Bias in the Media redux

[GenMarshall]

Apparently you have not read anything about this study. It was a study of the Federal Election Commissions publicly released list of campaign donors.

Yes I have read about this study . Don't chastize me if I cant articulate myself .

 

[sonorakitch]

Yes I have read about this study . Don't chastize me if I cant articulate myself .

He is simply noting you didn't realize this was a FEC sourced study. It isn't about you not articulating yourself...you just didn't know.

To the OP: the only true non-biased reporter is Jim Lehrer; he hasn't voted in an election in forty years, much less donated to a candidate or interest group.

Is it despicable that a journalist who prides him/herself as a purveyor of delivering information to the public (often times said information being political in nature) donates to a particular agenda? Heck yes. Should it be banned? I say no...let the free market handle it. The NYT and CNN (to a lesser extent) are in the toilet anyways. Flush!

~Chris

 

[Phlegmak]

Dear Mr.Grammarian:

I humbly ask for you to submit whatever I have written in that last passage of mine that is an error of proper verb conjugation.


What are the things that I have mentioned that seems not comphrensible for you?

I'll respond to this via PM since I got a moderator warning for bringing this up.

 

[Ecofarm]

Leftists use the media to sway public opinion into accepting bigger government and more spending, leading to higher taxes.

Modern\religious or neoconservatives use the media to alter public opinion to adopt pro-war idealogies, impose absolutist morality on all people, and accept greater state powers.

Let me get this straight --

The left is bad because they cause more taxes.

The right is bad because they are WAR MACHINE DICTATORSHIP FACISTS!

Ok, your not baised...

 

[DNK]

Lovely thread that this is, I'll chime in.

Media tries to get as many customers as it can at a time when said customers are leaving it for other forms of information. Since quality and standards tend to mean spending more money on journalists and focusing less on ratings/profit, this means that all media channels must instead start pandering to the lowest common denominator, ditching real journalism, and emotionally involving their viewers instead of doing so intellectually (the former being more profitable than the latter).

In the end, what you get it a load of trash that no one with a real desire to know would ever consider useful. It broadcasts whatever "news" the least informed and politically lazy demographics want to hear. Because of its emotional nature, it draws ire from both camps which see it as "leftist/rightist propaganda", because it is both. It is nationalistic, unquestioning, prone to err, propagandistic in its constant appeals to emotion, ignorance by design, and controlled mainly by corporate interests.

But complaining about its bias or holding one channel over the other is completely ignoring all this. Its bias isn't that it is leftist or rightist, it's that it's crapist. How about we all just stop watching it and find more useful news outlets? If you're so concerned about bias, I'm sure there are plenty out there to fit your needs...

 

[ParkCungHee]

amen, i'm still amazed that lobbyists are legal.

I was more thinking, if we're going to say that certain people can't be in politics because of potential dangers, the list would be:
Military
Police
Lawyers & Government Buerocrats
Media owners

So, yeah, a ban on Journalists would be good after all these people have been blocked out.

 

[MobBoss]

I was more thinking, if we're going to say that certain people can't be in politics because of potential dangers, the list would be:
Military
Police
Lawyers & Government Buerocrats
Media owners

So, yeah, a ban on Journalists would be good after all these people have been blocked out.

I am curious, why the military or police?

 

[brennan]

Didn't Heinlein used to say that the only people who really have the right to vote are the ones that are prepared to fight for it? I've got a soft spot for that point of view.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Let me get this straight --

The left is bad because they cause more taxes.

The right is bad because they are WAR MACHINE DICTATORSHIP FACISTS!

Ok, your not baised...

Or is it you that's biased because you think having morals is worse than having a nanny state?

I hope everyone now realizes why unbiased news does not exist.

 

[JollyRoger]

Your prejudice against the military is obviously the result of brainwashing by leftwing moonbats.

I would be interested to know how that is so obvious. Are you saying that anyone that harbors potentially mistaken beliefs about the military only harbor such beliefs because of brainwashing by leftwing moonbats? I think you may be letting your anti-leftwing bias cloud your objectivity.

 

[Phlegmak]

I would be interested to know how that is so obvious. Are you saying that anyone that harbors potentially mistaken beliefs about the military only harbor such beliefs because of brainwashing by leftwing moonbats? I think you may be letting your anti-leftwing bias cloud your objectivity.

Seconded.

Also, Ecofarm, how is Wolf Blitzer's show an opinion show?

 

[GenMarshall]

Would it be better to create a new thread related to Military affairs than to veer off topic?

Moderator Action: Indeed, and per C~G's request, Heinlein-topic posts in this thread have been moved to the new OT thread here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228686

 

[Ecofarm]

Seconded.

Also, Ecofarm, how is Wolf Blitzer's show an opinion show?

Upon further review, I would not put Blitzer in the same position of Bill O. However, his show does many interviews where people are allowed to spew opinion without correction. Additionally, some people see Blitzer's view on Israeli matters as completely biased (and point to his employment by AIPAC).

Here are a couple of "tidbits" that do not quite qualify as journalism, and his guests calling him on it:

BLITZER: While they were united today in mourning the death of the pope, U.S. Catholics are a diverse group, as illustrated by two of our Crossfire co-hosts, the conservative Robert Novak, the liberal Paul Begala. Both good Catholics -- I don't know "good" Catholics, but both Catholics. I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala.
BEGALA: Well, now, who are you to pass moral judgment on my religion, Mr. Blitzer? My goodness gracious.
BLITZER: All right, go ahead, go ahead.
BEGALA: On the day of my Holy Father's funeral. My eldest son is named John Paul, after the Pope.
BLITZER: So you are a good Catholic?
BEGALA: I'm serious, that annoys me. I don't think anybody should presume that a liberal is not a good Catholic.
NOVAK: Paul, Paul, Paul is a good Catholic.
BEGALA: The Holy Father is liberal. And in fact, when [CNN contributor] Carlos [Watson] was speaking [earlier in the program], I was in the green room. Underneath, some producer had written, "Many Catholic doctrines are conservative." Absolutely correct. Many are liberal as well. The Holy Father bitterly opposed President Bush's war in Iraq. He came to St. Louis -- and I was there -- and he begged America to give up the death penalty. President Bush strongly supports it, as did President Clinton and others. Many of the Holy Father's views -- my church's views -- are extraordinarily liberal. The Pope talked about savage, unbridled capitalism, not Bob Novak's kind --
BLITZER: I was certainly not questioning -- I was only teasing.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504090001

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to call the holy father "liberal", but Blitzer was being a jerk - not a journalist.


From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the January 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: You know, he hates the idea that you and several of your colleagues recently showed up in Damascus --
DODD: Right.
BLITZER: -- in effect giving comfort to Bashar al-Assad, the -- the leader of Syria.
DODD: That was hardly comfort, any more than I think that -- that Henry Kissinger or Richard Nixon were giving comfort to Mao Zedong when they went to China, or presidents of all political parties went to the Soviet Union for many years, trying to resolve differences between two enemies. I went there to find out whether or not we could get any cooperation from him.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701120007

Also see: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/wolf_blitzer.html


Sometimes he seems like a librul, such as "republicans should be more like Arnold" (this has been repeated by him so many times, it is almost a mantra).

Sometimes he seems like a republican, such as his views on Israel and "you're comforting the enemy".

Thus, I stand corrected. While his show certainly contains opinion (and not only from the people he interviews), it seems more "news oriented" than Bill O. Sometimes I can't quite differenciate between what he is responsible for on the program, and what CNN (ultra-liberal) is responsible for. Some of the graphics during his program border on propoganda.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sometimes I can't quite differenciate between what he is responsible for on the program, and what CNN (ultra-liberal) is responsible for.

CNN ultra-liberal? Explain Glenn Beck and Nancy disGrace.

Some of the graphics during his program border on propoganda.

Like Fox's graphics showing Mark Foley as a Democrat and showing Scooter Libby "not guilty" when the truth was that he was acquitted on one charge but found guilty on four.

 

[Phlegmak]

Upon further review, I would not put Blitzer in the same position of Bill O. However, his show does many interviews where people are allowed to spew opinion without correction. Additionally, some people see Blitzer's view on Israeli matters as completely biased (and point to his employment by AIPAC).

Here are a couple of "tidbits" that do not quite qualify as journalism, and his guests calling him on it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504090001

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to call the holy father "liberal", but Blitzer was being a jerk - not a journalist.


From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the January 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701120007

Also see: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/wolf_blitzer.html


Sometimes he seems like a librul, such as "republicans should be more like Arnold" (this has been repeated by him so many times, it is almost a mantra).

Sometimes he seems like a republican, such as his views on Israel and "you're comforting the enemy".

Thus, I stand corrected. While his show certainly contains opinion (and not only from the people he interviews), it seems more "news oriented" than Bill O.

You can't blame Blitzer for what his guests say. Maybe he doesn't catch some of the crazy comments some of his guests might say, and he should, but I don't think that's enough to say his show is an opinion show. Other reporters have the same situation, and I don't completely blame them for it.

I read your quotes from him. They don't convince me of anything in particular.

And he said Republicans should be more like Arnold? What?

Blitzer used to be in some group that was fiercely proIsrael. I don't remember the name. I'm certain this clouds his personal opinion in favor of Israel, and I don't care. I haven't seen anything particularly biased from him as far as Israel is concerned, but that may just be because I don't watch very much of him.

Sometimes I can't quite differenciate between what he is responsible for on the program, and what CNN (ultra-liberal) is responsible for. Some of the graphics during his program border on propoganda.

I can't help but roll my eyes and think "ug". It's ultra liberal? Oh jeezus, please explain. And it is a tremendous shame that some news stations use propagandistic graphics, but CNN? You mention CNN but not Fox; I'll just assume it's because the subject is CNN and not Fox, but Fox has the most outrageous propagandistic graphics of all time.

 

[batteryacid]

I know, I know, this has been argued before well and good....but perhaps not from this angle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485





Hmmm. Exactly how are we supposed to perceive this, when the number of journalists donating to the dems outnumber those donating to republicans aby about 9:1?

Is it possible to be a non-bias journalist if you are donating to either political party? I hardly think so. Do you think journalists should be banned from donating to political parties due to their nature of their job?

Is this good evidence that could certainly indicate a heavily left leaning bias in our media today?

Discuss.

And the owner of the newspapers and newsstations they are working for are conservatively biased. So tell me, have reporters or their employers more influence on the bias of the media?

 

[The Yankee]

Not necessarily. They'll just want profit. It could cut either way, based on targeting a certain audience and tailoring a view via the editorial boards. I'd say it probably depends on the place.