Bias in the media

[code1211]

I like to watch the shows in which people express opinions on events of the day.

Lat Sunday on Meet the Press, two political wonks were interviewed by Dave Gregory who i normally like, not as much as the late Tim Russert, but he does an adequate job.

In his interview with the Democrat, he was inquisitive and asked challenging questions as he did with the Republican. Both of the wonks framed their answers in the biased way that a wonk will do, but Gregory corrected the bias only with the Republican and allowed the Democrat to slide on his presentation of reality.

I feel that adding perspective to the biased presentation of reality is admirable, but, like an umpire calling balls and strikes, the strike zone should be the same one for both teams. If the Republican states that Obama's poll numbers are below Carter's and the moderator corrects him because it refers to a brief anomoly, then the moderator should also correct the the citation of the rate of people becoming unemployed in first months of the economic collapse as the running rate of the unemployed that obama policies corrected.

The same is true when he said that the policies stopped the auto industry from going bankrupt which it in fact did.

He did correct the republican and did not correct the Democrat. Both were being accurate in the very narrow sense that they used and both were lying even though they were using accurate "facts".

Interesting also is the fact that the Democrat Segment ran for almost 2 extra minutes compared to the Republican segment.

Has anyone else noticed anything like this?

 

[Ringel05]

That's what talking heads do, they spin or promote the spin they favor. It's also why I don't watch, listen to them except on those occasions I feel the urge to reaffirm my first statement. Thankfully I don't have to do it that often, once every year or ten suffices.

 

[code1211]

That's what talking heads do, they spin or promote the spin they favor. It's also why I don't watch, listen to them except on those occasions I feel the urge to reaffirm my first statement. Thankfully I don't have to do it that often, once every year or ten suffices.

I expect bias from the guests. Understanding how and why they have opinions is as important as the opinion itself in some cases.

Bias from the Mods is not acceptable unless it's that kind of a show. Bill Mahar or Glenn Beck and other ideologues are what they are and you know what you're getting. David Gregory is supposed to be a fair arbiter of the debate.

A guy like Chris Wallace does a credible job. Tim Russert, though, remains my favorite. The shows on which he interviewed in tandem the Carvilles were illustrative of how to do it. Adversarial to both, I really could not tell if he had a bias or not.

The way it 'spoze t' be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I like to watch the shows in which people express opinions on events of the day.

Lat Sunday on Meet the Press, two political wonks were interviewed by Dave Gregory who i normally like, not as much as the late Tim Russert, but he does an adequate job.

In his interview with the Democrat, he was inquisitive and asked challenging questions as he did with the Republican. Both of the wonks framed their answers in the biased way that a wonk will do, but Gregory corrected the bias only with the Republican and allowed the Democrat to slide on his presentation of reality.

I feel that adding perspective to the biased presentation of reality is admirable, but, like an umpire calling balls and strikes, the strike zone should be the same one for both teams. If the Republican states that Obama's poll numbers are below Carter's and the moderator corrects him because it refers to a brief anomoly, then the moderator should also correct the the citation of the rate of people becoming unemployed in first months of the economic collapse as the running rate of the unemployed that obama policies corrected.

The same is true when he said that the policies stopped the auto industry from going bankrupt which it in fact did.

He did correct the republican and did not correct the Democrat. Both were being accurate in the very narrow sense that they used and both were lying even though they were using accurate "facts".

Interesting also is the fact that the Democrat Segment ran for almost 2 extra minutes compared to the Republican segment.

Has anyone else noticed anything like this?

I hope that this isn't too far off your topic, Code, but the bias and slanting of the news is often very subtle.
In this moring's AP story of the Virginia Tech shooting, I found the following:

""In light of the turmoil and trauma and the tragedy suffered by this campus by guns, I can only say words don't describe our feelings and they're elusive at this point in time," university president Charles Steger said. "Our hearts are broken again for the family of our police officer."

As is usual, the slant is that the presence of a gun is the cause of the tragedy...
...hardly. The problem is the liberal denial of citizen's right to defend themselves on school grounds, or any where.

Coulter: “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”

 

[NYcarbineer]

I like to watch the shows in which people express opinions on events of the day.

Lat Sunday on Meet the Press, two political wonks were interviewed by Dave Gregory who i normally like, not as much as the late Tim Russert, but he does an adequate job.

In his interview with the Democrat, he was inquisitive and asked challenging questions as he did with the Republican. Both of the wonks framed their answers in the biased way that a wonk will do, but Gregory corrected the bias only with the Republican and allowed the Democrat to slide on his presentation of reality.

I feel that adding perspective to the biased presentation of reality is admirable, but, like an umpire calling balls and strikes, the strike zone should be the same one for both teams. If the Republican states that Obama's poll numbers are below Carter's and the moderator corrects him because it refers to a brief anomoly, then the moderator should also correct the the citation of the rate of people becoming unemployed in first months of the economic collapse as the running rate of the unemployed that obama policies corrected.

The same is true when he said that the policies stopped the auto industry from going bankrupt which it in fact did.

He did correct the republican and did not correct the Democrat. Both were being accurate in the very narrow sense that they used and both were lying even though they were using accurate "facts".

Interesting also is the fact that the Democrat Segment ran for almost 2 extra minutes compared to the Republican segment.

Has anyone else noticed anything like this?

I hope that this isn't too far off your topic, Code, but the bias and slanting of the news is often very subtle.
In this moring's AP story of the Virginia Tech shooting, I found the following:

""In light of the turmoil and trauma and the tragedy suffered by this campus by guns, I can only say words don't describe our feelings and they're elusive at this point in time," university president Charles Steger said. "Our hearts are broken again for the family of our police officer."

As is usual, the slant is that the presence of a gun is the cause of the tragedy...
...hardly. The problem is the liberal denial of citizen's right to defend themselves on school grounds, or any where.

Coulter: “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”

Quoting the university president is media 'slant'?

Seriously? God help us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How does one interview constitute ‘bias in the media’?

The only ‘bias’ the media have is money.

Otherwise the Sunday talk shows are entertainment, opinion at most. They’re not to be inferred as ‘fair and unbiased’ news reporting.

 

[frazzledgear]

That's what talking heads do, they spin or promote the spin they favor. It's also why I don't watch, listen to them except on those occasions I feel the urge to reaffirm my first statement. Thankfully I don't have to do it that often, once every year or ten suffices.

His complaint wasn't with the talking heads because everyone knows that IS their job. But that isn't the job of a moderator. His complaint was about the moderator who did not handle the two the same fashion. He behaved in a biased manner by allowing the Democrat pundit to get away with inaccurate statements while correcting only the other wonk. In addition he gave the Democrat 2 minutes more air time for his blather.

At any given moment that may look like a small thing until you add it up over the course of a day which may end up giving the Democrat pundits 20 minutes extra. And over the course of a week that is an extra 2 hours and 50 minutes. Over the course of a month that is an additional 11 hours and 20 minutes and over the course of a year more than another 5 1/2 days of air time to spew the political talking points of Democrats.

And since the moderator only corrected the Republican, it certainly suggests those additional 5 1/2 days air time Republicans don't get are likely to be nothing but a Democrat wonk laying it on thick with his spin, distortions and exaggerations. Then on top of that since only the Republican gets corrected -it certainly helps lay on further bias by leaving the impression that it is only Republican talking heads who exaggerate, spin, distort etc. Multiply that by the number of liberal news station and newspapers all guilty of the same tactics - which has not only become second nature to them, they deny its existence even after it is pointed out the overwhelming dominance of liberals in the media makes built-in liberal bias the NORM, not the exception. FOUR TIMES as many journalists identify themselves as liberal as they do conservative and at most news stations, 90% or more of all employees -from general manager and president to cameraman to make-up to anchor, identify themselves as liberal. And this in spite of the fact in the general population less than 20% identify themselves as liberal and 42% of the population identify themselves as conservatives -which is also the largest political ideological group. Something is WAY out of whack -until you realize at universities which are training, educating and indoctrinating our future journalists -is likewise overwhelmingly dominated by liberals as well. Control education and the media and you can manipulate public opinion and public perception. Any clue who said that?

So it is more significant than just a couple of minutes at given moment in time. This is how the media has been manipulating viewers for decades and getting away with it while putting up a pretense someone is moderating an honest, open discussion in a fair and even-handed manner.

 

[code1211]

How does one interview constitute ‘bias in the media’?

The only ‘bias’ the media have is money.

Otherwise the Sunday talk shows are entertainment, opinion at most. They’re not to be inferred as ‘fair and unbiased’ news reporting.

The reporting on a talking heads show is nonexistent except when they try to give background.

What I was complaining about was that Gregory corrected the Republican and let the Democrat slide. Both were talking in the realm of partisan positions, but that Gregory would add his own version of what was reality to one and not to the other was wrong.

If he either corrected both or corrected neither, that would be okay.

To correct only one is not okay and reveals his bias.

The same kind of thing happens on the Diane Ream show on NPR as she fawns over the Liberals she interviews and snarls that the Conservatives. It's almost comical.

 

[waltky]

A return to unbiased news coverage?...

Is bias-free news coverage coming back into vogue?
March 2, 2012 - After years in which news outlets became associated with one political slant or another, there are some signs that a course correction is under way in the media. So far, the shift is a subtle one.

Here's a news flash: Politically flavored reporting – as in conservatives prefer Fox News and liberals like MSNBC or CNN – may be undergoing a rethink, as networks and some news websites seek to expand their appeal or shore up ratings. The changes so far are subtle, and some media watchers are skeptical they will amount to much. But signs are building that some major news outlets are taking steps to de-emphasize political overtones, reemphasize facts, and pay closer heed to the "fair and balanced" standard of journalism. Among them are the Fox News Channel, where a "course correction" is reported to be under way aimed at moderating on-air content, and the liberal Huffington Post, which is featuring a greater diversity of voices since founder Arianna Huffington expanded her domain upon taking the helm of media giant AOL.

Reports of these changes coincide with a groundswell of grass-roots groups demanding greater accuracy and accountability from online and on-air media. Efforts in the mode of the Tampa Bay Times's PolitiFact and factcheck.org include Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, who is quietly seeding ventures devoted to rooting out disinformation in the media. It is no surprise that these trends are emerging simultaneously, media watchers say. Media outlets need to appeal to a broader audience to reverse sagging ratings, and to do that they must respond to audience demand for greater credibility. There is a fundamental urge in human nature to seek out "the reliable," says communications professor Leonard Shyles of Villanova University in Philadelphia. "You want to know that when you put your trust in something you spend your valuable time with, that in the end, there is something you can trust."

A 2011 poll by the Pew Research Center found that Americans' trust in the media was at its lowest level in nine of 12 core areas, such as accuracy and freedom from bias, since the center began its media survey in 1985. But "once you get to the point of saying, 'everything is false,' you cannot live that way," says Professor Shyles. He sees the efforts to restore trustworthiness in the media as "a resurfacing of the primal urge that led to the creation of the fourth estate concept in the mid-20th century. "We want that reliable proxy for ourselves" in tackling corruption and gathering important information, he says.

Reports that Fox chairman and chief executive officer Roger Ailes is seeking a "course correction" at Fox News Channel have appeared in media outlets such as Newsweek, New York magazine, and a recent post on PolitiFact.com. The cable channel did not respond to multiple Monitor e-mail, voice mail, and pager requests for comment, but in the past its representatives rejected suggestions that Fox news broadcasts are anything but impartial and nonpartisan.

MORE