MSM It's Not Just A US Perception Problem

[Annie]

Seems Britain and Germany share our belief in a free press and the problems we have with our press today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7134918.stm

World 'divided' on press freedom
By Torin Douglas
Media correspondent, BBC News

World opinion is divided on the importance of having a free press, according to a poll conducted for the BBC World Service.

Of those interviewed, 56% thought that freedom of the press was very important to ensure a free society.

But 40% said it was more important to maintain social harmony and peace, even if it meant curbing the press's freedom to report news truthfully.

Pollsters interviewed 11,344 people in 14 countries for the survey.

In most of the 14 countries surveyed, press freedom (including broadcasting) was considered more important than social stability.

The strongest endorsement came from North America and Western Europe, where up to 70% put freedom first, followed by Venezuela, Kenya and South Africa, with over 60%.

Although people in Britain value freedom of the press, when we asked about the media's truth and accuracy, respondents were critical
Chris Coulter, pollster ....​

All results including some good graphs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_12_07_worldservicepoll.pdf

 

[midcan5]

In America today, conservative MSM is mostly a corporate tool. Witness the lead up to Iraq. A particular telling instance of how bad American media has become is the situation in New Orleans after Katrina. Does anyone really hear about the true situation there? Does corporate media care for the poor.

I think the wide diversity of media today also works against it being a means of common social knowledge. We used to live in neighborhoods, we watched one of three major broadcast networks, we shared a common bond, all that is lost in suburban-land car-ville.

Anyone hear about that Katrina storm - or should I ask, any one hear about its aftermath.

http://www.justiceforneworleans.org/

http://www.gregpalast.com/“they-wanted-them-poor-*******-out-of-there”/

 

[Gunny]

In America today, conservative MSM is mostly a corporate tool. Witness the lead up to Iraq. A particular telling instance of how bad American media has become is the situation in New Orleans after Katrina. Does anyone really hear about the true situation there? Does corporate media care for the poor.

I think the wide diversity of media today also works against it being a means of common social knowledge. We used to live in neighborhoods, we watched one of three major broadcast networks, we shared a common bond, all that is lost in suburban-land car-ville.

Anyone hear about that Katrina storm - or should I ask, any one hear about its aftermath.

http://www.justiceforneworleans.org/

http://www.gregpalast.com/“they-wanted-them-poor-*******-out-of-there”/

Conservative MSM? Where's that rolling-on-the-floor-dying-of-a-heart-attack emoticon?

 

[tigerbob]

Seems Britain and Germany share our belief in a free press and the problems we have with our press today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7134918.stm



All results including some good graphs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_12_07_worldservicepoll.pdf

Free press is a double-edged sword. Where there is journalistic integrity, a free press is a powerful (possibly as powerful as the ballot box) tool and valued part of a democracy.

Unfortunately, journalistic integrity these days is becoming an oxymoron.

Many of the major news organisations are politically biased one way or the other. The internet has given political activists a venue through which they can promote agendas by disguising their manifestos as bone fide news items and much of the public, poor saps, believe them.

Anyone remember when the Internet was born? It was supposed to herald an information age where everyone would have, at their fingertips, the facts about any issue they cared to investigate. In a way, it has, but how does one separate the wheat from the chaff?

Global Warming is a classic example. Spew out a lot of statistics, carefully edited, and prove that the polar icecaps are melting and it's our fault. Take the same statistics, cut them another way, adjust the confidence index and the sample, and prove exactly the opposite. Which does one believe? The one with the most support? The one with the most credible scientists behind it? Or the one the media reports most?

Even with all those caveats though, I'll take a free press over a 'stable society' any day of the week. Plenty of the most barbarous regimes around the world have appeared to be 'stable', but only those with a genuinely free press could truly be said to be free.

 

[Annie]

Free press is a double-edged sword. Where there is journalistic integrity, a free press is a powerful (possibly as powerful as the ballot box) tool and valued part of a democracy.

Unfortunately, journalistic integrity these days is becoming an oxymoron.

Many of the major news organisations are politically biased one way or the other. The internet has given political activists a venue through which they can promote agendas by disguising their manifestos as bone fide news items and much of the public, poor saps, believe them.

Anyone remember when the Internet was born? It was supposed to herald an information age where everyone would have, at their fingertips, the facts about any issue they cared to investigate. In a way, it has, but how does one separate the wheat from the chaff?

Global Warming is a classic example. Spew out a lot of statistics, carefully edited, and prove that the polar icecaps are melting and it's our fault. Take the same statistics, cut them another way, adjust the confidence index and the sample, and prove exactly the opposite. Which does one believe? The one with the most support? The one with the most credible scientists behind it? Or the one the media reports most?

Even with all those caveats though, I'll take a free press over a 'stable society' any day of the week. Plenty of the most barbarous regimes around the world have appeared to be 'stable', but only those with a genuinely free press could truly be said to be free.

You and I confirm the findings!

 

[Annie]

Liberals protestations to the contrary, it's been evident for many years how the MSM continually slants to the left.

What does seem to be new is a pattern of reporting lies that are easily proven false. Now this is not about TNR's problem with one soldier, no this is 6 stories in less than 6 weeks, with no light of day. The list includes TIME, Reporters Without Borders (and other Western Media that chose to report their report), AP, Reuters, etc:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/its-quagmire-media-reports-6-bogus.html

 

[midcan5]

Except for Faux/Fox news MSM is fairly balanced but leans more conservative than liberal today. I think it has to as the right wignuts have a strong base of hard core believers. Witness many of the posters on USMB. CNN for instance includes several conservatives in prime time shows, you cannot say the same about Faux news.

How did media become more conservative? Forty years of bashing it as (biased) liberal has helped, but also it the human penchant to avoid controversy or to want to appear fair and balanced. Media income is based on its advertisement revenue, does any company want to be associated with controversy? or even complexity. On-line material 'sometimes' tells the truth.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200608030006
survey of readership
http://people-press.org/reports/tables/282.pdf

 

[William Joyce]

The media isn't so much "right" or "left" as it is Jewish. That explains why it would tilt liberal on domestic issues, and why it would lead us to war in the Middle East.

http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/

I was talking about this with a relative recently, and she actually said, "But I haven't seen anything about this so-called Jewish control of the media."

Um, right...

 

[Annie]

Except for Faux/Fox news MSM is fairly balanced but leans more conservative than liberal today. I think it has to as the right wignuts have a strong base of hard core believers...



http://mediamatters.org/items/200608030006
survey of readership
http://people-press.org/reports/tables/282.pdf

Media matters, who they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters

Media Matters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Media Matters can refer to:

* Media Matters for America, a "progressive media and information center" founded by author David Brock, which monitors the media for alleged right wing bias
* Media Matters, a weekly radio program hosted by media scholar Prof. Bob McChesney
* Media Matters, a trade magazine publisher located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
* Media Matters, a media relations and pr firm located in Kansas City, MO (816) 560-6713.

As for the PEW poll, it's nothing more than data, there's no methodology, no conclusion regarding squat.

That is your response to peer reviewed studies. I thought you a brighter

 

[tigerbob]

The media isn't so much "right" or "left" as it is Jewish. That explains why it would tilt liberal on domestic issues, and why it would lead us to war in the Middle East.

http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/

I was talking about this with a relative recently, and she actually said, "But I haven't seen anything about this so-called Jewish control of the media."

Um, right...

Further to my earlier post, that's a good example of someone disguising a manifesto as a news item. And of course it doesn't take much Googling to come up with the other side of the coin.

http://counterpunch.com/solomon05082006.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200404280855.asp

http://discardedlies.com/entry/?25810_

Tell your relative that if he / she googles "US Media", "Jewish Influence", it's possible to find enough articles to stoke many a heated debate. Here's a starter...

http://www.compuserb.com/mediain1.htm

One thing about the internet. It does allow people to have the convenience of an opinion without the inconvenience of having to think.

 

[Gunny]

Except for Faux/Fox news MSM is fairly balanced but leans more conservative than liberal today. I think it has to as the right wignuts have a strong base of hard core believers. Witness many of the posters on USMB. CNN for instance includes several conservatives in prime time shows, you cannot say the same about Faux news.

How did media become more conservative? Forty years of bashing it as (biased) liberal has helped, but also it the human penchant to avoid controversy or to want to appear fair and balanced. Media income is based on its advertisement revenue, does any company want to be associated with controversy? or even complexity. On-line material 'sometimes' tells the truth.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200608030006
survey of readership
http://people-press.org/reports/tables/282.pdf

Dude, you need to lay off that Kool Aid. It ain't helping you a bit.

 

[trobinett]

If you look towards the media today for anything, other than an opinion, your in trouble.

 

[midcan5]

Media matters, who they are:

As for the PEW poll, it's nothing more than data, there's no methodology, no conclusion regarding squat.

That is your response to peer reviewed studies. I thought you a brighter

MM who are they??? your reply isn't clear, all information needs to be critically examined but outright denial for no clear reason is not being critical or even a start of an examination of their pov.

The Pew study is used for propaganda by Bozell, you can clearly see his bias in the MM piece. "For example, the very same Pew study Bozell cited shows that the percentage of Democrats (6 percent) who regularly watch C-SPAN is twice than that of Republicans (3 percent). Under Bozell's reasoning, the cable network that broadcasts Senate hearings and House floor debates and the like must be a "liberal" network. The study also found that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats read newspapers online (10 percent, compared with 8 percent, respectively.) It follows, then, that newspapers -- the online versions -- are "conservative.""

This is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking you see in most of the propagandist threads you start. Reveals your own biases but nothing more.

Peer review? not sure where that came from but peers often praise because they are peers.

 

[Annie]

MM who are they??? your reply isn't clear, all information needs to be critically examined but outright denial for no clear reason is not being critical or even a start of an examination of their pov.

The Pew study is used for propaganda by Bozell, you can clearly see his bias in the MM piece. "For example, the very same Pew study Bozell cited shows that the percentage of Democrats (6 percent) who regularly watch C-SPAN is twice than that of Republicans (3 percent). Under Bozell's reasoning, the cable network that broadcasts Senate hearings and House floor debates and the like must be a "liberal" network. The study also found that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats read newspapers online (10 percent, compared with 8 percent, respectively.) It follows, then, that newspapers -- the online versions -- are "conservative.""

This is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking you see in most of the propagandist threads you start. Reveals your own biases but nothing more.

Peer review? not sure where that came from but peers often praise because they are peers.

You don't seem to comprehend 'peer review' i.e., replicated results. Or you are trying to raise false flags.

My initial impression of you was wrong, never mind.

 

[Larkinn]

What does seem to be new is a pattern of reporting lies that are easily proven false. Now this is not about TNR's problem with one soldier, no this is 6 stories in less than 6 weeks, with no light of day. The list includes TIME, Reporters Without Borders (and other Western Media that chose to report their report), AP, Reuters, etc:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/its-quagmire-media-reports-6-bogus.html

Well the media is all lying, and how do we know? Because bloggers say so.

 

[Annie]

Well the media is all lying, and how do we know? Because bloggers say so.

and you are incapable of following links?

 

[Larkinn]

Media matters, who they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters



As for the PEW poll, it's nothing more than data, there's no methodology, no conclusion regarding squat.

That is your response to peer reviewed studies. I thought you a brighter

And which studies that you posted were peer reviewed? By the way, the ones showing that journalists tend to be democrats is bullshit unless you can also show me a link between how they vote and how they report.

 

[Larkinn]

and you are incapable of following links?

Ah well they have links, that must mean he is a credible source, right?

First link, where does it go to...his own blog. Oh but its a link so it counts, right?

Second link...to a picture with Arabic writing. Can you read the Arabic ? Care to confirm what it says? No? Then we just don't know, do we?

third link...to a report which states:

The incident remains under investigation

. But he doesn't want to wait for it to clear...nope he can't wait to claim the media lied.

 

[Annie]

Well the media is all lying, and how do we know? Because bloggers say so.

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=631846&postcount=6

 

[Larkinn]

Media matters, who they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters



As for the PEW poll, it's nothing more than data, there's no methodology, no conclusion regarding squat.

That is your response to peer reviewed studies. I thought you a brighter

And Mediaresearch.org is the self-proclaimed "leader in documenting, exposing, and neutralizing liberal bias". Well its ok to cite an anti-liberal group for how liberal the media is, but if you cite a liberal group, well thats preoposterous!