It's back on topic now! The point is, the number of journalists who are liberal is completely irrelevant. It's the content that's reported that's important. And there really is nothing to support a liberal bias in that regard.
I can see how this topic could easily break down into a tit for tat. I hope it doesn't. I've reached a point where I think I can see the liberal bias in the reporting itself. I also see conservative bias where it exists, but that's limited mainly to talk radio, which is more opinion based. Some conservative commentators are pretty blatant in their blending of reporting and commenting, I'm not saying they are perfect.
This is an example of what you can see pretty much consistently:
Yes, because the head of the fucking Parents Television Council is really credible.
Summarily discounting something because it's by someone you disagree with reduces your credibility. If it was all opinion, maybe, but there are ample quotes and examples to show the differences.
And I'm sure they aren't witholding any exculpatory evidence and examples in their unbiased report on biased reporting.
Yes, I watched. I watched a lot. If you want to trade barbs, I can throw out the coverage of Bush's supposed cocaine abuse. How about the fabrication of letters to disprove Bush's national guard record? How Katrina became an anti-Bush cause celebre in the media. And your holding up a paid advertisement to prove media bias? That's a stretch.
Feral put up stats to dispute the leanings of journalists. I put up stats that show the story from a different angle (self-selection vs voting and donating records). You just threw out anecdotes of things you didn't like.
I think he was referring to how the ad only aired briefly in a few markets, but was then echoed on national news for weeks afterwards. With reporters "investigating" the background and funding of the ad showing it to be a partisan sham, and running ridiculous "balance" pieces where they get people to talk about how they agree with the ad's sentiment. It was a muddy mess that roughly translated to: some people hate Kerry, and they might have a reason!
I don't see the major news networks as having a meaningful bias either way politically. The stories that get covered are typically those that produce a quick, gut reaction or can be distilled to a reasonably short headline or soundbite. Though the political leanings of those covering the news can come out (as you have shown) in some cases, those are that have real impact are few and far between. Typically the most you might get is the choice of an adjective that might have secondary meaning to a segment of viewers. Perhaps you are hyper-sensitive to phrasing that implies your world view may not be universally accepted?
A majority of newspapers supported John Kerry for president.
Too bad you idiots didn't listen to them, otherwise the last three years might not have been such an unmitigated disaster. You should take this perceived "liberal bias" as simply an indication that you are, objectively, fucking wrong on just about every issue from Iraq to global warming.
Thank you. I now see the errors of my ways. I'll go be a happy liberal now and support massive social projects, drop my religious beliefs and exchange them for shaky science, oppose the killing of people who want to kill my family, support the killing of people who are not yet born, the taxation of people who are successful in life (and then say I am "only talking about the Paris Hilton's who don't earn their money"), and, in general, hold my beliefs to be so superior to others that I can accuse them of a phobia when they disagree with them (see: homophobia, xenophobia, etc).
It's back on topic now! The point is, the number of journalists who are liberal is completely irrelevant. It's the content that's reported that's important. And there really is nothing to support a liberal bias in that regard.
I can see how this topic could easily break down into a tit for tat. I hope it doesn't. I've reached a point where I think I can see the liberal bias in the reporting itself. I also see conservative bias where it exists, but that's limited mainly to talk radio, which is more opinion based. Some conservative commentators are pretty blatant in their blending of reporting and commenting, I'm not saying they are perfect.
This is an example of what you can see pretty much consistently:
Yes, because the head of the fucking Parents Television Council is really credible.
Summarily discounting something because it's by someone you disagree with reduces your credibility. If it was all opinion, maybe, but there are ample quotes and examples to show the differences.
And I'm sure they aren't witholding any exculpatory evidence and examples in their unbiased report on biased reporting.
Very possible. Which is why, for the most part, it doesn't bother me so much that there is bias. There's a liberal bias in one area of reporting, and there's a conservative bias in another areas (like talk radio). What annoys me is when people say "there is no bias, except when there's bias against my beliefs, like talk radio or Fox News".
Although I see a lot of people say "the bias is for what sells and against everything else". I think I can get on board with that.
It's back on topic now! The point is, the number of journalists who are liberal is completely irrelevant. It's the content that's reported that's important. And there really is nothing to support a liberal bias in that regard.
I can see how this topic could easily break down into a tit for tat. I hope it doesn't. I've reached a point where I think I can see the liberal bias in the reporting itself. I also see conservative bias where it exists, but that's limited mainly to talk radio, which is more opinion based. Some conservative commentators are pretty blatant in their blending of reporting and commenting, I'm not saying they are perfect.
This is an example of what you can see pretty much consistently:
Yes, because the head of the fucking Parents Television Council is really credible.
Summarily discounting something because it's by someone you disagree with reduces your credibility. If it was all opinion, maybe, but there are ample quotes and examples to show the differences.
And I'm sure they aren't witholding any exculpatory evidence and examples in their unbiased report on biased reporting.
Like, say, the fact that Pelosi becoming Speaker was a fucking historical milestone.
drop my religious beliefs and exchange them for shaky science,
Umm, what? Which religious beliefs do you hold that require dropping in the face of scientific explanation, and why is that science "shaky"?
...I mean, How does media bias cause this?
He was being hyperbollic on 'what liberals believe' in order to dismiss Azio out of hand. You know, the whole 'they eat babies while sodomizing each other' thing.
drop my religious beliefs and exchange them for shaky science,
Umm, what? Which religious beliefs do you hold that require dropping in the face of scientific explanation, and why is that science "shaky"?
...I mean, How does media bias cause this?
I didn't mean it as a statement on media bias. Sorry if it was implied.
I was referring to the religion of environmentalism as it applies to global warming. It was severely lost when I went off though.
One of the topics often looked at within conservative circles is the move toward secularism and the accompanying support of unproven sciences (mainly extreme environmentalism) that accompany it. Reports come out left and right saying global warming is real! global warming is not real! it's man-made! it's cyclical! Often, those who say "i'm not seeing enough proof here" are dismissed as trying to speak against "settled science", as Gore put it.
That sounds like a new topic though, and I don't want to dive into that. I want to get back to the coffee thread.
Even if there was a provable slight-left bias in non-Murdoch newsmedia, all but like three people here are so far removed from the center that they'd still see it as right-leaning.
I just think that the American conception of liberal and conservative is completely off base. I'm pretty moderate, generally (I agree with Yar on immigration, for example, yet completely disagree on most other issues) yet I find that I'm often lumped in as "liberal" for no apparent reason. Compared to the liberals in other places, like, say, France, I'm moderate/conservative.
itt: sanstodo discovers that "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective labels dependent upon local cultural norms.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
<concept of sensationalism as how it drives headlines>
I think I can get behind the concept of sensationalism as driving a majority of the headlines. I think you've made a reasonable point in that regard.
Let me also revise my prior assertion on the % of journalists who identify as liberal. That's what I get for posting at work in between meetings -- my verbiage gets unclear. Self-selection has some problems, which I would attribute to the fact that journalists believe themselves to be moderate and fair - it's a good thing to be in that profession. The 90% number I asserted came not from identification but from campaign contributions and voting patterns. Mea culpa, I should be clearer. Journalists voted for Clinton at a 9:1 ratio, but he never received even a 1:1 in the general population. I would also cite:
And I'm sure there's a massive list somewhere, but day to day there's a huge issue with major news wires and the editorializing added to the news. Here's an example.
Did you watch the 2000 election? Howsabout the 2004 election? Every news story was "Democrat stiff, boring, elitist; George W. Bush engaged, charismatic, everyman." The "Al Gore invented the internet" story was basically a total fabrication of the Republican party, and every news organization ran with it. And what about all the free advertising given to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?" Oh, I guess running an ad slated to appear briefly in 11 markets 24/7 across the country doesn't count as "bias." That's just "news." Not to mention that very few networks actually commented about how it was basically a total fabrication. I mean, seriously, does anyone believe that George Bush's daddy didn't get him out of serving in the war? And yet, somehow, John Kerry's service record became the issue to the "liberal" media, a guy who volunteered for some of the most dangerous duty there was.
Yes, I watched. I watched a lot. If you want to trade barbs, I can throw out the coverage of Bush's supposed cocaine abuse. How about the fabrication of letters to disprove Bush's national guard record? How Katrina became an anti-Bush cause celebre in the media. And your holding up a paid advertisement to prove media bias? That's a stretch.
They paid to put the advertisement up in a few, limited markets. It was then aired, repeatedly, everywhere in the country, over and over again, because of the media coverage. Bush's "supposed cocaine abuse" has pretty solid standing; when a big anti-drug guy won't deny using cocaine, that's a good sign he used cocaine. And yeah, I followed the whole fabricated letter thing, from which Bush came out looking like fucking gold; I'm not seeing the liberal bias, there.
And gee, Bush's administration totally fucks up their handling of Katrina. It's amazing how "government doesn't work and is incompetent" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy during Republican administrations, isn't it? And it's really amazing that when you appoint a horse show director on the basis of nepotism to run your emergency management agency, he doesn't do a good job. I know I was shocked. And let us recall what a shitty job FEMA did during Clinton's presidency... oh, wait, no, they were amazing during Clinton's presidency, and this was before we dumped all sorts of money into Homeland Security to deal with something like this. Again, apparently the truth is liberally biased.
And this says nothing about the accusations that Gore claimed to have personally cleaned up Love Canal, or that he lied about being the basis for the book Love Story. Maybe you could cite some stories that were reported by the media about George W. Bush that weren't true, that made him look bad in the end...?
Feral put up stats to dispute the leanings of journalists. I put up stats that show the story from a different angle (self-selection vs voting and donating records). You just threw out anecdotes of things you didn't like.
There have been many studies done about what is actually reported in the news. There's no liberal bias. It's a myth, perpetuated by Bernard Goldberg, Talk Radio, and Fox News.
Even if there was a provable slight-left bias in non-Murdoch newsmedia, all but like three people here are so far removed from the center that they'd still see it as right-leaning.
I just think that the American conception of liberal and conservative is completely off base. I'm pretty moderate, generally (I agree with Yar on immigration, for example, yet completely disagree on most other issues) yet I find that I'm often lumped in as "liberal" for no apparent reason. Compared to the liberals in other places, like, say, France, I'm moderate/conservative.
itt: sanstodo discovers that "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective labels dependent upon local cultural norms.
Just saying that Salvation is really off-base here and that his definition of center is really far off to the right.
It's back on topic now! The point is, the number of journalists who are liberal is completely irrelevant. It's the content that's reported that's important. And there really is nothing to support a liberal bias in that regard.
I can see how this topic could easily break down into a tit for tat. I hope it doesn't. I've reached a point where I think I can see the liberal bias in the reporting itself. I also see conservative bias where it exists, but that's limited mainly to talk radio, which is more opinion based. Some conservative commentators are pretty blatant in their blending of reporting and commenting, I'm not saying they are perfect.
This is an example of what you can see pretty much consistently:
Yes, because the head of the fucking Parents Television Council is really credible.
Summarily discounting something because it's by someone you disagree with reduces your credibility. If it was all opinion, maybe, but there are ample quotes and examples to show the differences.
No, it really doesn't.
If it's not from a credible source, it's not real evidence. Saying "well, because that guy said it it's not true" is very different from saying "that is not a credible source."
If you were using quotes from Adolf Hitler to support your case, would we be reducing our own credibility by saying "hey, that's not real support, there?"
Even if there was a provable slight-left bias in non-Murdoch newsmedia, all but like three people here are so far removed from the center that they'd still see it as right-leaning.
I just think that the American conception of liberal and conservative is completely off base. I'm pretty moderate, generally (I agree with Yar on immigration, for example, yet completely disagree on most other issues) yet I find that I'm often lumped in as "liberal" for no apparent reason. Compared to the liberals in other places, like, say, France, I'm moderate/conservative.
itt: sanstodo discovers that "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective labels dependent upon local cultural norms.
Just saying that Salvation is really off-base here and that his definition of center is really far off to the right.
The trouble is people think "balanced" is some forced equality in airtime rather than presenting the facts. For example everytime a news channel discusses evolution they feel obligated to bring in at least one creationist nutjob in order ot remian "balanced" when it reality it's not balanced at all. it's pandering to not piss people off. In reality a balanced discussion of evoltuion does not include discussion completely outside the realm of science.
And with Katrina when the govt fucks up horribly they don't deserve a "balanced" treatment. They televised all of the adminstrations press conferences as they should have. There simply was no postive side ofthe federal government's response ot report on. They did spread out the blame rpetty evenly by showing the failures of the state and local govt too. Should they have made shit up to make Bush look better because the truth looked mean? Last time I checked journalism isn't about being nice.
Very possible. Which is why, for the most part, it doesn't bother me so much that there is bias. There's a liberal bias in one area of reporting, and there's a conservative bias in another areas (like talk radio). What annoys me is when people say "there is no bias, except when there's bias against my beliefs, like talk radio or Fox News".
Although I see a lot of people say "the bias is for what sells and against everything else". I think I can get on board with that.
Most news stations are biased towards whatever gets them ratings.
Fox News also has a ridiculously conservative bias.
Even if there was a provable slight-left bias in non-Murdoch newsmedia, all but like three people here are so far removed from the center that they'd still see it as right-leaning.
I just think that the American conception of liberal and conservative is completely off base. I'm pretty moderate, generally (I agree with Yar on immigration, for example, yet completely disagree on most other issues) yet I find that I'm often lumped in as "liberal" for no apparent reason. Compared to the liberals in other places, like, say, France, I'm moderate/conservative.
itt: sanstodo discovers that "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective labels dependent upon local cultural norms.
Just saying that Salvation is really off-base here and that his definition of center is really far off to the right.
It's not that far off to the right, and it's starting to head back leftwards again. The center is never actually in the middle between the two extremes, it's where the heart of the nation lies. In the 50's and 60's that was fairly leftward then started to drift to the right under Ford and Carter. The Reagan Revolution epitomized it being on the right side of the spectrum and now its drifting again.
moniker on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The trouble is people think "balanced" is some forced equality in airtime rather than presenting the facts. For example everytime a news channel discusses evolution they feel obligated to bring in at least one creationist nutjob in order ot remian "balanced" when it reality it's not balanced at all. it's pandering to not piss people off. In reality a balanced discussion of evoltuion does not include discussion completely outside the realm of science.
And with Katrina when the govt fucks up horribly they don't deserve a "balanced" treatment. They televised all of the adminstrations press conferences as they should have. There simply was no postive side ofthe federal government's response ot report on. They did spread out the blame rpetty evenly by showing the failures of the state and local govt too. Should they have made shit up to make Bush look better because the truth looked mean? Last time I checked journalism isn't about being nice.
Fucking seriously. I think Journalists are finally doing their damn jobs again to some degree, which is not pander to the Administration and keep Bush happy.
It's back on topic now! The point is, the number of journalists who are liberal is completely irrelevant. It's the content that's reported that's important. And there really is nothing to support a liberal bias in that regard.
I can see how this topic could easily break down into a tit for tat. I hope it doesn't. I've reached a point where I think I can see the liberal bias in the reporting itself. I also see conservative bias where it exists, but that's limited mainly to talk radio, which is more opinion based. Some conservative commentators are pretty blatant in their blending of reporting and commenting, I'm not saying they are perfect.
This is an example of what you can see pretty much consistently:
Yes, because the head of the fucking Parents Television Council is really credible.
Summarily discounting something because it's by someone you disagree with reduces your credibility. If it was all opinion, maybe, but there are ample quotes and examples to show the differences.
No, it really doesn't.
If it's not from a credible source, it's not real evidence. Saying "well, because that guy said it it's not true" is very different from saying "that is not a credible source."
If you were using quotes from Adolf Hitler to support your case, would we be reducing our own credibility by saying "hey, that's not real support, there?"
I think you missed the point, but...
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
ryuprecht on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
It's back on topic now! The point is, the number of journalists who are liberal is completely irrelevant. It's the content that's reported that's important. And there really is nothing to support a liberal bias in that regard.
I can see how this topic could easily break down into a tit for tat. I hope it doesn't. I've reached a point where I think I can see the liberal bias in the reporting itself. I also see conservative bias where it exists, but that's limited mainly to talk radio, which is more opinion based. Some conservative commentators are pretty blatant in their blending of reporting and commenting, I'm not saying they are perfect.
This is an example of what you can see pretty much consistently:
Yes, because the head of the fucking Parents Television Council is really credible.
Summarily discounting something because it's by someone you disagree with reduces your credibility. If it was all opinion, maybe, but there are ample quotes and examples to show the differences.
No, it really doesn't.
If it's not from a credible source, it's not real evidence. Saying "well, because that guy said it it's not true" is very different from saying "that is not a credible source."
If you were using quotes from Adolf Hitler to support your case, would we be reducing our own credibility by saying "hey, that's not real support, there?"
I think you missed the point, but...
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
I don't think that counts as a Godwin; he wasn't really comparing anyone to Hitler but was merely using Hitler as an illustrative, hypothetical example.
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
No, he got it on the nose. Or are you suggesting that you'd be completely content with an environmental report sponsored by the Sierra Club given as a sole source in an argument and not dismiss it out of hand as biased and useless?
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
No, he got it on the nose. Or are you suggesting that you'd be completely content with an environmental report sponsored by the Sierra Club given as a sole source in an argument and not dismiss it out of hand as biased and useless?
No, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The same way I don't dismiss Michael Moore out of hand or even The Nation. I may disagree with their assertions, but you can't win an argument by just stating your opposition to the writer, you have to argue the points.
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
No, he got it on the nose. Or are you suggesting that you'd be completely content with an environmental report sponsored by the Sierra Club given as a sole source in an argument and not dismiss it out of hand as biased and useless?
No, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The same way I don't dismiss Michael Moore out of hand or even The Nation. I may disagree with their assertions, but you can't win an argument by just stating your opposition to the writer, you have to argue the points.
Even when the 'points' are nothing but half truths, distortions, and obfuscation?
The news media tends not to cite conservative think tanks, therefore the news media must be liberal. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that many of those think tanks aren't intended to be sources of impartial, credible information. (Really, any methodology that determines that the Drudge Report is left-of-center is too fundamentally flawed to be anything but a fucking joke.)
No, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The same way I don't dismiss Michael Moore out of hand or even The Nation. I may disagree with their assertions, but you can't win an argument by just stating your opposition to the writer, you have to argue the points.
If a given source has repeatedly trotted out the same points, been repeatedly refuted and shown to be unreliable, but persisted in being a voice in the debate through volume and tenacity alone, then it eventually stops being worth one's while to bother addressing that source point-by-point. Credibility can be lost, and discounting certain perennially unreliable or disingenuous sources is valid. This is especially true when the source in question is not an individual, like Michael Moore or George W. Bush, but rather a think tank like the Parent Television Council that has a stated conservative agenda.
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
No, he got it on the nose. Or are you suggesting that you'd be completely content with an environmental report sponsored by the Sierra Club given as a sole source in an argument and not dismiss it out of hand as biased and useless?
No, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The same way I don't dismiss Michael Moore out of hand or even The Nation. I may disagree with their assertions, but you can't win an argument by just stating your opposition to the writer, you have to argue the points.
Sometimes pointing out that the writer is a known lying idiot IS the point. Even if they ARE honest, there's a very good chance they've deliberately left out important points. Citing two articles for a position and ignoring the 9 against, for example.
Once someone gets to a certain level of dishonesty, they aren't worth paying attention to any more because you spend more time sifting out the truth from the crap than anything else.
to me, unbiased reporting is an impossibility, personally, I don't really give a shit which way the journalists lean as long as they acknowledge it
Eh. If I knew that every news source in the country was lying to me all the time, it wouldn't be much of a comfort to me if they admitted they were lying. It's important to hold journalists up to a (reasonable) standard of objectivity.
Depending on what TV I get stuck in front of when working out, I end up watching a fair amount of CNN or Fox News in the morning. CNN has a slight liberal bias on their political reporting, but mostly they're biased towards being incompetent and sensationalist. FOX has a slight bias to the conservative side, but they're most biased on being even more sensationalist, over-the-top patriotic, and tabloid-style "human interest" stories. They're also biased to hiring a spate of skinny blond women that all look the same. Talk radio is pretty conservative, except for NPR which is crazy liberal.
I'll agree with the poster who said that the BBC is way better. They're not perfect, but they're much more matter-of-fact in their reporting, which tends to dilute the bias over the talking heads-style news we get stuck with here in the States. Plus, it has a British accent so it just sounds smarter.
Dagrabbit on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
absolute objectivity is impossible, but it's reasonable to expect factual accuracy.
to me, unbiased reporting is an impossibility, personally, I don't really give a shit which way the journalists lean as long as they acknowledge it
Eh. If I knew that every news source in the country was lying to me all the time, it wouldn't be much of a comfort to me if they admitted they were lying. It's important to hold journalists up to a (reasonable) standard of objectivity.
"Objectivity" is impossible. I agree with dlinfiniti; better to know a reporter's angle than have to guess.
All journalism is "lying," in that it's all narratives crafted by individuals or small groups based on their interpretations of facts. The more that people know this, then (hopefully) the better prepared they will be to think critically about what they see and hear.
For the love of god(s/FSM), there are still Americans who think Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11.
Talk radio is pretty conservative, except for NPR which is crazy liberal.
I'll agree with the poster who said that the BBC is way better. They're not perfect, but they're much more matter-of-fact in their reporting, which tends to dilute the bias over the talking heads-style news we get stuck with here in the States. Plus, it has a British accent so it just sounds smarter.
That may have been me, although I have to strongly disagree with you: NPR is way moderate compared to BBC. Well, that's really the wrong way to put it; more like NPR isn't liberal per se, but they freely accept things like human-caused global warming and things like that (much like BBC!) because they don't fall prey to conservative BS.
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
No, he got it on the nose. Or are you suggesting that you'd be completely content with an environmental report sponsored by the Sierra Club given as a sole source in an argument and not dismiss it out of hand as biased and useless?
No, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The same way I don't dismiss Michael Moore out of hand or even The Nation. I may disagree with their assertions, but you can't win an argument by just stating your opposition to the writer, you have to argue the points.
Sometimes pointing out that the writer is a known lying idiot IS the point. Even if they ARE honest, there's a very good chance they've deliberately left out important points. Citing two articles for a position and ignoring the 9 against, for example.
Once someone gets to a certain level of dishonesty, they aren't worth paying attention to any more because you spend more time sifting out the truth from the crap than anything else.
I'll admit that I don't know much about being known as a "lying idiot". I cited that article as representative of the bias you can see all over the place. It is, by nature, going to come mostly (if not solely) from conservatives.
to me, unbiased reporting is an impossibility, personally, I don't really give a shit which way the journalists lean as long as they acknowledge it
Eh. If I knew that every news source in the country was lying to me all the time, it wouldn't be much of a comfort to me if they admitted they were lying. It's important to hold journalists up to a (reasonable) standard of objectivity.
"Objectivity" is impossible. I agree with dlinfiniti; better to know a reporter's angle than have to guess.
All journalism is "lying," in that it's all narratives crafted by individuals or small groups based on their interpretations of facts. The more that people know this, then (hopefully) the better prepared they will be to think critically about what they see and hear.
For the love of god(s/FSM), there are still Americans who think Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11.
What you're saying is true, of course, but I think there's an objective truth that exists independent of our ability to accurately perceive, and journalists should be trying to get as close to that as possible. Obviously they won't succeed, but some will come closer than others.
What you're saying is true, of course, but I think there's an objective truth that exists independent of our ability to accurately perceive, and journalists should be trying to get as close to that as possible. Obviously they won't succeed, but some will come closer than others.
Even if there is some sort of universally "true" perspective on any given event, there's absolutely no way for anyone to perceive it in a "true" way.
Each human is subject to their own biases and perspectives even in the perception of events, not just the translation of events to others.
I prefer to simply have different reporters with different backgrounds cover the same story, and let the public synthesize their interpretations from all the story's versions.
You know what I think, deep down? People who work in the fields of journalism and education tend to be more socially liberal than the general public because they're better informed than the general public. The bias that persists in those fields is the natural result of being involved in them, because those fields favor knowledge over ignorance. Frequently that divide runs parallel to the political divide, but it's incidental.
You know what I think, deep down? People who work in the fields of journalism and education tend to be more socially liberal than the general public because they're better informed than the general public. The bias that persists in those fields is the natural result of being involved in them, because those fields favor knowledge over ignorance. Frequently that divide runs parallel to the political divide, but it's incidental.
Thank you. I've been wanting to say that all day, but couldn't think of a way to say it except "liberals are smarter."
I agree, I think that it's precisely the process of going out into diverse communities on a day-to-day basis that broadens journalists' perspectives, and they're more likely to be accepting of different ideas and lifestyles simply because they have to be in order to do their jobs.
Talk radio is pretty conservative, except for NPR which is crazy liberal.
I'll agree with the poster who said that the BBC is way better. They're not perfect, but they're much more matter-of-fact in their reporting, which tends to dilute the bias over the talking heads-style news we get stuck with here in the States. Plus, it has a British accent so it just sounds smarter.
That may have been me, although I have to strongly disagree with you: NPR is way moderate compared to BBC. Well, that's really the wrong way to put it; more like NPR isn't liberal per se, but they freely accept things like human-caused global warming and things like that (much like BBC!) because they don't fall prey to conservative BS.
I, in general, think NPR is a pretty bad news source, so that could well be coloring my assessment of their bias on the political spectrum. To me, they sound very liberal and less factual than the BBC, but I also don't hear a lot of NPR.
Talk radio is pretty conservative, except for NPR which is crazy liberal.
I'll agree with the poster who said that the BBC is way better. They're not perfect, but they're much more matter-of-fact in their reporting, which tends to dilute the bias over the talking heads-style news we get stuck with here in the States. Plus, it has a British accent so it just sounds smarter.
That may have been me, although I have to strongly disagree with you: NPR is way moderate compared to BBC. Well, that's really the wrong way to put it; more like NPR isn't liberal per se, but they freely accept things like human-caused global warming and things like that (much like BBC!) because they don't fall prey to conservative BS.
I, in general, think NPR is a pretty bad news source, so that could well be coloring my assessment of their bias on the political spectrum. To me, they sound very liberal and less factual than the BBC, but I also don't hear a lot of NPR.
I believe that NPR informed the public best about terrorism, 9/11, and WMDs during the 2004 election than any other news source. Fox News was the worst. If someone could dig up the link, would be nice
I, in general, think NPR is a pretty bad news source, so that could well be coloring my assessment of their bias on the political spectrum. To me, they sound very liberal and less factual than the BBC, but I also don't hear a lot of NPR.
Pubcasting helps audience sort fact, fiction
NPR, PBS audience holds most accurate views of Iraq war, says new study
Originally published in Current, Oct. 20, 2003
By Mike Janssen
Pubcasters welcomed a study released Oct. 2 [2003] that showed people who turn to public broadcasting for news have the most accurate views of the Iraq war among media consumers.
The study, conducted by the polling firm Knowledge Networks and the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, also highlighted differences between public broadcasting and its competitors. Fox News Channel and public broadcasting, for example, consistently landed at opposite ends of the spectrum of opinion. Fox viewers were almost four times more likely than public broadcasting’s consumers to hold misperceptions about the war (chart at right).
Posts
And I'm sure they aren't witholding any exculpatory evidence and examples in their unbiased report on biased reporting.
I don't see the major news networks as having a meaningful bias either way politically. The stories that get covered are typically those that produce a quick, gut reaction or can be distilled to a reasonably short headline or soundbite. Though the political leanings of those covering the news can come out (as you have shown) in some cases, those are that have real impact are few and far between. Typically the most you might get is the choice of an adjective that might have secondary meaning to a segment of viewers. Perhaps you are hyper-sensitive to phrasing that implies your world view may not be universally accepted?
What he said.
Thank you. I now see the errors of my ways. I'll go be a happy liberal now and support massive social projects, drop my religious beliefs and exchange them for shaky science, oppose the killing of people who want to kill my family, support the killing of people who are not yet born, the taxation of people who are successful in life (and then say I am "only talking about the Paris Hilton's who don't earn their money"), and, in general, hold my beliefs to be so superior to others that I can accuse them of a phobia when they disagree with them (see: homophobia, xenophobia, etc).
Of course, that's my objective opinion. Asshat.
Very possible. Which is why, for the most part, it doesn't bother me so much that there is bias. There's a liberal bias in one area of reporting, and there's a conservative bias in another areas (like talk radio). What annoys me is when people say "there is no bias, except when there's bias against my beliefs, like talk radio or Fox News".
Although I see a lot of people say "the bias is for what sells and against everything else". I think I can get on board with that.
Like, say, the fact that Pelosi becoming Speaker was a fucking historical milestone.
Umm, what? Which religious beliefs do you hold that require dropping in the face of scientific explanation, and why is that science "shaky"?
...I mean, How does media bias cause this?
He was being hyperbollic on 'what liberals believe' in order to dismiss Azio out of hand. You know, the whole 'they eat babies while sodomizing each other' thing.
I didn't mean it as a statement on media bias. Sorry if it was implied.
I was referring to the religion of environmentalism as it applies to global warming. It was severely lost when I went off though.
One of the topics often looked at within conservative circles is the move toward secularism and the accompanying support of unproven sciences (mainly extreme environmentalism) that accompany it. Reports come out left and right saying global warming is real! global warming is not real! it's man-made! it's cyclical! Often, those who say "i'm not seeing enough proof here" are dismissed as trying to speak against "settled science", as Gore put it.
That sounds like a new topic though, and I don't want to dive into that. I want to get back to the coffee thread.
EDIT: moniker summed it up well.
itt: sanstodo discovers that "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective labels dependent upon local cultural norms.
And gee, Bush's administration totally fucks up their handling of Katrina. It's amazing how "government doesn't work and is incompetent" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy during Republican administrations, isn't it? And it's really amazing that when you appoint a horse show director on the basis of nepotism to run your emergency management agency, he doesn't do a good job. I know I was shocked. And let us recall what a shitty job FEMA did during Clinton's presidency... oh, wait, no, they were amazing during Clinton's presidency, and this was before we dumped all sorts of money into Homeland Security to deal with something like this. Again, apparently the truth is liberally biased.
And this says nothing about the accusations that Gore claimed to have personally cleaned up Love Canal, or that he lied about being the basis for the book Love Story. Maybe you could cite some stories that were reported by the media about George W. Bush that weren't true, that made him look bad in the end...?
Good enough?
There have been many studies done about what is actually reported in the news. There's no liberal bias. It's a myth, perpetuated by Bernard Goldberg, Talk Radio, and Fox News.
Just saying that Salvation is really off-base here and that his definition of center is really far off to the right.
If it's not from a credible source, it's not real evidence. Saying "well, because that guy said it it's not true" is very different from saying "that is not a credible source."
If you were using quotes from Adolf Hitler to support your case, would we be reducing our own credibility by saying "hey, that's not real support, there?"
And as for why they would, that can be summed up in a single phrase: working the ref.
And with Katrina when the govt fucks up horribly they don't deserve a "balanced" treatment. They televised all of the adminstrations press conferences as they should have. There simply was no postive side ofthe federal government's response ot report on. They did spread out the blame rpetty evenly by showing the failures of the state and local govt too. Should they have made shit up to make Bush look better because the truth looked mean? Last time I checked journalism isn't about being nice.
Fox News also has a ridiculously conservative bias.
It's not that far off to the right, and it's starting to head back leftwards again. The center is never actually in the middle between the two extremes, it's where the heart of the nation lies. In the 50's and 60's that was fairly leftward then started to drift to the right under Ford and Carter. The Reagan Revolution epitomized it being on the right side of the spectrum and now its drifting again.
Fucking seriously. I think Journalists are finally doing their damn jobs again to some degree, which is not pander to the Administration and keep Bush happy.
I think you missed the point, but...
I can't even go into that. Three pages to Godwin the thread? Nice one.
I don't think that counts as a Godwin; he wasn't really comparing anyone to Hitler but was merely using Hitler as an illustrative, hypothetical example.
No, he got it on the nose. Or are you suggesting that you'd be completely content with an environmental report sponsored by the Sierra Club given as a sole source in an argument and not dismiss it out of hand as biased and useless?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/997meijg.asp
Enjoy.
No, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The same way I don't dismiss Michael Moore out of hand or even The Nation. I may disagree with their assertions, but you can't win an argument by just stating your opposition to the writer, you have to argue the points.
Even when the 'points' are nothing but half truths, distortions, and obfuscation?
If a given source has repeatedly trotted out the same points, been repeatedly refuted and shown to be unreliable, but persisted in being a voice in the debate through volume and tenacity alone, then it eventually stops being worth one's while to bother addressing that source point-by-point. Credibility can be lost, and discounting certain perennially unreliable or disingenuous sources is valid. This is especially true when the source in question is not an individual, like Michael Moore or George W. Bush, but rather a think tank like the Parent Television Council that has a stated conservative agenda.
Sometimes pointing out that the writer is a known lying idiot IS the point. Even if they ARE honest, there's a very good chance they've deliberately left out important points. Citing two articles for a position and ignoring the 9 against, for example.
Once someone gets to a certain level of dishonesty, they aren't worth paying attention to any more because you spend more time sifting out the truth from the crap than anything else.
Eh. If I knew that every news source in the country was lying to me all the time, it wouldn't be much of a comfort to me if they admitted they were lying. It's important to hold journalists up to a (reasonable) standard of objectivity.
I'll agree with the poster who said that the BBC is way better. They're not perfect, but they're much more matter-of-fact in their reporting, which tends to dilute the bias over the talking heads-style news we get stuck with here in the States. Plus, it has a British accent so it just sounds smarter.
"Objectivity" is impossible. I agree with dlinfiniti; better to know a reporter's angle than have to guess.
All journalism is "lying," in that it's all narratives crafted by individuals or small groups based on their interpretations of facts. The more that people know this, then (hopefully) the better prepared they will be to think critically about what they see and hear.
For the love of god(s/FSM), there are still Americans who think Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11.
That may have been me, although I have to strongly disagree with you: NPR is way moderate compared to BBC. Well, that's really the wrong way to put it; more like NPR isn't liberal per se, but they freely accept things like human-caused global warming and things like that (much like BBC!) because they don't fall prey to conservative BS.
I'll admit that I don't know much about being known as a "lying idiot". I cited that article as representative of the bias you can see all over the place. It is, by nature, going to come mostly (if not solely) from conservatives.
You can also try:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGFkMGU5Zjk4ODk0ZmU5NjIxMGJlYzZjZmIzMjQ2NDY=
and
http://newsbusters.org/node/9062
What you're saying is true, of course, but I think there's an objective truth that exists independent of our ability to accurately perceive, and journalists should be trying to get as close to that as possible. Obviously they won't succeed, but some will come closer than others.
Even if there is some sort of universally "true" perspective on any given event, there's absolutely no way for anyone to perceive it in a "true" way.
Each human is subject to their own biases and perspectives even in the perception of events, not just the translation of events to others.
I prefer to simply have different reporters with different backgrounds cover the same story, and let the public synthesize their interpretations from all the story's versions.
Thank you. I've been wanting to say that all day, but couldn't think of a way to say it except "liberals are smarter."
I agree, I think that it's precisely the process of going out into diverse communities on a day-to-day basis that broadens journalists' perspectives, and they're more likely to be accepting of different ideas and lifestyles simply because they have to be in order to do their jobs.
I, in general, think NPR is a pretty bad news source, so that could well be coloring my assessment of their bias on the political spectrum. To me, they sound very liberal and less factual than the BBC, but I also don't hear a lot of NPR.
I believe that NPR informed the public best about terrorism, 9/11, and WMDs during the 2004 election than any other news source. Fox News was the worst. If someone could dig up the link, would be nice
Not so. See:
current.org story
Or here: for a nice chart.