Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Main Stream Media Bias?
Topic Started: Apr 16 2004, 09:18 AM (523 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

There is a lot of talk about the main stream media being biased towards the left. Fox News is generally considered to be biased towards the right. However, when I compare Fox News to CNN in terms of news coverage they seem about the same. Clearly Rush and Air America and other commentators have their established views but can it really be said that news coverage is biased one way or the other? Can you provide an example to back your claim?
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I don’t care for the left or right, so maybe I am not qualified to answer this question, because my heart just isn’t in it. But, I do recognize one of the arguments to be true - why don’t we see the good things that are happening in Iraqi?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

But the same news coverage of bad events in Iraq is being reported by Fox News. I don't think anyone would argue that Fox News has a liberal bias.
| Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
News is a business.

Good news is boring, therefore people don't watch. If people don't watch then the advertisers don't advertise. If the advertisers don't advertise the station makes no money and goes off the air. Conclusion, show more controversial news and the advertisers will come and you will make money.

I don't think the media is biased. Just out to make all the money they can. (like everyone else) :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Minuet
Apr 16 2004, 11:52 AM
News is a business.

Good news is boring, therefore people don't watch. If people don't watch then the advertisers don't advertise. If the advertisers don't advertise the station makes no money and goes off the air. Conclusion, show more controversial news and the advertisers will come and you will make money.

I don't think the media is biased. Just out to make all the money they can. (like everyone else) :shrug:

^^^

Thats what I was going to say, you hit the nail right on the head.


Killings, bombings, kidnappings etc in Iraq are dramatic, they get the headlines. There are programs out there that report good stories, but they arent technically news programs. scary stuff catches your attention.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
It isn't just the material, it is HOW it is reported.

I'll give a prime example. Dan Rather, during Clinton's impeachment, called testimony "Questions about Bill Clinton's sex life" when the testimony was actually about perjury.

The lamestream media ran with "it's just about sex." No, it was just about perjury, subournation of perjury, misleading testimony, influencing witnesses, and obstruction of justice.

I listen to CBS news at the top of every hour (my local talk radio station carries it). The sonorous voice of Christopher Glenn does little to mask his bias when talking about the Bush Administration, the economy, the Iraqi war, et cetera.

As I've said: loathsome.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
The bias in the media is found in the adjectives a reporter or talking head chooses to use - for example, is a reduction of a planned budget increase reported as such or does the talking head characterize it as a draconian 'budget cut'?

9 times out of 10, I'd bet Dan Rather calls it a budget cut versus a reduction in the budget increase.

Another place where there is a great deal of bias and where FoxNews is absolutely a right wing news outlet is in the commentary, round table type shows and not the hard news.

Just look at the difference between CNN and FoxNews on Sunday morning, and you'll quickly understand what I mean.

One other media type to consider is the infotainment type shows, like Bill Maher's show. Bill Maher infurated me to the point I could no longer watch him, because when he puts his discussion panels together, he usually chooses 3 liberals, plus himself, and then a conservative who's generally unknown and ineffectual, and if they are not ineffectual, they are shouted down by 4 people.

Contrast that with the new Dennis Miller Show on CNBC and you should see light years in difference.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Here is a good example from the social side of the political spectrum,

The LA Times as well as most other news organizations now refuse to refer to the Pro-Life organizations as Pro-Life. They call the Anti-Choice or Anti-Abortion. Why? Because they're afraid of affending people who aren't pro-life by implying that they are against life.

They still refer to the Pro-Abortion crowd as Pro-Choice. They don't feel as though they are offending those who are Pro-Life by implying that they oppose choice (any kind of choice). Why don't they call them Anti-Life, if the Pro-Lifers are called Anti-Choice?

Because the news media is very biased toward those who are in favor of legalized abortion. So, those who are against abortion are refered to as Anti-Choice, a very undemocratic and negative description.

Yes the dominant news media is biased toward the left, I reallized this as a youth when watching the coverage of Ronald Reagan vs. what Ronald Reagan actually said.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
I think the mere fact that most people believe there is media bias proves that there is this bias. The only thing that can truly determine media bias in the US is US citizens, so if they detect this bias as a majority it probably exists. I don't think the debate is so much, "Is there bias" as "How big or little is the bias." Just look at how CNN increased the volume on Howard Dean's yell to make people like him less. I mean, that's the same as lieing in my opinion, and if you're willing to lie for a purpose, you're biased.

=====================================================

Through a series of nine polls, most of which were conducted by outside sources, the editors of a new book, And That's the Way it Is(n't) by Bozell and Baker, have examined the political beliefs of those working for the major media.

What do Reporters Believe?

The 1981 Lichter-Rothman study surveyed political attitudes and voting patterns of 240 journalists working for such major media as The New York Times, the Washington Post, US News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal and all the networks. Key findings included:

* 90 percent favored abortion.
* 80 percent supported affirmative action.
* 81 percent voted Democratic in every election from 1964-72.
* Most blamed the U.S. for Third World poverty.

An excerpt from that study says journalists emerge "as strong supporters of environmental protection, affirmative action, women's rights, homosexual rights, and sexual freedom in general.

The survey of media elite and future reporters found:

* More than 80 percent of each group seldom or never attend religious services.
* Less than eight percent attend church regularly and nearly half claim no religious affiliation.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
Bias Schmias. So we know where to go for the democratic slant and where to go for the republican slant.

Where does C-SPAN fall in all of this?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
Dandandat
Apr 16 2004, 09:36 AM
I don’t care for the left or right, so maybe I am not qualified to answer this question, because my heart just isn’t in it. But, I do recognize one of the arguments to be true - why don’t we see the good things that are happening in Iraqi?

My heart isn't in it too. I think we should ask K. Rupert Murdoch to just air the good things that happen in Iraq.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Why don't we ask Ted Turner, while we're at it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Of course the media is biased!!!

It's all a communist plot to take over our minds and make us subservient drones to a big brother world government that wants to strip us of every shred of individuality we have!!!!! Oh, the humanity!!!!!! :cry:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Apr 16 2004, 09:06 PM
Of course the media is biased!!!

It's all a communist plot to take over our minds and make us subservient drones to a big brother world government that wants to strip us of every shred of individuality we have!!!!! Oh, the humanity!!!!!! :cry:

Its good to see you back Sisko...
but such dismissing of the subject is not an argument.




My comments to all.
If the media is left, those on the left will think they are fair wont they? further consertives will think its unfair - (wich is exacly whats going on here.)

If it was fair then both sides would find it unfair.

If it was right, the right would think its fair and the left would think its unfair.


Kinda of makes you wonder.


Like I said I don’t my heart is not in this debate, as I don’t like the right or the left. But I can tell you from where I am sitting there is something wrong with the news industries, no matter where its coming from it needs to be fixed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 16 2004, 01:16 PM
It isn't just the material, it is HOW it is reported.

I'll give a prime example. Dan Rather, during Clinton's impeachment, called testimony "Questions about Bill Clinton's sex life" when the testimony was actually about perjury.

The lamestream media ran with "it's just about sex." No, it was just about perjury, subournation of perjury, misleading testimony, influencing witnesses, and obstruction of justice.

I listen to CBS news at the top of every hour (my local talk radio station carries it). The sonorous voice of Christopher Glenn does little to mask his bias when talking about the Bush Administration, the economy, the Iraqi war, et cetera.

As I've said: loathsome.

Yeah, so when they couldn't get him for anything meaningful at a cost of millions, they get him for lying about a bj. Whoopie. If it was me (which it wouldn't be) and my wife was sitting there watching, I'd lie too.

It was sex and there was no good reason to go there in the first place, except that it killed the right that they could not get anything else on the man that would stick. (Uh, maybe stick was a bad choice...). Geez - how many millions to prove Clinton got a bj?

Many government workers I know made the best argument for punishing him for the "crime" - he did it on government time whilst on the clock. That's a no-no.

Anyway, the news is biased to the left for the most part. Anybody should be able to see that unless they are blind. You just need to adjust your filters accordingly.

To Dan, who asked why we don't see the good things happening in Iraq: When do we see the good things happening anywhere? There is no money in good news, I guess, because left or right, print or tv, you see da*ned little of it anywhere.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus