Examining Bias in the U.S. Media

Here's a great article on media bias in the US. I've had a few discussions about this with people already who say there is no bias, and have in so many words accused me of being anti-semetic (which couldn't be further from the truth), but it only takes one word to be used differently to completely change the tone of a story. This is done so often and I find it amazing that people don't see that.

www.independent-media.tv...

Independent Media TV - Whenever any questions the whether the U.S. media has biased coverage towards Israel in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, they are immediately labled an anti-semite. I am not an anti-semite. My position on the conflict is similar to the position held by Jimmy Carter, Avraham Burg speaker of Israel's Knesset (Government) in 1999-2003, and the majority of the positions held by the Israeli Labour Party (the second largest party in Israel). If we just examine one article we can get some insight into the bias that we see in a great deal of articles on the subject.

there is a MASSIVE corporate and israeli-interest bias in US media. maybe because they own each other has something to do with it?

nowadays, as opposed to investigative journalism... you have ppl who are far more concerned with reporting things that are in sync with specific business interests, and pro-israeli bias is just collateral damage as a result. you cant talk smack about a business partner, you understand?

the special relationship with israel is highly lucrative. when we cant sell weapons to certain organizations, they do it for us and send us the profits. when we cant outright kill muslims and their culture, they do it for us and with good service and a smile. whats more is when one of our covert ops activities are detected and nullified, they take care of everything for us. the mossad is highly efficient and well-equipped to take care of what the CIA and NSA cannot handle.

Any person who thinks that the media is relatively free of bias in general must be insane. Absolutely, utterly insane. Or ignorant.

Here's a "case study" of biased coverage, and this is actually how it oftentimes works in the media.

When a reporter X, working for media company Y, wants to excel, both in their own career and within that company, leads are often necessary. An example of a lead would be a government official, say for example, Undersecretary of Defense's assistant chief advisor Z (I don't know if that actually exists, just bear with me for a moment).
One day at a media dinner, reporter X meets Z, they hit it off (no, not like that), and they talk from time to time over the phone. Reporter X, when some issue hits it hot in the media, then goes to his "insider" Mr. Z, to get his take.
Now, Mr. Z may talk quite a bit about what's actually going on, being in "the know" about the latest scandal/policy/war/sports event, but it's all done with a personal sort of manner.

Now, reporter X could go and dish out every detail, with one catch: It would be the last tip-off he would ever get from government-boy-Z, because he said way too much. And any reporter who wants to keep things rolling doesn't blow their insider contact like that. So X gives only just enough, but not too much.

Let's just say that X does bring the full-blown story to his media company Y, and they run the whole thing. Now not only has he lost the source that gives him the edge, but that company gets the cold shoulder, or worse yet ends up on the media blacklist (no more high-profile interviews, etc.) from the government/big company/whoever was interested. Goodbye advertising dollars.

So everyone keeps the peace by not upsetting anyone; then, the big media guys keep their tasty stories therefore keeping their viewers therefore keeping their ad money.

And the wheel goes round.

So what would the solution be? State sponsered media? I think a good solution would be to somehow eliminate competition. Either pay them all the same amount or consolidate into one giant source and make broadcasts anonymous ... oh wait their gearing towards that already. (well maybe not anonymity)

Originally posted by John Nada
Here's a great article on media bias in the US. I've had a few discussions about this with people already who say there is no bias, and have in so many words accused me of being anti-semetic (which couldn't be further from the truth), but it only takes one word to be used differently to completely change the tone of a story. This is done so often and I find it amazing that people don't see that.

John, I don�t think anyone claims the media is unbiased. Clearly it is, just like you�re biased and I�m biased. The media isn�t one monolithic thing that is one thing or another, it�s a collection of thousands of individuals just like you and I each of whom has their own bias on what they see as truth, what they think is important, and what they think the public wants to know about.

The question is how it�s biased. Liberals think there is a conservative bias, conservatives think there is a liberal bias. Everyone with a special interest thinks their issue doesn�t get enough attention or it gets the wrong type of attention. Anyone who makes an effort to get their news from multiple sources can see that the overall tone of their news is different from source to source. Since none of us as individuals has the resources or time to travel the world getting information first hand, or access to the people of importance, we have to trust the media, or at least part of it, to get our information for us so that we can form our opinions and make our decisions.

Anti-Semitism? Saying that the news is biased isn�t anti-Semitism. Saying that the news is biased in favor of Israel, though I disagree, isn�t anti-Semitism. Saying that there is a secret cabal of Jews that control the media and world opinion, well, that is anti-Semitism.

Let�s take a look at that article you quoted:

If we truly had an unbiased media, they would treat Israeli terrorists the same as Palestinian terrorists. The article title should read, 'Three Israeli Terrorists Found Guilty'. They tried to bomb a girls school for gods sake.

For starters, if we wanted to treat them the same, there would have been no article. The news only reports successful terrorist attacks. In this case, the bomb didn�t go off, nobody got hurt. Palestinian-Arab terrorist attempts are thwarted every day, it�s so common that nobody bothers to report it. That�s what the IDF checkpoints are all about. If the terrorist is caught, all it means is that the IDF or Shin-Bet were doing their jobs, nothing newsworthy about it.

Am I saying this is anti-Israeli bias? Not really. The old saying is: Dog bites man, not news. Man bites dog, that�s news! This made the news because it�s different. This time the terrorists were Israeli.

Second, if it were reported, they would never have used the word terrorist. Check it out next time you read the mainstream US press. If the bombing is in Iraq and the target is the UN headquarters, it�s a terrorist attack. The same attack happens in downtown Tel Aviv, it�s Palestinian militants. The �T� word is forbidden in US media in connection to Israel. That might make the Palestinian-Arabs seem like the bad guys, and that would be biased.

Also notice how the article never mentions the word children, it only says 'students'. It also mentions repeatedly that it was to avenge the acts of Palestinians. This is biased and opinion. Both sides repeatedly claim attacks are in response to atrocities from the other side. Why should the media take sides on the issue? It should simply report the facts.

The author may have a point about the word �students�. The type of school is relevant. From the article, we don�t know if it was a kindergarten or a Junior college. It probably wasn�t a junior college because Arabic culture doesn�t value higher education for women, but that doesn�t rule it out either.

But the article does not repeatedly claim the attacks are in response to atrocities from the other side. It says it just once. You would think the author would get his facts straight on that one, given that he has the source material right in front of him.

The media has a way of reporting violence in Israel in pairs. Whenever there is a terrorist bombing, they always mention the most recent action the IDF has taken against the terrorists. Whenever the IDF gets active going after terrorists, they always mention the most recent bombings. It�s pretty stupid. The truth is the IDF is always going after terrorists, that�s their job. They only stop when the politicians make them to help some �peace� negotiation. At the same time, the terrorists are always looking for targets of opportunity. The reason the media pairs these up is laziness, they think it adds �depth� to an otherwise mundane story.

Even more important while criticizing this article, is to point out what our media shows whenever a Palestinian is guilty of such an atrocity. When Palestinians commit something similar, our media makes it one of the top stories. There would have been video, pictures of the terrorists, pictures of the children playing at the school (where the bomb was found). Mothers would have been interviewed, and video of Palestinians with masks on, or jumping in the street would have been shown. NONE OF THIS TOOK PLACE. Ask yourself why?

Huh? Since when do Palestinian-Arab bombings become top story in the US? You get a headline on page three the next day and about 20 seconds on the evening news, that�s it. This most recent bus stop bombing got a few follow up articles because of the irony of Dr. Appelbaum being a trauma surgeon that specialized in terrorist related injuries, and the tragedy of his daughter dying the day before her wedding.

I don't have a problem with our media coverage of the terrorist attacks against Israel. I simply ask, why don't we ever see the other side? Ask yourself why we never see the Palestinian mother interviewed when their child has been killed? Why we never see pictures of the thousands of injured innocent Palestinians that have lost arms or legs from Israeli attacks? For the most part, their only crime being that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Probably for the same reason you never see an Israeli mother interviewed or Israeli citizens who have lost arms and legs from terrorist attacks. Think about it, when was the last time you saw these? Ever?



[Edited on 22-9-2003 by Mycroft]

There is definitely bias in the media.
Just look at who owns it.
A certain group of people that help each other out.
There should be more diversity in ownership of the media.
This is something I am increasingly calling for.

Originally posted by THENEO
There is definitely bias in the media.
Just look at who owns it.
A certain group of people that help each other out.
There should be more diversity in ownership of the media.
This is something I am increasingly calling for.

You mean Disney?

Actually the media is owned by a more exclusive group than that.

Well, there is Disney, Viacom, AOL/Time Warner and General Electric. Those four own the big networks and CNN. I forget who owns Fox.

All big corporations, all publicly traded. Exclusive? Well, how do you define exclusive?

Who owns Fox, AOL and Viacom?

What type of people currently run Disney and GE?

Originally posted by THENEO
Who owns Fox, AOL and Viacom?

What type of people currently run Disney and GE?

Oh stop flirting and just tell us!

I don't want to be called an anti-semite!

You need a thicker skin if you're gonna play this game.

Newscorp owns fox...