The Media's Liberal Bias

[Annie]

I see your point, though Fox is most definitely slanted to the right. But the thing I would ask is whether you think media needs to be "objective" and not make any determination as to which side is being truthful or has acted most appropriately?

Personally, i think it's okay for media to make moral judgments and I think that investigative reporters are obligated to make those judgments. If no judgments were ever made, Watergate wouldn't have been reported by the Washington Post.

And, if (and NO, I'm not drawing a comparison of any kind to anyone living or dead) IF the media were watching evil like that which existed during WWII, isn't it incumbant on the press as government watchdogs (the Fourth Estate and all that) to take a stand?

Hmm, FOX didn't come out as right wing in University of Chicago/Stanford study:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Then there is this post, with quite a few links on the 'worst media':
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=229807#post229807

 

[William Joyce]

What are progressives progressing toward?

Excellent question. Rarely answered.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hmm, FOX didn't come out as right wing in University of Chicago/Stanford study:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Then there is this post, with quite a few links on the 'worst media':
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=229807#post229807

Although that report does have its flaws.. http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/drudge.html

 

[Annie]

Although that report does have its flaws.. http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/drudge.html

Funny how they haven't replicated the findings, while controlling for their 'issues'.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I see your point, though Fox is most definitely slanted to the right. But the thing I would ask is whether you think media needs to be "objective" and not make any determination as to which side is being truthful or has acted most appropriately?

Personally, i think it's okay for media to make moral judgments and I think that investigative reporters are obligated to make those judgments. If no judgments were ever made, Watergate wouldn't have been reported by the Washington Post.

And, if (and NO, I'm not drawing a comparison of any kind to anyone living or dead) IF the media were watching evil like that which existed during WWII, isn't it incumbant on the press as government watchdogs (the Fourth Estate and all that) to take a stand?

"Media" is such a broad word it covers a lot of things. Reporting the news is media, but commentary is considered media too, so it all depends on exactly what it is. When it comes to things like investigative reporting, making moral judgements is basically what that kind of thing is built on. Thing is, moral judgement is kind of built on giving both sides of the story, which often doesn't happen. The Bush National Guard document fiasco with CBS in '04 is a prime example. They had talked to people saying they didn't think the documents were real, including the daughter of the man that supposedly wrote it, but they said nothing about it on the air. They gave absolutely no air time to the opposing view, and that is a blatent disreguard for basic joarnalism.

Watch dogs are fine, but don't make soemthing out of nothing trying to justify being a watch dog. on the opposite side of that coin, media shouldn't apologize (for lack of a better phrase) to the enemy. Using the WWII reference with some of today's media, I could easily see someone damning the United States for daring to attack a dog loving, decorated war hero.

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny how they haven't replicated the findings, while controlling for their 'issues'.

Although there is one really obvious flaw in their study. If a conservative spokesperson says "the NY Times sux" on Fox, Fox gets a point for mentioning a liberal source. They have not taken into account context...

 

[Annie]

Although there is one really obvious flaw in their study. If a conservative spokesperson says "the NY Times sux" on Fox, Fox gets a point for mentioning a liberal source. They have not taken into account context...

Funny how since there has been an increase in alternative sources of MSM media: the networks, CNN, and daily/weekly, have seen viewership/readership plunge even more rapidly. FOX by and large, hasn't had that problem. Perhaps even more interesting of all, when it comes to written alternative media, there are far more liberal outlets than conservative. Yet, the message keeps going on. Weird that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny how since there has been an increase in alternative sources of MSM media: the networks, CNN, and daily/weekly, have seen viewership/readership plunge even more rapidly. FOX by and large, hasn't had that problem. Perhaps even more interesting of all, when it comes to written alternative media, there are far more liberal outlets than conservative. Yet, the message keeps going on. Weird that.

You make a fair point. However, with cable networks, their ratings barely make the margin or error....

 

[jillian]

Funny how since there has been an increase in alternative sources of MSM media: the networks, CNN, and daily/weekly, have seen viewership/readership plunge even more rapidly. FOX by and large, hasn't had that problem. Perhaps even more interesting of all, when it comes to written alternative media, there are far more liberal outlets than conservative. Yet, the message keeps going on. Weird that.

I don't agree with your premise that there are far more liberal outlets than conservative. Talk radio is saturated with right wing hosts as is the blogosphere...not to mention things like Drudge, the WashTimes and NY Post. Most "MSM" in this country is owned by five major corporations, (e.g, clear channel and murdoch) all of which have business before the FCC and rely upon it to approve purchase and sale of outlets. Clear Channel, for one, was one of the largest contributors to the Republican party...and Murdoch is an avowed conservative, too.

 

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Kathianne
Funny how since there has been an increase in alternative sources of MSM media: the networks, CNN, and daily/weekly, have seen viewership/readership plunge even more rapidly. FOX by and large, hasn't had that problem. Perhaps even more interesting of all, when it comes to written alternative media, there are far more liberal outlets than conservative. Yet, the message keeps going on. Weird that.

I don't agree with your premise that there are far more liberal outlets than conservative. Talk radio is saturated with right wing hosts as is the blogosphere...not to mention things like Drudge, the WashTimes and NY Post. Most "MSM" in this country is owned by five major corporations, (e.g, clear channel and murdoch) all of which have business before the FCC and rely upon it to approve purchase and sale of outlets. Clear Channel, for one, was one of the largest contributors to the Republican party...and Murdoch is an avowed conservative, too.

by alternative media I was referring to blogs, emagazines, vcasts, podcasts, etc. Talk radio isn't new, isn't 'alternative'. Alternative media isn't 'owned' by any but the contributor(s)-Cost is near zip, unless you are taking it on the road, like Michael Yon or Michael Totten.

 

[jillian]

by alternative media I was referring to blogs, emagazines, vcasts, podcasts, etc. Talk radio isn't new, isn't 'alternative'. Alternative media isn't 'owned' by any but the contributor(s)-Cost is near zip, unless you are taking it on the road, like Michael Yon or Michael Totten.

I see your point. But I think "alternative media", with very few exceptions, both left and right, aren't the most reliable of sources. And they aren't where most people get their perceptions. Those come largely from talk radio and the major news stations.

Anyway, off and running for now.

Interesting discussion.

Laterz!

 

[Annie]

I see your point. But I think "alternative media", with very few exceptions, both left and right, aren't the most reliable of sources. And they aren't where most people get their perceptions. Those come largely from talk radio and the major news stations.

Anyway, off and running for now.

Interesting discussion.

Laterz!

I'd trust many of the alternative sources before the likes of NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, and the Strib. Not too mention the pointless drivel of network 'news', Time and Newsweek.

 

[jillian]

I'd trust many of the alternative sources before the likes of NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, and the Strib. Not too mention the pointless drivel of network 'news', Time and Newsweek.

You're certainly free to make that determination of course. I just think that makes ones source of information questionable Different strokes and all.

Really, really have to run now....

see ya...

 

[Annie]

You're certainly free to make that determination of course. I just think that makes ones source of information questionable Different strokes and all.

Really, really have to run now....

see ya...

Same to be said of those that are relying on those that hide news, spin news, manufacture news. The alternative media however, has a very swift editing board, called the public. You really seem bright enough to find out more. But as you say, different strokes and all.

 

[jillian]

Same to be said of those that are relying on those that hide news, spin news, manufacture news. The alternative media however, has a very swift editing board, called the public. You really seem bright enough to find out more. But as you say, different strokes and all.

Everyone "spins" news. And news shouldn't be "edited" by popular proclamation. Things are either true or not. Things happen or they do not. I figure the people who write the news should have more information than joe public.

That said, I've rarely seen an accurate news story on anything about which I have first-hand knowledge....from media of any type. I just don't go for news written by people sitting at computers who have no more information than I do.

 

[Darwins Friend]

So their coverage of everything that happened on say 9/11, was slanted, bias and one-sided? They didn’t just report the news, but changed it to make the current administration look bad, or to promote some conspiracy theory on how Bush or Cheney somehow arranged the whole thing?

What ever happened to being able to function as an independent human being, you know - with a spine, questioning everything and coming up with your own perspective - versus - being some blinky fool’s automaton?

 

[Annie]

Everyone "spins" news. And news shouldn't be "edited" by popular proclamation. Things are either true or not. Things happen or they do not. I figure the people who write the news should have more information than joe public.

That said, I've rarely seen an accurate news story on anything about which I have first-hand knowledge....from media of any type. I just don't go for news written by people sitting at computers who have no more information than I do.

You think the MSM hasn't bias? I too do not go for news by someone sitting at a computer. However, I do read those that are in financial, legal, and business; for financial, legal, and business news. I read political from those in government. I read about the war progress from a variety of milbloggers and those 'writers' that choose to fun their own way to embed. Via Michael Yon or Michael Totten to name but two.

To ignore the fact that even the MSM is relying on video from 'citizens' would be foolhardy. Did Rathergate escape your notice?

 

[sitarro]

Although that report does have its flaws.. http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/drudge.html

"Drudge may have passed into obscurity had it not been for a story he posted on his website about a story Newsweek chose not to run: a story about a White House intern and her inappropriate relationship with former President Bill Clinton. Once Drudge broke his story, Newsweek really had no choice but to run theirs. Thus began one of the costliest and pointless investigations in the history of this nation. Congress spent more than $4 billion dollars and untold hours trying unsuccessfully to impeach Clinton for lying about a personal matter Congress had no business sticking their nose in to begin with. (And yet this current president has lied, violated laws, international treaties and only now are we even beginning to hear the word "impeach". Go figure!)"

4 billion dollars was spent by Congress? Really? Doesn't that seem just a bit high even to a self proclaiming progressive like yourself? Anyone that would read such tripe is suspect but to actually refer to it as a point in an argument, that is really funny. I understand that fags will believe almost anything but come on.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/60minutes/main620619.shtml


Mr. Clinton also explains that he eventually settled a sexual harassment suit brought by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, not because he was guilty, he still insists, but to make it go away. And he says that Starr came up nearly empty in what he calls an “outlaw renegade investigation.”

“It cost over $70 million. And we were exonerated in Whitewater, exonerated in the Vince Foster suicide, exonerated in the campaign finance reform. Exonerated in the White House travel office deal. Exonerated in the FBI file case,” says Mr. Clinton.

“The judge ruled that the Jones case had absolutely no merit. There was nothing left but my personal failing. That's what people got for over $70 million. They indicted innocent people because they wouldn't lie. And they exonerated people who committed crimes because they would lie. And they did it because it was nothing but a big political operation designed to bring down the presidency.”

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Talk radio is saturated with right wing hosts as is the blogosphere

1) I don't consider that "news"

2) There are plenty of liberal blogs too. Conservative ones may outnumber them because many of them got into blogging to counter MSM BS.

...not to mention things like Drudge, the WashTimes and NY Post.

Even with all that, in most markets, the more liberal publication usually has more subscribers. Also, liberals still dominate ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Most "MSM" in this country is owned by five major corporations, (e.g, clear channel and murdoch) all of which have business before the FCC and rely upon it to approve purchase and sale of outlets.

So? That doesn't affect the slant much.

 

[Dr Grump]

4 billion dollars was spent by Congress? Really? Doesn't that seem just a bit high even to a self proclaiming progressive like yourself? Anyone that would read such tripe is suspect but to actually refer to it as a point in an argument, that is really funny. I understand that fags will believe almost anything but come on.

Are you addressing me or making a general statement?