The people have spoken: the media is largely biased

[nomdeplume]

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

"A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win."

The vast majority of jounalists are dumbocrats leftists. So this next part is no surprise:

"political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias."

What? No bias here! Drink some fucking kool-aid and shut up.

"Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage."

 

[Foxfyre]

This has been the case since the children of the 60's grew up to populate the newsrooms of the nation and have mentored others of like mind until the disparity between Left and Right has become ridiculous. I have formerly worked for newspapers, for television, and for radio, and this has been a phenomenon angering, sad, and alarming to watch unfold. Fully 75-80% of those in control of your nightly news or your daily papers are Leftish in their ideology; some extremely so. This accounts for the huge popularity of internet media sources and and talk radio which provides the only reliable mass media forum the Right has remaining.

 

[Steerpike]

It's been the case a lot longer than that. Read Alexis DeTocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. He talks about the media and politics in that book, and it was published in the 1830s I think.

 

[nomdeplume]

As a rule, lefties know that most of their arguments are completely bogus and often utitlize the "noble lie" variant of marxism to accomplish their more insidious ends. Because of that, they have a compelling need to secure positions where they dole out information to the public: the media, education, heads of unions, etc.

 

[jillian]

As a rule, lefties know that most of their arguments are completely bogus and often utitlize the "noble lie" variant of marxism to accomplish their more insidious ends. Because of that, they have a compelling need to secure positions where they dole out information to the public: the media, education, heads of unions, etc.

Executive Summary

The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think.

In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton's second term, President George W. Bush's first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.

Media Matters - If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005

 

[nomdeplume]

Media Matters - If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005

Oh, lookie. It's the zionist Jew, quoting Media Morons no less.

How ironically apropos.

 

[Chris]

As a rule, lefties know that most of their arguments are completely bogus and often utitlize the "noble lie" variant of marxism to accomplish their more insidious ends. Because of that, they have a compelling need to secure positions where they dole out information to the public: the media, education, heads of unions, etc.

Damn those educated people!

 

[nomdeplume]

Damn those educated people!

Miseducated.

 

[Ravi]

Could be that people are brainwashed by people that have been saying the media is biased toward one side or the other all these years.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's been the case a lot longer than that. Read Alexis DeTocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. He talks about the media and politics in that book, and it was published in the 1830s I think.

But even in the 1950's and at least most of the 60's, there was a discipline to the press along with a sense of honor and ethics that was rigidly enforced. Except for the odious rags specializing in yellow journalism, all of which were despised by the mainstream media, there was no such thing as printing a story that could damage a person's reputation until it had been checked and cross checked and could be verified by unimpeachable sources. You could not detect any kind of bias in an un-bylined newstory and most were un-bylined. Even in those that did merit a byline, the reporter's personal bias was limited to informed opinion with a minimum of negative adjectives and adverbs and no gratuitous innuendo allowed. There was a code of strict journalistic ethics that nobody who valued their position dared violate. It was a code that no longer exists.

It has been replaced by highly partisan hacks who are advocates for a person or a cause and who are not required to expected to give complete or thorough coverage to both sides of any story or issue. MediaMatters that Jillian cited is one of the worst examples of that providing neither competent nor honest analysis of much of anything. There remain a few shining stars out there who still do competent journalism, even great journalism, but they are becoming increasingly rare.

 

[nomdeplume]

Could be that people are brainwashed by people that have been saying the media is biased toward one side or the other all these years.

Brainwashed by whom? The media? ROFL. You don't have a single functioning brain cell in that tiny head of yours, do ya?

 

[CharlestonChad]

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

"A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win."

The vast majority of jounalists are dumbocrats leftists. So this next part is no surprise:

"political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias."

What? No bias here! Drink some fucking kool-aid and shut up.

"Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage."

I think this is how you justify losing elections. You tell yourself that the republicans are correct on everything, but the liberal media tricks the public into voting for democrats. It has nothing to do with republicans being inefficient and/or misguided, it's the liberal media. You probably think Iraq is sunshine and rainbows and the media just reports the bad. You probably think obama is a muslim communist, and the media doesn't report it.

 

[editec]

Yes, they're biased.

Biased into creating two opposing viewpoints regardless of the subject at hand.

Biased to create conflict through the careful selection of stories that in no way give people a clear picture of what their world is like, what the average aamerican is like, what anything is really like.

Biased?

You bet.

 

[Ravi]

Brainwashed by whom? The media? ROFL. You don't have a single functioning brain cell in that tiny head of yours, do ya?

No, by people like you that keep screaming liberal media. If there really was a liberal media and it had the power you think it does, the liberals would rule the world. Not much different than your hatred of Jews, really.

Stupid.

 

[Charles_Main]

This has been the case since the children of the 60's grew up to populate the newsrooms of the nation and have mentored others of like mind until the disparity between Left and Right has become ridiculous. I have formerly worked for newspapers, for television, and for radio, and this has been a phenomenon angering, sad, and alarming to watch unfold. Fully 75-80% of those in control of your nightly news or your daily papers are Leftish in their ideology; some extremely so. This accounts for the huge popularity of internet media sources and and talk radio which provides the only reliable mass media forum the Right has remaining.

No this has been the case since the Birth of our nation. News Papers back in the Old days were just as partisan as news outlets today, the only difference is we think they were not. Go read some of the articles and Editorials from the Civil War days, Clearly Media being Biased for one Cadidate or The Other is Nothing new at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

No this has been the case since the Birth of our nation. News Papers back in the Old days were just as partisan as news outlets today, the only difference is we think they were not. Go read some of the articles and Editorials from the Civil War days, Clearly Media being Biased for one Cadidate or The Other is Nothing new at all.

Do not confuse editorials with news reporting. Bias has always been allowed in editorials though the same rules about not impuning one's reputation or character without supportable proof was still a no no even then. As to whether they had a journalistic code of ethics at that time, I don't know, but by the early 1900's, one was firmly in place and it did serve us well. We were still misinformed by the media from time to time, but we were far less likely to suffer that than we are now.

 

[Charles_Main]

Do not confuse editorials with news reporting. Bias has always been allowed in editorials though the same rules about not impuning one's reputation or character without supportable proof was still a no no even then. As to whether they had a journalistic code of ethics at that time, I don't know, but by the early 1900's, one was firmly in place and it did serve us well. We were still misinformed by the media from time to time, but we were far less likely to suffer that than we are now.

No I am not talking about Editorials. I am talking about coverage. What gets covered and what does not. I would argue that to some extend news papers in say Lincolns day Were even more biased then today, and did not even try to hide it. I suggest you read some history. The Idea that the media has only recently gotten away from being impartial is a joke. Not all, but most media has always been biased in some way. It is inevitable really as in the end the Media is just people, and people have biases.

This is the same reason that even though most large media outlets are owned by Right wing people the actual reporting comes off skewed left for the most part. Because it is People that are reporters, and editors, and those people Admit to being democrat by nearly 70%.

 

[Foxfyre]

No I am not talking about Editorials. I am talking about coverage. What gets covered and what does not. I would argue that to some extend news papers in say Lincolns day Were even more biased then today, and did not even try to hide it. I suggest you read some history. The Idea that the media has only recently gotten away from being impartial is a joke. Not all, but most media has always been biased in some way. It is inevitable really as in the end the Media is just people, and people have biases.

This is the same reason that even though most large media outlets are owned by Right wing people the actual reporting comes off skewed left for the most part. Because it is People that are reporters, and editors, and those people Admit to being democrat by nearly 70%.

WHAT gets covered is governed by newsworthiness and any number of factors and that can be based on partiality. Partiality is not the same thing as bias however. HOW something gets covered reflects bias, prejudice, or whatever.

By the way, I was a journalism/mass communications major with a history minor. Maybe I haven't read as much media history as you, but I have read a bit of history even about newspapers and news coverage. I've probably lived longer than you too and have witnessed quite a bit more first hand.

 

[midcan5]

It genuinely astounds me that most people see the news as biased liberal. It demonstrates a lack of experience and I think analysis. Even the so called liberal New York Times supported and helped set the stage for the war in Iraq. Ask yourself how that could happen given the fact protests in this country and throughout the world were against the senseless, illegal invasion?

But the righties need a scapegoat so bad news must be biased news. The trouble is I wish the media were liberal and brought to the attention of the working class and the diminishing middle class the rip offs in wages, benefits, and fairness in our society. When only 4% of our tax dollar goes to supporting the so called socialism of entitlements you soon realize corporate American has the fools tethered to nonsense.

Media cannot be liberal as they are owned by corporations and they are supported by corporations and corporations' goal is profit not justice. Sorry folks, believe if you must, but like so many myths there is no truth in it.

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215176375&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War: Joe Bageant: Books[/ame]

 

[editec]

News Papers back in the Old days were just as partisan as news outlets today, the only difference is we think they were not. Go read some of the articles and Editorials from the Civil War days, Clearly Media being Biased for one Cadidate or The Other is Nothing new at all.

SPOT ON, Bass.

And the bias of the media was evident from the first elections onward, too.

The slanders and dirty tricks started back in the days of Jefferson,. Adams, Hamilton and Burr.