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

[CanOfCorn]

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)

 

Polls mean nothing...as a former phone surveyer...depending on who is paying for it...and who's number is called (even though it's random, that doesn't necessarily mean that the computer won't randomly generate a majority of either Dem or Rep households), the numbers can and are usually skewed.

 

That being said, we are all human, even journalists. It is nearly impossible for a normal human being to be COMPLETELY unbiased. Generally, the press has been more liberal. Bottom line, it's on you, the individual to watch ALL the stations you can, read ALL the newspapers and magazines you can, listen to ALL the radio stations you can...and make your own decision. Blaming the media is a complete and total cop out, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

[bmags]

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)

 

But they were statistically tied two weeks ago? And With Obama's bump he went up 9, with McCain's he went up a couple different numbers, but i believe 3. It just doesn't make sense to cover it like that, unless you accept that it's in the media's best interest to have a close race, and that is why they report it like this.

[EvilMonkey]

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.

Alright tex, you are half right. i would have screamed about that being reported, but about either guy. I was trying to be over the top like you often are in these discussions. Let's try this one. Here is a non-politcal story. See if you can spot the agenda of the reporter.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...edless_carnage/

 

I'll save you the time, it is contained here:

And the other side of this lethal equation also demands attention. According to the Brady Campaign, Washington state has some of the most lax gun control laws in the country. There is no license, permit, or registration required to buy or own a handgun, and background checks are not automatically required for gun sales.

If the reporter had done his job, he could have done a quick check to verify that what the Brady campaign told him was true or not. it is not. There is no legal way that guy could have purchased a gun in that, or any other state. A quick Google check will show that you do need licenses, and background checks would have red-flagged this guy immediately. The paragraph implies that he walked into a store and just bought a gun. So the reporter prints a statement that is false, without checking to see if it was true. Did they have an agenda, or just lazy? Or both? I would say both, but the laziness is born from the agenda by trusting the source completely.

[Chet Lemon]

Don't liberals have an affinity for government-funded programs (e.g. food stamps, americorps, TANF, etc.)?

 

From what I have observed in media, there are hardly ever any positive stories reporting the accomplishments of such programs. The media has shown a passel of stories presenting solely negative aspects of these programs over the years.

[bmags]

Don't liberals have an affinity for government-funded programs (e.g. food stamps, americorps, TANF, etc.)?

 

From what I have observed in media, there are hardly ever any positive stories reporting the accomplishments of such programs. The media has shown a passel of stories presenting solely negative aspects of these programs over the years.

 

I think journalists in general are both critical of everything the government does but on the other hand seeing the problems of all of these programs first hand and moreso want them fixed to help solve these problems.

[Balta1701]

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.

A small note here. I don't really think I mind the lack of a Walter Cronkite as much as I mind the lack of a Woodward/Bernstein. That goes for Woodward and Bernstein these days as well.

[bmags]

I don't know, I think you see blogs helping. Papers lack resources now. tribune losing a bunch of good writers. Watching TPMs coverage of the US Attorney scandal was an exhilarating experience, though didn't mean much since nobody cared about Bush anymore.

 

I like Carlotto Gall's coverage. I think Mr Genius would hate her Afghanistan article recently, but I see no reason when you are seeing a first hand account, why you should need sources just to say what you already saw.

[EvilMonkey]

Don't liberals have an affinity for government-funded programs (e.g. food stamps, americorps, TANF, etc.)?

 

From what I have observed in media, there are hardly ever any positive stories reporting the accomplishments of such programs. The media has shown a passel of stories presenting solely negative aspects of these programs over the years.

And every one of those negative stories implies that if only there were more money for said program, all would be right! Win-win. Pretend that you are pointing out a bad program, but then get to blame the eeeevil republicans for not giving the program enough money to succeed!

[bmags]

Another Alpha Dog post with no examples.

[EvilMonkey]

Another Alpha Dog post with no examples.

Were there any examples of the media negativity in what I replied to?

[bmags]

well, here. Scan through.

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...=0&s=newest

 

DO NOT PICK EDITORIALS.

 

Scanning through, I just find that this was my main argument about the real liberal bias in reporting. I think journalists in general are biased towards the poor and underreported. In reporting, I don't think it's "THIS ISN'T WORKING, LOUSY REPUBLICANS" usually it's "If you are going to have this program at least make it do what it's supposed to do" (solve problems). Rarely do these articles mention political parties, if at all, and these are hyper regional. Usually the main players you see are the governor or Bloomberg.

[bmags]

btw I specifically chose the NY times because you consider it liberal.

[mr_genius]

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.

 

The Democrats fear mongering, bumper slogan campaigns, and mass marketing hasn't done jack for them.

Edited September 9, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

The Democrats fear mongering, bumper slogan campaigns, and mass marketing hasn't done jack for them.

 

yeah we're not very good at it.

[mr_genius]

well, here. Scan through.

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...=0&s=newest

 

DO NOT PICK EDITORIALS.

 

Scanning through, I just find that this was my main argument about the real liberal bias in reporting. I think journalists in general are biased towards the poor and underreported. In reporting, I don't think it's "THIS ISN'T WORKING, LOUSY REPUBLICANS" usually it's "If you are going to have this program at least make it do what it's supposed to do" (solve problems). Rarely do these articles mention political parties, if at all, and these are hyper regional. Usually the main players you see are the governor or Bloomberg.

 

The narrative is usually that government is the cure to all problems. Honestly though, if you don't think the NY Times is left biased, there is no reason for us to try to come to any sort of agreement (we are both positive that we are correct and really nothing is going to change that).

 

Here is an interesting study from 2005

 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media...-UCLA-6664.aspx

Edited September 9, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

yeah we're not very good at it.

 

Actually, they are very good at it IMO. they definitely know how to use the media to their advantage.

Edited September 9, 2008 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

well, here. Scan through.

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...=0&s=newest

 

DO NOT PICK EDITORIALS.

 

Scanning through, I just find that this was my main argument about the real liberal bias in reporting. I think journalists in general are biased towards the poor and underreported. In reporting, I don't think it's "THIS ISN'T WORKING, LOUSY REPUBLICANS" usually it's "If you are going to have this program at least make it do what it's supposed to do" (solve problems). Rarely do these articles mention political parties, if at all, and these are hyper regional. Usually the main players you see are the governor or Bloomberg.

I will grant you that they rarely mention parties, unless there was some specific law or bill related to the story. But come on, who is generally perceived to be against social spending of any kind, whether it is right or wrong? And again, I will agree that in general, they are just lazy. But each reporter has their own sources and groups that they trust, which contribute to theirlaziness.

 

As for your list, sometime hard to tell the difference btw the two. 'City Refines Formula' shows how this puts more people under the poverty level. Doesn't automatically increase incoming cash, but will change things. 'State Aims to help..' points to a success. 'Food Stamps Buy Less..' has this line in it " The bill, which was passed over President Bush’s veto, will also raise for the first time since 1996 the amount of income that families of fewer than four can keep for costs like housing or fuel without having their benefits reduced. " . 'Technology and Food' is a positive article. After page 1, they wanted me to log in, so that is as far as I got. I will grant you that they usually don't mention the eeeevil Republicans, but if they are negative, they are almost always because the program needs more money.

 

[Texsox]

The Democrats fear mongering, bumper slogan campaigns, and mass marketing hasn't done jack for them.

 

No it hasn't, the Republicans do it much better.

[Texsox]

If you need a D or R to decide if something is right or wrong, you are probably too partisan.

[MurcieOne]

If you need a D or R to decide if something is right or wrong, you are probably too partisan.

 

 

 

I don't venture over this way often, but I couldn't help but respond to this post. I know being an independent is often scoffed at in the same way that fans of both the cubs and the sox are... but I think partisanship has gotten way out of control in this country, the media included. I was watching CNN one night after RNC (supposedly the balance between MSNBC and FOXNEWS) and I was just floored with the amount of criticism the republicans received as opposed to the dems after the DNC.

 

The reality of the situation is that we have a broken government, where the lobbyists run washington. Both candidates receive large contributions from special interests and thats the kind of news that should be reported!

 

Yikes.

[CanOfCorn]

I don't venture over this way often, but I couldn't help but respond to this post. I know being an independent is often scoffed at in the same way that fans of both the cubs and the sox are... but I think partisanship has gotten way out of control in this country, the media included. I was watching CNN one night after RNC (supposedly the balance between MSNBC and FOXNEWS) and I was just floored with the amount of criticism the republicans received as opposed to the dems after the DNC.

 

The reality of the situation is that we have a broken government, where the lobbyists run washington. Both candidates receive large contributions from special interests and thats the kind of news that should be reported!

 

Yikes.

 

Not too mention that the "D" and the "R" don't really mean what they used to mean anymore.

 

[BigSqwert]

Stay classy Fox News

 

Even by the low standards of the Republican News Network, this morning's attack on Rachel Maddow, on the Fox News network, as a "lesbian Air America host" was a despicable new low. Those words, an open appeal to bigotry and hate, said by an alleged media analyst named Tim Graham, were met with laughter and chortles by the Fox News team on air. This is sick and despicable stuff, even for Fox News.

[mr_genius]

Stay classy Fox News

 

i like how the article talked about swiftboats. i'm thinking about changing avatar back to a swiftboat.

[Balta1701]

There's a beautifully illustrative point from a discussion involving Paul Begala and a McCain person this morning.

ROBERTS: Paul, there's a lot of controversy about whether or not she supported the bridge to nowhere. We pulled some sound from a 2006 debate in which she appears to at least give tacit approval to it. Let's listen to what she said.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

GOV. SARAH PALIN, VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now. They're making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress -- this project or other projects that they are working so hard on.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

ROBERTS: That would appear, Paul, to end any argument over whether or not she supported the bridge initially. But why can't Barack Obama make that point stick?

 

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Because the press won't do its job, John. I criticized Barack Obama when he hasn't been tough enough. Barack's job is to run against John McCain, right. Don't shoot the monkey when you can shoot for the organ grinder. His job is not to focus on number two but number one. But it is the media's job when a politician flat out lies like she's doing on this bridge to nowhere so call her on it. Or this matter of earmarks where she's attacking Barack Obama for having earmarks, when she was the mayor of little Wasilla, Alaska, 6,000 people, she hired a lobbyist who was connected to Jack Abramoff, who is a criminal and they brought home $27 million in earmarks. She carried so much pork home she got trichinosis. But we in the media are letting her tell lies about her record.

 

ROBERTS: Hey, OK. We got to let Alex respond to that. Flat out lies, Alex?

 

ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Let's be a little gentle. Look, every elected official in this country works under the system we have, which is you try to get a little bit of your tax money back. You just don't want to leave it all in Washington. The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no. And she made it -

 

BEGALA: That's not true.

 

CASTELLANOS: She took a strong stand. That is rare and that never happened.

 

ROBERTS: All right.

 

BEGALA: That's just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There's lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government.

 

ROBERTS: We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth.

 

BEGALA: This is the problem. We have this false debate when we ought to have at least agreed upon facts.

 

ROBERTS: All right. Paul Begala, Alex Castellanos, thanks so much this morning, guys. Appreciate it.

Now, the big problem here shoudl be obvious. This is a case where there is an objective reality. Sarah Palin was a supporter of this project until well after it became a national joke, and only decided to drop support for it after the government had declared it wouldn't spend the money. You can distract all you want by pointing at Obama's votes on the issue, by bringing up other earmarks, whatever.

 

The simple fact is this...Sarah Palin keeps bringing up her opposition to this project, and frankly, she is lying. She is doing so over and over and over again. There is an objective fact here. No one can possibly dispute the timeline. It's simple reality. But instead of saying that, the press asks "Why can't Senator Obama make this stick". Begala is right here, they can't make it stick because CNN and the other networks treat it the way we see here. A McCain supporter denies the reality, says "We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth" and CNN just pretends its an issue up for discussion.

 

You catch Senator Obama or Biden blatantly lying or in a gaffe, whatever, call them on it. But when the media refuses to explain simple facts because pointing out that the claim of one side is blatantly false, when the media treats the most blatant of distortions as something up for discussion rather than just saying "This is flat out false", then it is not doing anyone a favor, and it's not helping the side that just happens to, at least in this case, be on the side of the facts.

[mr_genius]

You catch Senator Obama or Biden blatantly lying or in a gaffe, whatever, call them on it. But when the media refuses to explain simple facts because pointing out that the claim of one side is blatantly false, when the media treats the most blatant of distortions as something up for discussion rather than just saying "This is flat out false", then it is not doing anyone a favor, and it's not helping the side that just happens to, at least in this case, be on the side of the facts.

 

Actually, I was watching CNN last night and they said Palin supported the 'bridge to nowhere'. they actually covered about 8 times in 2 hours of news. i would say 90 minutes of the two hours of coverage I watched was dedicated to attacking Palin. Now, that might not be a high enough ration for some.

Edited September 9, 2008 by mr_genius