I keep telling you ... the BIASED MSM is the major problem in America..and 94% of this

[NYcarbineer]

I keep telling you, mass media is first and foremost commercial. That means it reports what sells.

Nobody in the world makes money from taking an ideological stance. They make money from attracting ears and eyeballs. And they'll do that by finding disasters and scandals and who-cares celebrities to make fake news out of --- which makes the vast majority of what it reports. Meanwhile you're scraping up cherrypicked impressions to whine about as if that has anything to do with how they work.

It doesn't.

Yet no one seems to be able to find cherry picked examples of conservative bias in the blamemainstreet media. Why is that?

You don't think sites like the Daily Caller, WND, Breitbart, the Examiner, Newsmax, the Gateway Pundit, Town Hall

are conservative biased?

lol

 

[BuckToothMoron]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

Great screen name! BuckToothMoron. Funny shit.

Yes, cable television "news" channels are biased and they can be since they don't fall under the same FCC regulations that network news agencies do.

I don't rely on television news since it's either reduced to headlines or slanted. I get a variety of periodicals from the WSJ to Rolling Stone, and I read a lot of non-fiction. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" is what I'm on right now. Wow, just WOW

Well I hope you understand that getting information from various sources will only serve to make you more informed and objective. That sort of nonsense is not appreciated by some of the posters here.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, cable television "news" channels are biased and they can be since they don't fall under the same FCC regulations that network news agencies do.

Actually FCC doesn't regulate content at all, other than broadcast obscenity regs. Nobody is required to have or not have any particular slant, whether on the air or on cable. It's completely up to the broadcaster.

 

[thereisnospoon]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

Great screen name! BuckToothMoron. Funny shit.

Yes, cable television "news" channels are biased and they can be since they don't fall under the same FCC regulations that network news agencies do.

I don't rely on television news since it's either reduced to headlines or slanted. I get a variety of periodicals from the WSJ to Rolling Stone, and I read a lot of non-fiction. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" is what I'm on right now. Wow, just WOW.

yep..another liberal who thinks because he reads "those" publications is above the fray.
Yeah, you're above everyone else.
Arrogance. Pure liberal arrogance and elitism

 

[thereisnospoon]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

Great screen name! BuckToothMoron. Funny shit.

Yes, cable television "news" channels are biased and they can be since they don't fall under the same FCC regulations that network news agencies do.

I don't rely on television news since it's either reduced to headlines or slanted. I get a variety of periodicals from the WSJ to Rolling Stone, and I read a lot of non-fiction. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" is what I'm on right now. Wow, just WOW.

Umm save for obscenity regulations the FCC does not and CANNOT regulate content.

 

[Pogo]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

 

[thereisnospoon]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

Great screen name! BuckToothMoron. Funny shit.

Yes, cable television "news" channels are biased and they can be since they don't fall under the same FCC regulations that network news agencies do.

I don't rely on television news since it's either reduced to headlines or slanted. I get a variety of periodicals from the WSJ to Rolling Stone, and I read a lot of non-fiction. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" is what I'm on right now. Wow, just WOW

Well I hope you understand that getting information from various sources will only serve to make you more informed and objective. That sort of nonsense is not appreciated by some of the posters here.

There is not such thing as "objective"...Everyone has their own personal biases.
Back in the days of C-Band satellite, I could view raw news as it was uplinked to the local stations via satellite BEFORE it was edited. Mostly video only. No talking heads to get in the way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Not necessarily making up the news. But stating they report a part of the story leaving out pertinent facts that either oppose the editorial bias of the newscaster or to serve another purpose.
And that other purpose is to serve a political or ideological point of view.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Polls should never be used to create news. Ever. its lazy and it deliberately skews the event away from the facts.

 

[Pogo]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Not necessarily making up the news. But stating they report a part of the story leaving out pertinent facts that either oppose the editorial bias of the newscaster or to serve another purpose.
And that other purpose is to serve a political or ideological point of view.

Again, to return to the original point ---- NOBODY makes money from serving a political or ideological POV. There's no way to do that.

Again, says Captain Obvious ---- they exist to make money. Not to advocate ideologies. Just as your local stupormarket exists to make a profit on its wares --- not to steer you either to the gluten-free bread or to the Wonder bread. They'll happily sell you both.

 

[thereisnospoon]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

I never said Fox was not BIASED! They in fact are more conservatively biased then the OTHER network/cable news. YOU ARE RIGHT!!!
But again... look at the facts not attack the messenger!
Tell me if a hack newsperson donates money to a political party as 85% of the MSM did to democrats they certainly want to protect their donation by writing/showing positive stories about GOP and negative about Dems! Are you that naive?

The problem you have Healthmyths is that you think that some how the Media handpicks only liberals from college to enter their industry..

When there is no proof to anyway believe that...

But what is proven is, the people asked to investigate both parties on a daily basis give 88%(your figure) to one party...

To me that shows that they think one is running the country better than the other...

That should be an indicator to you as why you should vote Dem too

One only has to pay attention to the manner, wording used and yes even facial expressions of the on camera talent to see there is an overwhelming liberal bias in news reporting.Anyone who denies that is either a left wing ideologue or simply is not paying attention.
Plus. it is well documented that our institutions of higher learning are bastions of liberalism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Not necessarily making up the news. But stating they report a part of the story leaving out pertinent facts that either oppose the editorial bias of the newscaster or to serve another purpose.
And that other purpose is to serve a political or ideological point of view.

Again, to return to the original point ---- NOBODY makes money from serving a political or ideological POV. There's no way to do that.

Again, says Captain Obvious ---- they exist to make money. Not to advocate ideologies. Just as your local stupormarket exists to make a profit on its wares --- not to steer you either to the gluten-free bread or to the Wonder bread. They'll happily sell you both.

Are you kidding? If these news organizations/networks were not turning a profit, they would change the way they produced and presented the news.
Jesus Christ

 

[healthmyths]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Not necessarily making up the news. But stating they report a part of the story leaving out pertinent facts that either oppose the editorial bias of the newscaster or to serve another purpose.
And that other purpose is to serve a political or ideological point of view.

Again, to return to the original point ---- NOBODY makes money from serving a political or ideological POV. There's no way to do that.

Again, says Captain Obvious ---- they exist to make money. Not to advocate ideologies. Just as your local stupormarket exists to make a profit on its wares --- not to steer you either to the gluten-free bread or to the Wonder bread. They'll happily sell you both.

Are you kidding? If these news organizations/networks were not turning a profit, they would change the way they produced and presented the news.
Jesus Christ

In my college journalism classes, like Backgrounding the News, "political parties", etc. the only adage that really impressed me was this one:
"If it bleeds it leads"...meaning the more gory, the bigger the headline. The more sensational... the more coverage.
Regardless if it was a frequent situation, most recent case in point... Ferguson, MO was sensationalized and what do we have now? Opinion of most people
that most cops are shoot unarmed blacks. Almost every headline/30 sec. sound bite is made to make the cops the bad guys. "It bleeds it leads". BUT when
it comes to democrat headlines/30 sec. sound bites... remember the media is made up of mostly democrats.
What the facts? Exhibit 1-1: The Media Elite

Pictures are worth more then 1,000 words!

 

[Pogo]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Not necessarily making up the news. But stating they report a part of the story leaving out pertinent facts that either oppose the editorial bias of the newscaster or to serve another purpose.
And that other purpose is to serve a political or ideological point of view.

Again, to return to the original point ---- NOBODY makes money from serving a political or ideological POV. There's no way to do that.

Again, says Captain Obvious ---- they exist to make money. Not to advocate ideologies. Just as your local stupormarket exists to make a profit on its wares --- not to steer you either to the gluten-free bread or to the Wonder bread. They'll happily sell you both.

Are you kidding? If these news organizations/networks were not turning a profit, they would change the way they produced and presented the news.
Jesus Christ

No shit Sherlock. That's what I just said.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

the people need to wake up to the fact that These Lamestream medias like: abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, PmsNbc, etc are all Leftleaning biased and in the pockets for the DNC. they've become an Enemy to the rest of the people who aren't DemoRat

You left out Faux Noise, except that they're not lame, they are actually quite malicious.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

Great screen name! BuckToothMoron. Funny shit.

Yes, cable television "news" channels are biased and they can be since they don't fall under the same FCC regulations that network news agencies do.

I don't rely on television news since it's either reduced to headlines or slanted. I get a variety of periodicals from the WSJ to Rolling Stone, and I read a lot of non-fiction. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" is what I'm on right now. Wow, just WOW

Well I hope you understand that getting information from various sources will only serve to make you more informed and objective. That sort of nonsense is not appreciated by some of the posters here.

Yes, approximately 95%.

 

[healthmyths]

Media companies can attract viewers/listeners/readers by simply reporting legitimate news. But the entertainment end of the business is the low hanging fruit.

No and yes.
The no part --- nobody can attract audience by simply reporting legitimate news. That is at best a wash. Legitimate news, as in basic cold hard facts, is not something particularly interesting that "attracts" anybody. You can report it, I can report it, and the audience has no particular reason to prefer your story over mine or mine over yours. It's the same story.

The yes part --- the entertainment part. And that includes in my broad definition not only the who-cares bullshit about who X celebrity is dating, but the overdramatization of the mundane, including how "the big story tonight" really is that six-car accident that happened three hundred miles from where you live.

There was once a day when news WAS simple basic reporting of facts, nobody expected to make money off it, it was simply complying with the FCC license conditions of operating "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". The old Huntley-Brinkley Report and Walter Cronkite News were loss leaders, heavily subsidized by the goofy sitcoms that followed them, the Beverly Hillbillieses and the Hogan's Heroeses. They had to be subsidized, because news is expensive. It requires opening bureaus around the country and around the world and flying people around with camera crews.

That changed with the arrival of CNN and later, Fox. CNN dabbled in a then-new approach of constant, 24-hour news, which changes the culture by floating the idea that "news" is something we always need at a moment's notice, and by, out of necessity, magnifying the importance of news, requiring either hammering the same stories over and over to fill time, or delving into the trivial to make "news" out of it, or both. Then Fox came along with a different approach to get around the expenses -- instead of reporting the news, which requires all those resources, it would make its money by sitting talking heads at a desk to talk about the news, usually defined as "commentary" though Fox played that down. That approach not only saves money, it introduces emotion, because it enables suspicion and speculation. And emotion, of course, sells. Always did.

Et voilà --- News Theater. And here we are.

With the massive availability of near real time news, people no longer have to wait for the 6 pm newscast or tomorrow's paper to get the news and information the want.
So media companies have dumbed down the news. They have placed bias on it. No longer is it necessary to be the most informative to report the news, just be the FIRST to report.

Both of those factors feed the commercial media Prime Directive --- audience attention, also known as "ratings". The only "bias" in that is that the priority for each entity is to sell commercials, rather than to be either accurate or objective about what constitutes the news.

"We just paid $3 billion for these television stations. We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is" --- Fox TV owner to his reporters during a dispute over a story​

If the initial report is inaccurate, so what, they say. The producers can use any one of a plethora of excuses such as "this is a developing story" to cover for their ineptitude and sometimes out right lying to the public.

You're suggesting they make stuff up, cover it with "this is a developing story", and then magically, the story happens --- that's absurd. They do that because they don't have all the details confirmed yet, but they still want your attention. That's actually practicing journalistic ethics.

Another example of the insidious damage news organizations have done to journalism is the use of polls.
The purpose of polls is to take the temperature of the events of the day. To find what the public thinks of the news.

Actually it's the same goal as the rest of News Theater -- to make the mundane interesting, and thereby retain eyeballs to whom they can sell still more commercials.

Polls should never be used to create news. Ever. its lazy and it deliberately skews the event away from the facts.

What is worse is polls are used by politicians to pass legislation!
ACA case in point! We kept hearing over and over from Obama there were 46 million uninsured... THEN the MSM never investigated that number repeated it.
Soon the Congress believed those numbers and while 7 votes was all the margin for passage we got Obamacare.
Once ACA passed Obama agreed hmmm.. there were 10 million illegals counted in those 46 million that can't be covered. YEA...
And of course Obama would never admit the gross incompetency that had 14 million people ELIGIBLE BEFORE ACA for Medicaid but they simply didn't enroll!
Didn't matter to Obama... still counted them so as to inflate the number!
Finally Obama didn't care WHETHER 18 million people under 34 who make over $50k didn't WANT or NEED health insurance... this idiot and the MSM still counted
them as part of that 46 million which when you subtract 42 million illegals,didn't eligible for medicaid and 18 million didn't want... you have less then 5 million that
truly want and need insurance.
Didn't make any difference to the MSM as Obama wanted Obamacare and MSM backed Obama! Truth. Reality. Needs. Never counted!
So NOW we have Obamacare in financial difficulty BECAUSE there never was a need for 46 million uninsured...i.e. those 18 million under 34 and making over
$50 aren't buying! Which is the stupidity of the American voter as Gruber said was so evident! Idiocy compounded by MSM biased reporting and not one
MSM ever challenging the 46 million number!
Here read the FACTS! The Myth of the 46 Million

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

I never said Fox was not BIASED! They in fact are more conservatively biased then the OTHER network/cable news. YOU ARE RIGHT!!!
But again... look at the facts not attack the messenger!
Tell me if a hack newsperson donates money to a political party as 85% of the MSM did to democrats they certainly want to protect their donation by writing/showing positive stories about GOP and negative about Dems! Are you that naive?

The problem you have Healthmyths is that you think that some how the Media handpicks only liberals from college to enter their industry..

When there is no proof to anyway believe that...

But what is proven is, the people asked to investigate both parties on a daily basis give 88%(your figure) to one party...

To me that shows that they think one is running the country better than the other...

That should be an indicator to you as why you should vote Dem too

One only has to pay attention to the manner, wording used and yes even facial expressions of the on camera talent to see there is an overwhelming liberal bias in news reporting.Anyone who denies that is either a left wing ideologue or simply is not paying attention.
Plus. it is well documented that our institutions of higher learning are bastions of liberalism.

Great, I agree with you that institutions such as Liberty University and George Mason U. are cesspools of rightwing bias.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Uninformed & uneducated voters are the problem not the media. If you are smart enough to exercise due diligence when it comes to issues that matter it's irrelevant how the media portrays it.
I understand the desire to have a scapegoat but it's nothing more than that, a scapegoat.

 

[healthmyths]

poll of 2,014 adults agree!
The poll was conducted Feb. 18-March 21 with funding from the American Press Institute. It used a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of other institutions.

The news media have been hit by a series of blunders on high-profile stories ranging from the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law to the Boston Marathon bombing that have helped feed negative perceptions of the media.

In 2014, Rolling Stone had to retract a vivid report about an alleged gang rape at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, asked by Rolling Stone to investigate after questions were raised about the veracity of the story, called it an avoidable journalistic failure and "another shock to journalism's credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry."
Poll: Vast majority of Americans don't trust the news media

So I keep trying to get you people on the fence, thinking you are objective to understand ... the information sources for many of you are tainted!

Tainted as THESE studies show that helped get Obama elected and re-elected!
This study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD MARCH 16, 2015
shows this biased MSM wrote these stories that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

This is the same MSM that over 85% of media donated money to Democrats in 2008!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This is the same MSM that LOVES Obama so much that here in the words of a MSM publication they show it!

The Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas.
Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas
responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??

But when it came to Obama?

This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"???
That's not reporting, that's gushing!

As a result this biased reporting with headlines/30 second sound bites designed to maximize negatives
regarding Trump, GOP et.al. and minimize the disasters that Obama/Democrats have wrought is what
any honest American should consider when forming any opinions especially when it comes to presidential approval polls!

This is for you on the fence people. Those of you that still after nearly 8 years of destructive efforts to tear down the values of America still can't come to the realization that Obama/Democrats have come to
blame America for all the world's woes!

I did a Google search on "Obama blames America" and this is the result :About 620,000 results!

And who puts these stories out? The biased MSM that also blames America!

They are all biased, MSN, FOX, CNN, et al. Maybe one should consider all points of view and draw your on conclusion.

I never said Fox was not BIASED! They in fact are more conservatively biased then the OTHER network/cable news. YOU ARE RIGHT!!!
But again... look at the facts not attack the messenger!
Tell me if a hack newsperson donates money to a political party as 85% of the MSM did to democrats they certainly want to protect their donation by writing/showing positive stories about GOP and negative about Dems! Are you that naive?

The problem you have Healthmyths is that you think that some how the Media handpicks only liberals from college to enter their industry..

When there is no proof to anyway believe that...

But what is proven is, the people asked to investigate both parties on a daily basis give 88%(your figure) to one party...

To me that shows that they think one is running the country better than the other...

That should be an indicator to you as why you should vote Dem too

One only has to pay attention to the manner, wording used and yes even facial expressions of the on camera talent to see there is an overwhelming liberal bias in news reporting.Anyone who denies that is either a left wing ideologue or simply is not paying attention.
Plus. it is well documented that our institutions of higher learning are bastions of liberalism.

Great, I agree with you that institutions such as Liberty University and George Mason are cesspools of rightwing bias.

No problem with that observations that they are fair and balanced institutions!
Versus THESE FACTS from a former lawyer for the black panthers whose parents were known avowed communists when he was growing up!

During years of labor organizing and the Great Depression, Phil and Blanche Horowitz were long-standing members of the American Communist Party and strong supporters of Joseph Stalin until Khrushchev published his report in 1956 about Stalin's excesses and terrorism of the Soviet populations.
David Horowitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Horowitz:
After the death of Stalin in 1953, his father Phil Horowitz, commenting on how Stalin's numerous official titles had to be divided among his successors, told his son, "You see what a genius Stalin was. It took five men to replace him."[9]

The Horowitz family broke with the American Communist Party after the publication of Nikita Khrushchev's Secret Speech in 1956.

According to Horowitz:
David Horowitz Freedom Center

10 registered Democrat faculty members to 1 registered GOPO ratio
This biased MSM educated by biased liberal (here is a link from a former communist family member David Horowitz)
The vastly disproportionate presence of leftist professors on university campuses across the United States has been well documented.
One of the first studies on this subject was conducted in 2003 by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC, now called the David Horowitz Freedom Center), which examined the ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans on the faculties of 32 elite colleges and universities nationwide.
In its examinations of more than 150 departments and upper-level administrations at the 32 colleges and universities, the CSPC found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans was greater than than 10-to-1 (1,397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).
The One-Party University - Discover the Networks


YET in spite of the BIASED colleges and MSM...
2 of 10 Americans call themselves liberals...
The American public is significantly more likely to identify as conservative or moderate than as liberal, leaving a situation in which about 4 in 10 Americans call themselves conservative, 4 in 10 call themselves moderates, and only about 2 in 10 call themselves liberal.
Most Americans Identify as Either Conservative or Moderate

BUT that is changing with the impact of the liberal/democrat biased educators!