Media Bias

[JoeB131]

So the news isn't just following the stories that get the most ratings or is the most sensational they only report those things to keep your eye off Obama specifically?

Now if you said they cover that type of bullshit to keep us dumb then I'd agree with ya. But you think they are doing what they have always done because one day there will be Obama? That's silly

BTW they are closing a solo factory in MD..

Oh, the OwenMills Plant? I knew a few jerkwads who worked there, and the thought of them getting pink slips almost appeals to my sense of Karma. Instant Karma's going to get you...hmmm..hmmmm..

But come on, if Bush were still president, Borders closing and laying off 11,000 people would be top news. They'd bring a camera into the home of a Border's employee and do a whole weepy thing, because that's what they did during the 2002 recession and what they did during the early part of this one.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I can't figure out the point of watching the news anymore, it doesn't really talk about grown up stories.

FAUX Noise vs. South Park​

 

[Lovebears65]

60 percent of america does not trust the Main Stream media https://papundits.wordpress.com/201...ds-60-percent-have-little-or-no-trust-in-msm/

 

[Mac1958]

60 percent of america does not trust the Main Stream media https://papundits.wordpress.com/201...ds-60-percent-have-little-or-no-trust-in-msm/

Amazing to me that 40% DO trust the media.

The media has been outed. More and more of the public knows that a vast majority of the mainstream media leans to the left and will "report" the "news" with bias. There are still many who don't know that, but that number appears to be decreasing.

.

 

[JoeB131]

60 percent of america does not trust the Main Stream media https://papundits.wordpress.com/201...ds-60-percent-have-little-or-no-trust-in-msm/

Amazing to me that 40% DO trust the media.

The media has been outed. More and more of the public knows that a vast majority of the mainstream media leans to the left and will "report" the "news" with bias. There are still many who don't know that, but that number appears to be decreasing.

.

I agree with that.

However, since I hate Romney so much, I mind a lot less than I normally do.

I think it's a matter of being good news consumers, then. You have to dig a little deeper, get at raw facts, and recognize the level of bias.

 

[Mac1958]

60 percent of america does not trust the Main Stream media https://papundits.wordpress.com/201...ds-60-percent-have-little-or-no-trust-in-msm/

Amazing to me that 40% DO trust the media.

The media has been outed. More and more of the public knows that a vast majority of the mainstream media leans to the left and will "report" the "news" with bias. There are still many who don't know that, but that number appears to be decreasing.

.

I agree with that.

However, since I hate Romney so much, I mind a lot less than I normally do.

I think it's a matter of being good news consumers, then. You have to dig a little deeper, get at raw facts, and recognize the level of bias.

You're right, and that's a source of real frustration for me.

There are still many people who just take what they see on "the news" as fact, just like there are many people who assume that what their doctor tells them is 100% accurate. A news consumer needs to get 2nd and 3rd and 4th opinions, but they simply don't know that. In my little utopian dream world you wouldn't have to do that, you'd get the whole story without bullshit in "the news".

News/politics junkies like us inspect multiple sources naturally. But many of the rest don't.

.

 

[Seawytch]

How biased are the media, really?

Turns out...not so much.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If I were observing the media from a left wing perspective, I'd think they were very accurate.

.

 

[Seawytch]

.

If I were observing the media from a left wing perspective, I'd think they were very accurate.

.

No you wouldn't. If you were viewing it from an actual "left wing" perspective, you'd know that all media is corporate and their only interest is in being the first to report a story. They don't actually care how accurate the story is, as long as they are first.

TV news is good for two things...traffic and weather.

 

[California Girl]

How biased are the media, really?

Turns out...not so much.

You're quoting the media telling your they're not biased. Yea, I can see why you're a sucker.

 

[Seawytch]

How biased are the media, really?

Turns out...not so much.

You're quoting the media telling your they're not biased. Yea, I can see why you're a sucker.

Yeah, I should just take Limbaugh's word for it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If I were observing the media from a left wing perspective, I'd think they were very accurate.

.

No you wouldn't. If you were viewing it from an actual "left wing" perspective, you'd know that all media is corporate and their only interest is in being the first to report a story. They don't actually care how accurate the story is, as long as they are first.

TV news is good for two things...traffic and weather.

I don't think that's the case any more. When I was running around with a pad and pen I'd say that was true. But now news is essentially instantaneous. Your chances of being first are much smaller than in my day. Now, the goal is "reporting" the "news" is doing so in a way that gets the most attention.

So, you quickly create a showy meme, an interesting angle. Then you keep and inflate the information that supports your angle and "forget" to include the rest. And since a vast majority of the "media" is liberal, they're going to naturally create memes that fit their perspective.

Here's what really concerns me: Over the last couple of years, when liberal media bias is pointed out, those who support it have taken an entirely new approach. They are now saying "there isn't always two sides to every story. Sometimes one side doesn't deserve to be told."

What?

So here's their point: The "journalist" is in charge with deciding what parts of a story "deserve" to be told. So, they assume the authority of choosing which parts of the story are included, which are ejected. And that makes it even easier for them to include their various biases in their story, even justifies it.

Does that really sit well with you? Do you want a "journalist" making such decisions for you? Not me. But, again, if I were a leftist I'd be pretty happy with the status quo, since people with whom I agree ideologically are "reporting" the "news".

.

 

[Lovebears65]

60 percent of america does not trust the Main Stream media https://papundits.wordpress.com/201...ds-60-percent-have-little-or-no-trust-in-msm/

Amazing to me that 40% DO trust the media.

The media has been outed. More and more of the public knows that a vast majority of the mainstream media leans to the left and will "report" the "news" with bias. There are still many who don't know that, but that number appears to be decreasing.

.

I agree with that.

However, since I hate Romney so much, I mind a lot less than I normally do.

I think it's a matter of being good news consumers, then. You have to dig a little deeper, get at raw facts, and recognize the level of bias.

So , what your saying you dont mind them telling lies about Romney because you hate him and that will get Obama elected for lying about Romney. WOW. you OBAMANUTS are crazy

 

[Seawytch]

Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's

That was back in April. More recently:

Media hit: Overwhelmingly negative coverage for Obama and Romney

So Romney is finally getting more negative coverage. Is that because there's only two of them now? Maybe. Could also be that Romney keeps stepping in it.

Corporate media shows what they think people want to watch, they don't just report shit that happened.

Guess what? There aren't two sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts. When the corporate media wakes up to that fact, we will get less "biased" media.

We'll have to leave it there. (Krautheimmer voice)

 

[Mac1958]

Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's

That was back in April. More recently:

Media hit: Overwhelmingly negative coverage for Obama and Romney

So Romney is finally getting more negative coverage. Is that because there's only two of them now? Maybe. Could also be that Romney keeps stepping in it.

Corporate media shows what they think people want to watch, they don't just report shit that happened.

Guess what? There aren't two sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts. When the corporate media wakes up to that fact, we will get less "biased" media.

We'll have to leave it there. (Krautheimmer voice)

Indeed, my point exactly.

The press has decided that they will be the arbiter of "the facts", that they will decide when there are not "two sides to every story". Precisely.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that trust in the media has continued to decrease.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's

That was back in April. More recently:

Media hit: Overwhelmingly negative coverage for Obama and Romney

So Romney is finally getting more negative coverage. Is that because there's only two of them now? Maybe. Could also be that Romney keeps stepping in it.

Corporate media shows what they think people want to watch, they don't just report shit that happened.

Guess what? There aren't two sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts. When the corporate media wakes up to that fact, we will get less "biased" media.

We'll have to leave it there. (Krautheimmer voice)

Indeed, my point exactly.

The press has decided that they will be the arbiter of "the facts", that they will decide when there are not "two sides to every story". Precisely.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that trust in the media has continued to decrease.

.

For your reading enjoyment...

How journalistic ‘balance’ fails

 

[Mac1958]

Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's

That was back in April. More recently:

Media hit: Overwhelmingly negative coverage for Obama and Romney

So Romney is finally getting more negative coverage. Is that because there's only two of them now? Maybe. Could also be that Romney keeps stepping in it.

Corporate media shows what they think people want to watch, they don't just report shit that happened.

Guess what? There aren't two sides to every story. Sometimes there are just facts. When the corporate media wakes up to that fact, we will get less "biased" media.

We'll have to leave it there. (Krautheimmer voice)

Indeed, my point exactly.

The press has decided that they will be the arbiter of "the facts", that they will decide when there are not "two sides to every story". Precisely.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that trust in the media has continued to decrease.

.

For your reading enjoyment...

How journalistic ‘balance’ fails

From that piece:

There is a strong tendency on the part of the mainstream media to avoid taking sides – in other words, to avoid reaching conclusions that put the onus of our dysfunctional politics on one party or another or on one candidate or another.

Bingo!

It's not the job of a "reporter" to reach a conclusion. That's the responsibility of the news consumer after they have seen and considered the big picture.

And that's precisely where I disagree with the media and the Left.

.

 

[chikenwing]

Any one with a functioning brain a shred of honesty knows this to be true.

Good example,is Obammas Letterman show,a LATE night show,but before the sun was barely up the next day,they were reporting a large bump for him in the poles. I was up early listening to the radio driving,around 5.30 am,so you tell me how they got the samples and processed the data in just a few short hours,that would have any real credence.

 

[Seawytch]

Indeed, my point exactly.

The press has decided that they will be the arbiter of "the facts", that they will decide when there are not "two sides to every story". Precisely.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that trust in the media has continued to decrease.

.

For your reading enjoyment...

How journalistic ‘balance’ fails

From that piece:

There is a strong tendency on the part of the mainstream media to avoid taking sides – in other words, to avoid reaching conclusions that put the onus of our dysfunctional politics on one party or another or on one candidate or another.

Bingo!

It's not the job of a "reporter" to reach a conclusion. That's the responsibility of the news consumer after they have seen and considered the big picture.

And that's precisely where I disagree with the media and the Left.

.

Yes, it's a problem with the "liberal media" that they don't want to seem too liberal so they fail journalistically.