Another Study, Same Finding MSM Is Biased

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Nov 1, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

    Interestingly, they are joined with PEW now, for the first nine years with Columbia School of Journalism. I mean it will be difficult to claim 'bias' of the report, such as some tried with U of Chicago and Stanford findings...

     
  2. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,787
    Thanks Received:
    2,366
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,299
    Not sure this points towards bias. Remember the republicans have been in power now for a long time. It points towards their failure to govern instead. Consider Iraq, Katrina, Deficit spending, Failure to complete the task in Afghanistan, tax inequities, failed businesses with republican connects, lead filled toys under their watch, 911 under their watch, failure to supply our soldiers with gear, failure to help our soldiers once they return, the widening gap between rich and poor, the poor support for education, the poor support for children, the poor support for the environment. It has to be obvious to anyone but an ideologue that they cannot govern.

    why conservatives can't rule
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,559
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,973
    Yup us Republicans are such boobs. Thats why we won in 94 and completed the take over in 96, cause the democrats were ( after 50 years) doing such a great job. And of course this last year has been another stellar example of why the democrats lost to begin with.

    We lost in 2006 cause we got to bigheaded and if we lose in 2008 it will be because we haven't learned our lesson.
     
  4. Alpha1
    Offline

    Alpha1 NAVY

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,719
    Thanks Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +193
    Whats obvious is the fact that you like Kool-Ade....
     
  5. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    The propaganda we pass off as news around the world



    David Miller
    Wednesday February 15, 2006
    The Guardian


    A succession of scandals in the US has revealed widespread government funding of PR agencies to produce "fake news". Actors take the place of journalists and the "news" is broadcast as if it were genuine. The same practice has been adopted in Iraq, where newspapers have been paid to insert copy. These stories have raised the usual eyebrows in the UK about the pitiful quality of US democracy. Things are better here, we imply. We have a prime minister who claimed in 2004 that "the values that drive our actions abroad are the same values of progress and justice that drive us at home". Yet in 2002 the government launched a littleknown television propaganda service that seems to mimic the US government's deceptive approach to fake news.

    The British Satellite News website says it is "a free television news and features service". It looks like an ordinary news website, though its lack of copyright protection might raise some questions in alert journalists. Broadcasters can put BSN material "directly into daily news programmes". In fact, BSN is provided by World Television, a company that also makes corporate videos and fake news clips for corporations such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Nestlé. It also produced Towards Freedom Television on behalf of the UK government. This was a propaganda programme broadcast in Iraq by US army psychological-operations teams from a specially adapted aircraft in 2003/04.
    World Television produces the fake news, but its efforts are entirely funded by the Foreign Office, which spent £340m on propaganda activities in the UK alone in 2001. A comprehensive post- 9/11 overhaul means that this figure has probably markedly increased since then.

    According to World Television, by November 2003 BSN "news" was being "used regularly by 14 of the 17 Middle East countries". "Over 400 stations around the world receive BSN stories," it claims. "185 are regular users of the stories, including broadcasters in Russia, Germany, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia."

    The diet of "news" received by viewers of the service includes an endless pageant of government ministers and other official spokespeople. Recent headlines on Iraq refer to happy news such as "Prime minister in surprise visit to Iraq" (December 22 2005) or "Iraqi ambassador upbeat on elections" (December 14 2005). Often Chatham House provides the venue for policy discussions, as in: "The psychology of terror - experts meet" (December 23 2005).

    Questioning the occupation is out of the question, but some criticism of US policy is possible. In an extraordinary apologia for the British occupation of Iraq in 1920, the "suggested intro" reads: "This year is not the first time an outside power has sought to construct a modern, democratic, liberal state in Iraq. Britain tried to do the same in the 1920s". The benevolence of the US and the UK is simply assumed: "Today's USled coalition, like the imperial occupiers of 80 years ago, are trying to free Iraq's government and security services from corruption and abuse."

    But the clumsy strategy of the US is potentially "alienating a large section of the population". So the question arises of what "useful lessons could be drawn" from the British experience. In reality the 1920 occupation led immediately to a popular revolt that was ruthlessly suppressed. A puppet monarchy was imposed, which was neither "modern" nor "democratic" but was, as argued by the historian Mark Curtis, one of the least popular in Middle Eastern history.

    The BSN strategy seems to be to emphasise Britain's cultural diversity. Bulletins regularly highlight ethnicminority contributions to the UK and interview leading moderate Muslims. But it is possible to hear muted criticism of Israel. One item featured "A leading Israeli academic who has questioned both the wisdom and the effectiveness of the controversial 'separation fence'."

    A clue to the thinking behind this lies in a 2003 report for the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) thinktank, coauthored by its then director Mark Leonard. He advised the Foreign Office on its Public Diplomacy Review in 2002 and was later appointed to the resulting Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, which directs Foreign Office propaganda strategy. Leonard wrote in 2002: "If a message will engender distrust simply because it is coming from a foreign government then the government should hide that fact as much as possible." The FPC report suggests the British government should not be afraid of "bloodying the Americans' noses" in its propaganda messages on Israel/Palestine. They must "ensure that the differences between UK and American positions and thinking are emphasised". The point is to tackle the perception that Britain "apishly follows every American lead" so the "usefulness" of "UK support for the US" is increased.

    This strategy of criticising the US, in order to support it better, conforms to Blair's wider Iraq strategy. It is clear from documents leaked over the past year (such as the Downing Street memo) that the plan was to use the UN as a device for gaining legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. All this makes a mockery of Blair's claims to progressive values. Indeed it suggests that such claims are themselves cynical propaganda.

    David Miller is professor of sociology at Strathclyde University
     
  6. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Eh. You can usually find what you are looking for. Start with a bias and then sift through stuff that supports your bias and skip stuff that opposes your bias. Google “liberal bias” and finds stuff. Google “conservative bias” and find stuff. It is an old game. To make the game easier, just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Blogs_and_Websites_about_media_bias and take your pick from web sites that report liberal bias or take your pick from web sites that report conservative bias. It is a pretty easy game but it gets boring after a while. You pick a statistic that supports your bias. I counter with a statistic that supports my bias. Then you find an article that supports your contention that there is pro-liberal bias. Then I counter with an article that shows pro-conservative bias – and it goes on and on and on.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Hello, did you read the methodology? This isn't a goofy study, but rather a substantive one, that is going to be a bit difficult to dismiss.
     
  8. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    What you have written is so true! :(

    However, unless things get much, much worse than they are, when I get in the voting booth I will be very reluctant to trust the Democrats with the leadership of the country. The Democrat Party has been taken over by the ultra-left, and their leading presidential candidate is a European socialist trying to disguise herself as a centrist.
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    You lost in 2006 because of Iraq. People are displeased with Congress because they haven't done anything about Iraq.

    You also lost because Bush needed oversight which he didn't have with a republican congress. It's called checks and balances.

    Oh yeah... and you lost because Bush is incompetent and for some reason the repubs in congress wouldn't disavow his actions.

    so there ya go.
     
  10. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    Iraq is happening.....and for you people to pretend that the Democrats "DIDN'T HAVE A HAND IN IT....is laughable....

    And just look at the Democrats so called OVERSITE...

    Everything they have tried to shove down our throats, is going to cost us more in the way of taxes......

    But, I guess that's the "Democratic WAY"....

    This should be their new slogan...

    The Democrats.......will lose in 2008...
    yes they were given a chance in 06 and it only took them 11 months....to show their TRUE FACE....

    People will not buy their shit.......and you will LOSE BIG...IN 08..

    And don't THINK...that the American people.. hasn't seen the LIBERAL Bias in the lamestream media, and most of the major newspapers...

    There's a reason that Fox News, and conservative Radio is NUMBER 1, in all the ratings..
    Why do you think......the Liberals, Socialist, Communist...the Democrat party is working so hard to SHUT THEM UP...
    Vote for a Democrat...lose your freedoms......yippee....
    :eusa_clap:
     

Share This Page