Sometimes the bias goes a bit too far

[Dante]

The word "pal" is noting new in the mainstream media. It denotes all sorts of things like sexual partners or criminal partners or even business associates or political advisers. The word "pal" is biased only if you think it is biased. For a little perspective on bias the freaking liberal media did a serial story on the Nixon administration with an undisclosed (fake?) informant. Get a life you phony a-holes.

 

[whitehall]

The word "pal" is noting new in the mainstream media. It denotes all sorts of things like sexual partners or criminal partners or even business associates or political advisers. The word "pal" is biased only if you think it is biased. For a little perspective on bias the freaking liberal media did a serial story on the Nixon administration with an undisclosed (fake?) informant. Get a life you phony a-holes.

It's easy to argue with a radical lib. When they get in trouble they use words like cuckoo instead of posting an opinion. I'll say it again, the term "pal" is nothing new in the media. Back when newsprint was scarce the word "pal" was used all the time instead of the longer version of associate, business partner, murder victim, political adviser/prostitute, crime partner and spiritual adviser. Then again Obama is determined to go down in history as a victim. Let's hope he doesn't bring the rest of us down with him.

 

[MikeK]

Bias exists everywhere, it's a part of being human.

Okay okay I an fessing up. I go to the news where the cutest guys are!

I actually rarely watch 24/7 national news anymore. Often tedious and they all repeat the news of the day over and over. Also if people were not such unthinking sheep they would be immune to bias.

I've found the RT (Russia Today) channel to be a very welcome break from the typical news channels. It is sometimes repetitious but usually interesting and occasionally very much so. Also, BBC is a much better source of news than any American tv source (except for Frontline).

 

[Montrovant]

The word "pal" is noting new in the mainstream media. It denotes all sorts of things like sexual partners or criminal partners or even business associates or political advisers. The word "pal" is biased only if you think it is biased. For a little perspective on bias the freaking liberal media did a serial story on the Nixon administration with an undisclosed (fake?) informant. Get a life you phony a-holes.

It's easy to argue with a radical lib. When they get in trouble they use words like cuckoo instead of posting an opinion. I'll say it again, the term "pal" is nothing new in the media. Back when newsprint was scarce the word "pal" was used all the time instead of the longer version of associate, business partner, murder victim, political adviser/prostitute, crime partner and spiritual adviser. Then again Obama is determined to go down in history as a victim. Let's hope he doesn't bring the rest of us down with him.

I have seen it used rarely enough in the news that I don't recall another instance of it (not counting quotes).

 

[George Costanza]

This isn't an attempt to attack FOX and ignore any other media bias; I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias to be found as well.

There isn't a main stream news outlet, or an admittedly liberal news outlet (not sure what theat would be) in the entire WORLD, that comes anywhere NEAR Fox News when it comes to political bias.

Fox News is simply the offical tool of the Republican Party.

We go to a restaurant at least once a week that has a high-def screen up in front of the counter. We like to sit at the counter, so we get to watch what the owner has on. You guessed it. Usually, Hannity is on. I said to my wife just the other night, "Can't this jerk ever say ANYTHING nice or positive?" All I ever see him do is mouth nasty remarks about anything that isn't neocon.

But it isn't just Hannity, who makes no bones about being a Republican shill. Fox News calls morons like Hannity their "opinion section," thereby oozing around the requirement for objective reporting of genuine news. (Never mind the fact that the entire time Hannity is on screen, there is a logo on the screen as well that says: "Fox News." Why doesn't it say: "Fox Opinion"? Answer: because they want to create the impression that the crap Hannity is mouthing is, in fact, news, rather than opinion.)

The real problem I have with Fox is, when they get around to reporting genuine news, it is still biased. It's biased by they way they present it and it's biased by the stories they select to show and the stories they choose not to show. There is nothing worse than propaganda disguised as actual news. That's why Fox News is a threat to democracy.

George, I love ya but do you think you have an unbiased enough eye and ear to even see liberal media bias? You do know it exists, right?

Have you read, "The Republican Noise Machine" by Brock? If you have, you will understand how the Right's claim of "liberal media bias" came into being and why it is maintained so resolutely to this day.

In the 1960's, the Right saw the potential for political gain through the media and began a very concerted plan to accomplish this goal. In order to justify a takeover of the media, it was necessary to convince the population that the Left controlled the media, so all they were doing was trying to gain "equal time." Of course the Left had no control over anything, but that wasn't important. What was important was to create the impression that this was the case - and thusly, the claim of a "liberal mainstream media" was born.

Two things were accompished by this tactic. First, it justified the blatant takeover of the media by the Right and secondly, it made the Left look bad by implying that the Left was doing precisely what the Right was doing, even though the Left was doing no such thing in the first place.

But what about this claim of "liberal media bias"? Does it actually exist? Well, it depends. I will be the first to admit that NPR is decidedly pro-Left in its programming and in its actual presentation. But NPR isn't mainstream media and NPR makes no bones about their emphasis on left-leaning programming.

When the Right talks about "liberal bias" in the media, what they are really talking about is anything that is presented which the Right does not want presented, or anything that is not presented that the Right wants presented. Never mind the inherant merit of the story. When the Right screws up and the mainstream media reports it, the Right claims that this is a "bias" - never mind that it is the TRUTH.

I think that much of what the Right gripes about is simply that - the mainstream media presenting the hard truth of what the Right is all about. Let's face it, these days, the Republican Party is not popular at all. It is the party of wealthy white folks in a nation where former minority races are now in the majority. When the media runs a story about some Republican somewhere advocating immediate deportation of all Mexicans, it is not going to look very good for the Republican Party - once again, even though the story is the truth.

And let's not forget - demonizing a political opponent on both a personal and professional level is a major tactic of the Right. In order to do this, control of the media is necessary. Remember the HUGE national coverage the "Swift Boaters" got when John Kerry was running for president? Last time I looked, that was ALL in the "mainstream media" and it was probably the singular thing that lost the election for Kerry. Turn your AM radio on sometime and dial from conservative talk show to conservative talk show, across the dial and across this entire nation. Try and find anywhere NEAR the same number of liberal talks shows on AM radio. Ask yourself, who controls AM talk radio?

Do I think the mainstream media has a liberal bias? If you want to call not echoing Fox News a bias, then yes, that would be a "liberal bias." In presenting straight news? No, I don't. Do I think NPR has a liberal bias? I do. Do I think Fox News has a conservative bias? Please . . .

 

[George Costanza]

Remember the good old days of news reporting? They just gave you the facts. You had to make up your own mind as to what you thought of the news story. Now, they tell you what you are suppose to think and more often than not the news they tell you isn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Doesn't matter who you are listening to be it CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox or anybody else. It's pretty sad.

I agree. You haven't lived until you have been an integral part of a major news story and then read the account of it in the newspaper the next day. How seemingly intelligent reporters could get even the most basic facts so wrong is beyond me, but it seems to happen every time.

It's like that game where everyone sits in a circle and the first person whispers a story into the ear of the person on their left. The story progresses around the circle in that fashion and when the circle is complete, the last person repeats the story as he/she had it told to them and then their version is compared to the original.

I don't know - maybe messing up is just human nature.

 

[depotoo]

Even if Ayers and Obama WERE pals, considering the article had nothing to do with Obama, putting that in multiple times seems like a clear attempt at a smear to me.

I just wish our media were more concerned with truth than ratings, I suppose. There's not much to do about it, though. Unless people demand objective journalism en mass, the news companies will use the sensationalism that makes them the most money.

It happens all the time by the media on the left. ALL the TIME.

 

[rightwinger]

I go to Foxnews.com pretty much every morning while I eat breakfast. I just have found I like the setup of their site. I've seen some bias, but usually not enough for me to say anything.

I was reading today, as usual, when I saw that one of their headlines was "NOTHING BUT 'A FRAUD'?
Obama's Pal Ayers Blasts Teach for America Program"

Here's a link to the article :Obama pal Bill Ayers calls Teach for America 'a fraud' | Fox News

Now, this article has nothing to do with Obama. It's about a teachers program and Ayers reaction to it. Still, the headline and article call Ayers Obama's pal twice, as well as his confidant. There was no reason to bring up Obama, especially since everything I remember reading has said that he and Ayers were not 'pals'. Acquaintances, perhaps associates, but never close enough to be called pals. This seems like a very clear attempt to smear Obama in a backhanded way.

This isn't an attempt to attack FOX and ignore any other media bias; I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias to be found as well. If I frequented MSNBC.com I'd probably have tons of them. Maybe if I read CNN.com more frequently I'd see more as well. I just felt compelled to post this example after I saw it. It's an egregious example of bias in media IMO.

Finding unslanted news is a pain.

They didn't mention Soros or a birth certificate in the whole article?

Fox is getting soft

 

[whitehall]

Didn't we just play this game? You almost gotta laugh when some phony who claims to "watch Fox every day" pretends to be offended by the word "pal".
We know what's going on. There is a left wing propaganda (tax exempt) site called "newshounds" that monitors every word spoken on Fox (so you won't have to) and spins it for left wing blogs like Huffington. The word "pal" has been used for a hundred years to denote business associates and political comrades. Face it lefties and quit dodging the issue. B. Hussein Obama was the pal of a (former) domestic terrorist and his domestic terrorist wife. They shared political agendas and shared the graft of an endowment fund.

 

[MikeK]

Even if Ayers and Obama WERE pals, considering the article had nothing to do with Obama, putting that in multiple times seems like a clear attempt at a smear to me.

I just wish our media were more concerned with truth than ratings, I suppose. There's not much to do about it, though. Unless people demand objective journalism en mass, the news companies will use the sensationalism that makes them the most money.

It happens all the time by the media on the left. ALL the TIME.

I will concede the left-wing media is biased. But it is neither as aggressively baised nor as blatantly mendacious as is the right-wing media -- which happens to dominate the overall media by a very broad margin.

 

[PredFan]

Thank God for FOX news. Are they biased? Sure. Just as biased against obama as the MSM is FOR obama. Balance, it's a good thing.

 

[Montrovant]

Didn't we just play this game? You almost gotta laugh when some phony who claims to "watch Fox every day" pretends to be offended by the word "pal".
We know what's going on. There is a left wing propaganda (tax exempt) site called "newshounds" that monitors every word spoken on Fox (so you won't have to) and spins it for left wing blogs like Huffington. The word "pal" has been used for a hundred years to denote business associates and political comrades. Face it lefties and quit dodging the issue. B. Hussein Obama was the pal of a (former) domestic terrorist and his domestic terrorist wife. They shared political agendas and shared the graft of an endowment fund.

Assuming you are talking about me....I never said I watch Fox every day. What I said is that I go to their website. And I do. It's nothing to do with preferring Fox's reporting, I just prefer the site setup to a CNN.com or MSNBC.com.

Nor did I say I was offended by the word pal. Instead, I thought the context of it's use was a pretty obvious try to rehash the supposed connection between Ayers and Obama. Real or not, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the article.

What's funny, in a sad sort of way, is that so many people think everyone views the world through some kind of partisan prism as they do. Everything must be about liberal/conservative, or Dem/Repub. Worse, too often (at least on this site) they are right to make such an assumption.

As I said, this was not an attempt to bash Fox. If I went to MSNBC.com all the time instead, I've no doubt I'd find plenty of bias there, too. This is more a gripe at the way bias and sensationalism have replaced whatever objective journalism may have existed in the mainstream news in the past.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank God for FOX news. Are they biased? Sure. Just as biased against obama as the MSM is FOR obama. Balance, it's a good thing.

This is a reasonable response to bias in Fox news. I wish they could all be more objective rather than needing Fox to slant on the other side of the US political spectrum, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Sherry]

Thank God for FOX news. Are they biased? Sure. Just as biased against obama as the MSM is FOR obama. Balance, it's a good thing.

This is a reasonable response to bias in Fox news. I wish they could all be more objective rather than needing Fox to slant on the other side of the US political spectrum, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Bias in the news, whatever source, seems to now answer the demand of a free market. Honestly, the MSM has only themselves to blame for the evolution of a channel such as FOX. If they would not have worked so hard to make so many people feel isolated in their opinions, then they wouldn't have felt the need to seek out a voice which gave them validation in their beliefs. Attempting to cram an agenda down the throats of people will backfire more often than not.

 

[George Costanza]

Thank God for FOX news. Are they biased? Sure. Just as biased against obama as the MSM is FOR obama. Balance, it's a good thing.

Please read this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/271993-sometimes-the-bias-goes-a-bit-too-far-2.html#post6656990

 

[Dante]

The word "pal" is noting new in the mainstream media. It denotes all sorts of things like sexual partners or criminal partners or even business associates or political advisers. The word "pal" is biased only if you think it is biased. For a little perspective on bias the freaking liberal media did a serial story on the Nixon administration with an undisclosed (fake?) informant. Get a life you phony a-holes.

It's easy to argue with a radical lib. When they get in trouble they use words like cuckoo instead of posting an opinion. I'll say it again, the term "pal" is nothing new in the media. Back when newsprint was scarce the word "pal" was used all the time instead of the longer version of associate, business partner, murder victim, political adviser/prostitute, crime partner and spiritual adviser. Then again Obama is determined to go down in history as a victim. Let's hope he doesn't bring the rest of us down with him.