberally biased and need to correct. The vast majority of the day is good news on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell does a pretty decent job and seems to take her job seriously.

 

As for Matthews, I think he should've been punished after the primaries for blatantly sexist comments towards Clinton. Even as I grew to disdain her towards the end, just ridiculous comments from him.

[Rex Kickass]

Complain all you want, nobody is stopping you. Every time Rush opens his yap a liberal dies a lttle inside. How long did his MNF gig last? And FYI, compared to Olberman, Hume is as middle of the road as possible. Do any of his actions even compare to Olbermann on a good day? No.

 

Rush lost his ESPN gig because he decided to get into Jimmy The Greek territory when talking about Donovan McNabb. Using that as an example of liberal media bias is exceptionally poor.

 

The only difference between Brit Hume and Keith Olbermann is that K.O. doesn't hide behind a veil of objectivity when he does reporting. Or maybe its because Democrats don't whine at every little jab from the fourth estate, so Hume gets away with saying a lot more.

 

 

[Texsox]

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.

Sorry Alpha, if this story was about McCain you would scream media bias that it was even reported, since it was not true. Just think about the push poll that Bush used to destroy McCain in 2000. Also, there would have to be a story about someone from the other party to balance this. Negative stories about politicians are not bias, nor are positive ones. And I guess some people need a D or R next to someones name to know if what they did was good or bad. I don't.

[mr_genius]

The only difference between Brit Hume and Keith Olbermann is that K.O. doesn't hide behind a veil of objectivity when he does reporting. Or maybe its because Democrats don't whine at every little jab from the fourth estate, so Hume gets away with saying a lot more.

 

Same could be said of any of the major 3 network anchors. FOX news with Hume is biased the same way the major 3 are, it's mainly in language used when covering certain topics and which issues are emphasized.

 

And Democrats whine about FOX news plenty. If the big 3 networks had news coverage like FOX Democrats would go fricking crazy.

[bmags]

Same could be said of any of the major 3 network anchors. FOX news with Hume is biased the same way the major 3 are, it's mainly in language used when covering certain topics and which issues are emphasized.

 

And Democrats whine about FOX news plenty. If the big 3 networks had news coverage like FOX Democrats would go fricking crazy.

 

No, you drive me crazy with this.

 

Keith Olbermann is equal with the following:

Bill O'Reilley

Sean Hannity

Lou Dobbs

Jack Cafferty

Rachel Maddow

Chris Matthews

Joe Scarborough

 

Britt Hume would be equated with Wolf Blitzer, Andrea Mitchell and the like.

[mr_genius]

No, you drive me crazy with this.

 

Keith Olbermann is equal with the following:

Bill O'Reilley

Sean Hannity

Lou Dobbs

Jack Cafferty

Rachel Maddow

Chris Matthews

Joe Scarborough

 

Britt Hume would be equated with Wolf Blitzer, Andrea Mitchell and the like.

 

Yea. I agree with you. Hume is a news anchor and managing editor of FOX nightly news (like Brian Williams at NBC), not a commentator like Sean Hannity.

 

The difference is that you would consider Williams or even Dan Rather to be an unbiased newsman, but Hume a biased broadcaster.

[bmags]

Aww yes, from your years of watching the little twitches and manuerisms to subliminally trick America into voting for a GOP congress for 12 years and Republican Presidency for 18 of the last 24.

[mr_genius]

Aww yes, from your years of watching the little twitches and manuerisms to subliminally trick America into voting for a GOP congress for 12 years and Republican Presidency for 18 of the last 24.

 

I suppose voting for the candidate TV tells you to is more of a Democrat thing. I have an amazing ability to watch even keith Olbermann and still not like Harry Reid! Or watch FOX news and still think GW sucks

 

seriously though

 

 

what the past 24 years have shown is just how bad the candidates and ideas the Dems have ran with.

Edited September 9, 2008 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

what the past 24 years have shown is just how bad the candidates and ideas the Dems have ran with.

 

It shows that marketing and fear is a better motivator then facts and figures. We can sell crap to the American consumer without any problem. Just walk into any Walmart.

[bmags]

I suppose voting for the candidate TV tells you to is more of a Democrat thing. I have an amazing ability to watch even keith Olbermann and still not like Harry Reid! Or watch FOX news and still think GW sucks

 

No, but throughout our history the free press has been vital to our democratic process. It has been the engine to educate our voters about making an educated choice. So say then, by the way Alpha Dog talks, that there was a time of a "very" good press. The one he speaks of that used to do who what when where that clearly our current press never does anymore. The professionalization, if you could call it that, of journalism didn't really start taking hold until the 1920s and so then maybe WWII gave us our first view of our classic journalists.

 

If I keep hearing from you how bad the press has got, that means it used to be good, no? SO when did this shift occur? Around the 80s? Post watergate maybe. And but so the press gets very liberal. Our Cronkites are gone. Despite this gigantic asset that the democrats have, they get dominated in the white house for 12 years, lose their senate majority a few times, then lose their forty year majority in the house? And for 12 years that majority, they also get another 8 years in the white house.

 

And the beginning of this "liberal press" just happens to coincide with goldwater and conservatives strategy of claiming a liberal media? Something doesn't add up here, mr. genius. Despite all the efforts of the newspapers to attach every scandal to a republican and never let anyone know about any democrat scandals, like when they ignored Clinton for all those presidential years with travelgate and gategate and plantgate, the republicans were THAT GOOD, that it didn't matter.

[bmags]

Okay, so obviously we've had disagreements about whose controlled the media narrative.

 

I contended a month ago, that since Obama won the primaries, he's had more coverage, but less positive coverage. I argued also that in trying to be fair to McCain, the media has been unequivocally taking his media claims and not reporting on things that they would on Obama (negative)

 

Obviously, the disagreement was over positive coverage. Where you guys felt not adequate coverage was given to some Obama scandals, like Rezko, which you feel still isn't dead. I'd like the media to tap into McCain's advisers, personally, especially Randy Scheunemann.

 

BUt too my POINT, I think an example for me of the media trying to compensate for their more Obama coverage is their coverage of polls. All of the "why isn't Obama ahead by more" polls. Well, then so post convention, they said "where's the bump" and Obama got a bump and people called it a bump.

 

Then now McCain gets a bump, and news stories are going crazy about how the RACE IS TIED, MCCAIN IN LEAD, i mean many of these came int he weekend where McCain always does better, its post convention where historically there is always a bounce, and other factors. But now you'd have us believe that McCain just suddenly became Usain Bolt.

[EvilMonkey]

Okay, so obviously we've had disagreements about whose controlled the media narrative.

 

I contended a month ago, that since Obama won the primaries, he's had more coverage, but less positive coverage. I argued also that in trying to be fair to McCain, the media has been unequivocally taking his media claims and not reporting on things that they would on Obama (negative)

 

Obviously, the disagreement was over positive coverage. Where you guys felt not adequate coverage was given to some Obama scandals, like Rezko, which you feel still isn't dead. I'd like the media to tap into McCain's advisers, personally, especially Randy Scheunemann.

 

BUt too my POINT, I think an example for me of the media trying to compensate for their more Obama coverage is their coverage of polls. All of the "why isn't Obama ahead by more" polls. Well, then so post convention, they said "where's the bump" and Obama got a bump and people called it a bump.

 

Then now McCain gets a bump, and news stories are going crazy about how the RACE IS TIED, MCCAIN IN LEAD, i mean many of these came int he weekend where McCain always does better, its post convention where historically there is always a bounce, and other factors. But now you'd have us believe that McCain just suddenly became Usain Bolt.

Expectations play a huge part of that. The media really didn't think the convention would go as well as it did for the republicans, and the bump was alot bigger than they thought. never in their wildest nightmares did they expect to ever have to report that Obama and McCain were TIED! So to them, its news. Keep expecting the floor, occasionally you get hit by the ceiling. (Not you, the media)