Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by B_superlarge, May 4, 2008.
Media Bias Basics
This has been widely known for years but I still know people who watch MSM coverage exclusively and think they're informed. You can see the effect of this conditioning on people everywhere, quite a bit of it on this board.
The internet is making a dent in the wall, fortunately.
If you really want to be informed... you have to watch The Daily and Colbert Report shows.
Despite the host's personal biases.... they will equally ridicule ANY and ALL stupidity, regardless of party.
Not that there is anything wrong pointing out that the liberal OR the right side had done something or said something dumb.
But current president is constantly wrong.
....anyone else feel these bulletpoints sound a bit....well....biased?
Could it be a mistake to think of 'the media' as a homogenous entity anyway? I watch CNBC, CNN and FOX news occasionally (since you can get it on BSkyB here in the UK), and there's a quantitative difference in alignment to say the least. Which begs the question, does it really matter if the news sources available are biased so long as the biases sum to neutrality?
And am I, as a Brit, alone in the impression that the BBC is actually pretty even-handed?
Well, maybe, since the even BBC disagrees with you...
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News | the Daily Mail
Don't like that source? Google "bbc bias" and read your fill.
It matters hugely if the organization falsely represents itself as "just the facts, ma'am" while selectively promoting and repressing stories to fit a political agenda. Some people actually still believe that to be the case.
I'd say if an organization has a left or right wing tilt that's just fine. If I read The Nation I know I'm getting lefties. If I read National Review I know I'm getting righties. They're both honest about what they produce. But there are still, amazingly, people out there reading Time and Newsweek who think they're getting unbiased journalism. That is, at best, unethical.
Beets and Cheese Whiz: The Media Research Center is NOT an unbiased group. It's well known for being a mouthpiece for neo-conservative venting since its ancient beginnings in 1987. That's like posting The Council on American Families stats about how "all homosexuals are bad and have to 'recruit' children as young as two years-old" bull shit.
The smell of bovine waste at the start of this thread is making it a bit hard to breathe. No one light a match. We might all explode!
Oh, and don't forget to subscribe to the Times Watch Log. Yeah, the New York Times is Hell bent on destroying the 'Mericuhn way of life. You betcha. It's in the paper's original charter to do so. Plus, there's that secret hand shake thing everyone at the NYT must do. Gawd have mercy!
EDIT: Oh, yeah, and National Public Radio (NPR) is well known for being nothing but a bunch of commie loving Nancy Boys (and girls). The temerity!
DON'T like that source! i could stomach the Mail IF they didn't plaster semi-naked women across the front page in ads for cheap cruise holidays then fill half the paper with articles decrying pornography.
that quote taken from Andrew Marr sums it up i think: he describes a 'cultural' liberal bias, which you will certainly note if you turn on Radio 4. but of course sponsorship of the arts is part of the BBC's raison d'etre and anyone who pays their license fee is implicitly consenting to devote some of their income to operatic productions, Melvin Bragg documentaries, Newsnight Review and the rest. i don't think that necessarily translates into a left-wing-political bias, since, hypersensitive as they are to every letter that comes in from Mrs EJ Thripp in Tunbridge Wells about the use of the word 'bottom' on the Archers, they WILL present some of the more hardhitting news stories in apposite detail. put another way they're not afraid to be slightly provocative in their news coverage - if there was really anti-American sentiment behind the BBC news desk as has been alleged, i don't think they'd refrain from expressing it.
anyway, it's not like there's really any unbiased way of assessing bias, wouldnt you agree? but if I (not being leftist in even the vaguest sense, take my word for it) can't pick up a liberal political bias in the TV news programme, it can't be all THAT obvious. can it?
i'm with you on that....it makes me chuckle how the 'indy' media (Indymedia.com for an imaginitively-titled example) habitually presents the diametric opposite of the mainstream viewpoint. and presenting that as 'independent' as opposed to just 'contrarian' IS unethical. in the end i suppose you just have to have diverse sources. actually i always found The Economist had fairly objective-sounding politics coverage, and i liked how the articles were anonymously authored.
.....aaaaahh, 'Mericuhn'....I get it now!
speaking of the NYT, is it still published by the arch-c*nt Murdoch? Or was that the New York Post?
That man scares me. I'm increasingly aware just how much of the planet he owns. Ever see that Bond villain played by Jonathan Pryce? Didn't he have an oriental wife too? Something in that....
The few times I actually watch the the news, I switch between CNN,BBC,CNBC? FOX. The same item on CNN will be on BBC at the SAME time(give or take a few seconds). With the same slant. The days when the BBC was impartial, unbiased, and informative is LONG gone. Al-Jazeera is probably more unbiased. Not slagging of the BBC, but I think the pressures of the market -place has got to them. As it has just about any organization. As for FOX, what a joke.
That was, and still is, the Post. Be aware, however, that nobody in New York with an education takes the Post seriously. On commutes into Manhattan, everyone reads The Wall Street Journal. On their commutes home, everyone reads the Post. The Post is a tabloid with about eight pages of gossip mingled among its sensationalist headlines and always a nearly-naked girl somewhere up front. They do have good sports coverage though. The Post, like Weekly World News, is a fun read and that's about it.
In Tomorrow Never Dies, the wife of Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce) was Paris Carver, played by Teri Hatcher who is white. Nothing in the script refers to the nationality or ethnicity of Mrs. Carver save that she is played with an American accent.
Rupert of the Murdochs has yet to get his hands around the testicles of the New York Times, but in the USA I don't think it really matters. After all, "The Nation's Newspaper" is USA Today; a thin rag of little value written specifically with a FOG index not to exceed that of a eighth grade student with a C- grade average. (For those of you who don't know what a FOG index is, there is a reason why.)
When Bush touted that no child should be left behind he was including himself.
But one day Sir Rupert will Rule The Known Universe. On the whole, I like Aussies. I like me fellow 'Mericuhns, too. But Rupert Murdoch is definitely the result of an evil science experiment gone to excess. He's the overlord of the FOX Not Really Fair and Balanced Network News. He may own the NY Post by now. But I'm not allowed to speak to anyone who reads that daily. And I'm given to understand he has co-opted most of the dailies in the UK (maybe not the Guardian). Fortunately, he does not speak any other language besides English, so his sphere of influence is a bit hampered. :wink:
Who said that the MRC was unbiased? They're very clear about where they stand. They perceive leftie media bias. They document it pretty persuasively as well, which is why one hears hysterical denunciations (cough cough) but rarely any specific refutations of their work.
What's all this frenzy about the NYT and NPR? If you like them, partake. I don't, so I don't partake. Judging from the NYT's circulation numbers, more and more people are choosing not to partake (the word is "freefall"). Don't know about NPR but they don't have to worry so much about their audience, since they have paying corporate sponsors and private donors to fall back on if the taxpayers aren't forced to contribute enough.
Secret handshakes and Nancy Persons and temerity, I dunno...you must have some rather, er, passionate sources of information not available to the general public.
It's a beautiful afternoon (here, at least) - take a deep breath and a glass of wine, maybe a short nap.
Rupert Murdoch bought the New York Post in 1976 and still owns it.
The media has so many different ways to inject bias into their presentaion that it can be a bit tricky at times to realise it. Simply wording a sentence in a certain way is a common trick.
I watched MSNBC present a poll the other day on the economy as to whether we are in a recession or not. The poll they presented involved asking people to vote and the poll result was much in favor of yes we are in a recession. The news segment brought up gas prices, morgages, unemployment, and the stock market and then went straight to the poll as if polling a bunch of non experts on the subject was a final stamp on the segment.
They didn't even bother to mention that most experts on the economy say we aren't actually in a recession yet in the USA (but believe we will be soon and that it will be a mild one). Nor to they ever bother to realise and bring up that many people voting in their polls are liberals (liberals tend to watch NBC and CNN more so than FOX) of which some would vote negatively even if everything was going well (as long as a Republican is the President) and therefore their poll results are going to be automatically skewed to begin with.
Of course the same occurs on the other news networks also. That's just one example of so many ways things can be distorted as we watch the news and sometimes we may not be aware of it. It wasn't an accident that experts were left out of poll opinion. It didn't just happen. It was selective reporting. And it's a constant thing, in one way or another.