Media Bias Revisited.

Most of us know that the majority of mainstream media, be it TV, Cable, or newspaper, is heavily biased. There should be no argument to this at all, but, as par, I'm sure that there will be dispute.

Anyhow, two prime cases of media bias are:
1--how the media portrays the current US economy.
2--how the media portrays the situation in Iraq.

Case in point for each of the above:
Economy
Networks Paint Bush Economy As Bleak No Matter What The Facts Really Say

Media’s bad news bears deliver negative news 62 percent of the time despite economic expansion.

*Economic news heavily negative: Coverage of economic news on the three broadcast networks was negative 62 percent of the time, despite ongoing good news of more jobs, low unemployment and economic growth.

*Good news undermined: Even when good news made it to viewers, journalists undermined it with bad news 45 percent of the time.

*Negative stories given more air time: Good news stories were relegated to briefs roughly two thirds of the time. Negative news received longer stories and outnumbered positive stories by almost 4-to-1 in that category.

Which do you want first – the good news or the bad?

The good news is that the economy is strong and growing. The bad news is the news about the economy.

The other:
Iraq
"If I Got My News From the Newspapers I'd be Pretty Depressed As Well"

Mark Finkelstein over at Newsbusters reported this morning that Matt Lauer got a surprise answer from a soldier on a recent trip to Iraq. After asking about morale, a few soldiers told him that morale was good. Like any good morning TV show journalist, Lauer was skeptical:

LAUER: Don't get me wrong, I think you're probably telling the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that might be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks you're facing... What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?

CAPTAIN SHERMAN POWELL: Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers I'd be pretty depressed as well.

Powell said that he knows the media have a hard time getting out in Iraq and seeing the improvements, but that he's "satisfied" and "proud" of the work the United States is doing in Iraq.

Don't you also love how Lauer says, "What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?" when he means, "What would you say to Matt Lauer, who doubts that morale could be that high?"

:shk:
And yet today, in a ATS conversation, a member stated that is was about time the mainstream media started reporting things fair and balanced, as if they were already.

Anyhow, if anyone has anything to add to this, then please do.
All media bias should be squashed, be it conservative/Neocon or liberal.
The media owes a responsibility to all of us: to simply report and present the objective facts and leave their agenda driven editorial opinions to those who enjoy reading such. Let the people decide what they wish to believe and let not the media dictate what we should or should not believe.

Thoughts.





seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]

There was a long term study on this not long ago by one of the Ivy-covered schools (forget which one). In short, the media tended to be critical of whatever administration was in office, especially so in the second term.

Some outlets certainly play the popular game of divisive politics and lean one way or the other. But it's in their general nature to look harshly at whoever sits in the top seat.

I would pretty much agree, SO.
I remember such happening during the Clinton presidency, I just don't remember it being to the degree that it is now, but that might just be my ignorance in memory.

I ran across this New York Times article early this a.m., and got a little miffed when I read it, almost as if they were insinuating that the masses were ignorant beyond ignorance. Media dictates such negative opinion to the public on many issues, even when applied to other media outlets.
The NYT asserts:

The share of Americans who believe that news organizations are "politically biased in their reporting" increased to 60 percent in 2005, up from 45 percent in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center.

Many people also believe that biased reporting influences who wins or loses elections. A new study by Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California, Berkeley, and Ethan Kaplan of the Institute for International Economic Studies at Stockholm University, however, casts doubt on this view. Specifically, the economists ask whether the advent of the Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's cable television network, affected voter behavior. They found that Fox had no detectable effect on which party people voted for, or whether they voted at all.

After the above quoted paragraphs, the NYT then goes into FoxNews bashing, like NYT has no political leanings or an agenda and is in need of not being bashed.

I did not present the above to bust on the NYT, but to point out the hypocritical nature of media, period. Its crazy.
I remember such during my youth when the Vietnam War was going on, I remember it at other moments in history to current. I have studied such in college with media and its influence upon the populace during a conflict or during wartime, but here lately [the last 8+ years], media has simply become like minime lobbyist organizations.

I really, really would like to see the media just get back to reporting the facts and letting the people decide their take. Wishful thinking on my part, I am sure of that much. Sad and frustrating for me, to say the least.




seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]

I feel that real journalism died many years ago. It has been replaced by entertainment masquerading as news. Market shares and advertising take precident over info gathering and dissemination. This on both network and cable except for Fox which is purely propaganda.

For news I watch BBC and it's not much better IMO.

Isn't "fair and balanced" somehow Fox News's sloagan?

What about the local medias???? Yeah sure they still fly thier flag, be it fox, nbc, cbs or whatever. But they still report the news and in many cases they do a dam fine job. I know my hometown news is good to go......they rarely report politics and all the issues that would be considered to be "bias". They report what's going on in my city.

Just a point I thought I thought should be brought up.

What about governmental bias in reporting on the econonmy?

That nonsense about shrinking unemployment is just that, nonsense. We've never seen so many long-term unemployed, nor have the unemployed ever been so educated. We've got a pure service economy, where PHDs have to wait tables and wash cars to clear the mortage hurdle every month.

The unemployment numbers are like any statistic, you can use them creatively to advance just about any agenda. However, as far as I can tell, the number of new filings has no bearing on the actual number of people out of work.

I did an article on this story a while back, and at the time, many news outlets were reporting positive growth in the economy, in terms of jobless numbers. They weren't lying per-se, but they were obfuscating the truth of the situation by not fully explaining the relevance of the statistics being trotted out.

It just goes to show you, don't believe anyone's interpretation of the numbers. Get the numbers themselves, and draw your own conclusions to be on the safe side.

I think this recent AP headline is a great example of media bias:

U.S. Ships Make Jordan Resort a Target

So only the U.S. ships were the problem, it'd be a carefree idyllic place if they weren't there (at the invitation of the Jordanian government BTW)...in other words the U.S. ships caused some people there to become terrorists...

The media (pring and broadcast) is fighting for audiences to attract high-paying advertising rates. So certainly, they'll need to slant their material in a way that brings the eyeballs that pay the bills.

Journalistic integrity of the future lies in "open source" efforts like ATSNN where the story is more important than who tells it.

I would agree the mainstream media can be bias. Though, I look at from the other end in what is it they leave out of the News that would be or might be of big interest to your standard every day person?

The press cannot altogether protect their Sources anymore if the protection is questioned in a Federal US Court. A federal judge can order compliance to surrender source names and hand out contempt sentences if refuded as we have seen.

Dallas

I'm not so sure they're all that biased. I mean there are the obvious ones, like FOX is biased to the conservative side, most times anyway. But I think it's more complicated than merely being biased. Bear with me, here.

I think it's more a matter of perception of the news viewer. I hear people complaining about the MSM bias all the time, but depending on the leanings of the viewer, they think it's biased the opposite direction of their personal leanings. In other words, conservatives think the media is leftist and liberals think it's right-wing biased.

For example, when I watch the news, I (being more 'liberal') don't notice any feelings of bias until a pro-Bush or Pro-war sentiment or story is broadcast. Then I might think, "This is biased"! But when they talk about Cindy Sheehan, my thoughts turn to "Oh, I wonder what's happening there in Crawford"?

Likewise, when a conservative is watching the same program, they agree with the Bush and war stories, so they feel comfortable about that. Until Cindy Sheehan's face pops up on the screen. Then they shout "Bias"! because they don't think her story should be reported as 'worthy' or relevent in the news.

Granted, whatever gets them the ratings is what is going to be reported, but I don't think they care what that is or which side it represents. They're just in it for the bucks and if it's 'biased' for two weeks one way and then flips the other way, they couldn't care less.

I became aware long ago..when I bought my first short wave set at a yard sale. Stringing a wire antenna out back of my home brought a wealth of news from outside America when they would broadcast in English. Alot of it was political propaganda but often one would hear storys that never got into the media here in the states. By and by it became obvious what a heavy paper curtain we have here in America. This was before the advent of home computers.
Home computers have changed alot of this with a library of news constantly changing from world wide sources right at ones fingertips , wonderful feature of he home computer. Much of this paper curatain has fallen to those with the skills and desire to search for real news beyond the newspapers and networks stateside.
The insult to my thinking process and bias with the big newspapers. NY Times, Washington Times , Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, et al..is that they come across as if they represent all of America by automatic default. You can see this often in their format. They are America or so they think. Same with CBS especially. NBC and ABC too but CBS really played the feudal card to the hilt. Peter Jennings also played the card to the hilt shortly after 9/11 and it became obvious that somehow their views is what represented America. This is not news reporting ..it is opinion making.
The news media in its manner of reporting often imply in thier style that California and New York represent all of America. Especially Hollywood...or the Big Apple. No other places in America count ..just these places. I find this silent default setting to be a insult. One has to go to school and get educated to buy into this kind of dumbness..only education and constant bombardment by this drivel can pull this ignorance off.
Hollywood and the Big Apple do not represent all of America by default. No way. People need to wake up to this phoney bias by the media.

The Cindy Sheehan story is not front page news. It is not worthy of being on the front page. Nor is the story of this woman lost in Aruba. Natalie Holloway. I feel sympathy for the parents in these two cases but this is not nationwide news. I am insulted by the obvious attempt by the media ..all of them to jerk me around emotionally by these two placebo stories in lieu of real national news. This is public masterbation. Jerking the public off emotionally ...pardon the crudity but I have seen this too much in the media and am insulted by it. If I want emotional jerk off I watch Rikki or Jerry et al.
Anyway ..those of you who can think outside the blocks put up by those pimping what passes for news can understand that to which I am alluding.
It gets tiring from "all " the news media.
It is my belief that their is a growing resentment from Americans concerning much of what passes for news. People are begining to tire of the whole buisness and are recognizing this through blogs like this one and are expressing such discontent. This is a small but growing group of peoples.

Thanks,
Orangetom