The officially unofficial Media Bias thread

[Miles Teg]

Ah Media Bias, we all hate, we all see it everywhere, and it always seems to be anti-yourpoliticalposition. So what I'm wondering is, what is the bias in the media you watch and read and listen to? What channels/papers are biased, and what shows/columnists on the prior are biased? It's not always the same thing of course. For example, MSNBC is generally thought of as a liberal channel, but Morning Joe runs for just as long as Maddow, Contdown, and Harball combined (minus reruns), and Scarborough is definitely conservative. (Trivia: He was my district's congressman before I moved here).

And of course, you've got media outlets that are hard to place. The Politico for example, has blasted both sides, although they're currently leaning pretty conservative.

Anyways, bias is all about perspective, so I'm curious to see what you find biased.

 

[Bill3000]

There's a specific cognitive bias relevant to this thread, called the [wiki]Hostile media effect[/wiki]

In the first major study of this phenomenon,[3] pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israeli students at Stanford University were shown the same news filmstrips pertaining to the then-recent Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christian Lebanese militia fighters in Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War. On a number of objective measures, both sides found that these identical news clips were slanted in favor of the other side. Pro-Israeli students reported seeing more anti-Israel references and fewer favorable references to Israel in the news report and pro-Palestinian students reported seeing more anti-Palestinian references, and so on. Both sides said a neutral observer would have a more negative view of their side from viewing the clips, and that the media would have excused the other side where it blamed their side.

It is important to note that the two sides were not asked questions about subjective generalizations about the media coverage as a whole, such as what might be expressed as "I thought that the news has been generally biased against this side of the issue." Instead, when viewing identical news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. The research suggests the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception (selective perception).

Be weary of this before you whine about how biased something is. And I emphasize my point from the previous thread:

Bias is irrelevant. Freedom of the press was created precisely to allow paper biases - there was no standards for neutrality at the time of the founding of the nation. Freedom thrives when opinions clash - the freedom of the press is no different than the freedom of speech. It is also impossible for the news to not have bias. For example, all of the western news networks will inevitably have a have an western bias.

If bias bothers you that much, then look through multiple news sources. But the bias of a network does not make a story false; at the very most, it makes it suspicious, and only when there is a conflict of interest. Unless we're talking about tabloid-quality sources, but Fox News is not a tabloid-quality source. It may make mistakes that ruins their journalistic integrity, but not to the level in which it reduces to tabloid-level.

But the bias of Fox News is important now that we have a Democratic President. Being the network of the opposition, they will have the most desire to criticize the President's actions and helps provide the check on the government that the media is supposed to have. Most of the problems with the media today deals with their lust for ratings, not because of their bias.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As I also mentioned in the other thread, there is a huge difference between typical media bias and propaganda, an important distinction many people fail to grasp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Fox News isn't just biased. It is the propaganda arm of a fanatical reactionary billionaire.

http://www.outfoxed.org/

 

[Bill3000]

As I also mentioned in the other thread, there is a huge difference between bias and propaganda, an important distinction many people fail to grasp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Fox News isn't just biased. It is the propaganda arm of a fanatical reactionary billionaire.

You didn't "mention" it in the thread, you just posted the links. Nineteen Eight Four is a ridiculous comparison, because Fox News is not a totalitarian government who make up facts, it merely tries to convince people of their opinions through various sensationalist means... but that's not particularly unique.

 

[Evie]

Bias is irrelevant. Freedom of the press was created precisely to allow paper biases - there was no standards for neutrality at the time of the founding of the nation. Freedom thrives when opinions clash - the freedom of the press is no different than the freedom of speech. It is also impossible for the news to not have bias. For example, all of the western news networks will inevitably have a have an western bias.

(...)
But the bias of Fox News is important now that we have a Democratic President. Being the network of the opposition, they will have the most desire to criticize the President's actions and helps provide the check on the government that the media is supposed to have. Most of the problems with the media today deals with their lust for ratings, not because of their bias.

I disagree a little.

You're quite correct on the unavoidability of bias. But bias remain part of the problem in the media these days, because of how it interacts with other forces, primarily economic concentration. Having bias in the press is not a problem in and of itself with hundreds of news outlets; but when that hundred of news outlets, through the actions of a Hearst or Murdoch ultimately all become the mouthpiece of the same man, and thus acquire the same bias, you suddenly have media that have the power to impose their bias as reality to a load of people - both because they have far more ability to say something, and because it's far easier to discredit one rival hyper-concentrated news outlet as "biased" than it is to dismiss seventy roughly equal news outlet as "all biased."

 

[Bill3000]

I disagree a little. Bias in the medias has always been present, true. It's there to stay, true. But it's part of the big problem, and that problem is concentration of the press. Whether it's Hearst way back when, or Murdoch these days, when a single man's bias ultimately define the news a plurality that comes dangerously close to majority gets, you have a problem. Particularly when said news then go ahead and make the claim that they are not, in fact, biased.

The problem then is clearly not a matter of bias itself, though, but of a lack of competition. I never said that there are no problems with the media, just that bias is a red herring.

 

[Evie]

Bias is part of the problem, though. If there was no bias there would be no problem, and, while I agree that it's concentration that should be stopped (because you can't stop bias), that doesn't mean bias isn't partly to blame. And I'm not sure how you can stop this sort of concentration within a free market, either. Hopefully the Net Generation will buy us a little time, though if net neutrality gets killed, forget that.

I certainly wouldn't do away with bias even if I could; although it irks me how often journalists forget that their primary duty to society is to be biased against any and all authority figures, particularly the legislative and executive.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nineteen Eight Four is a ridiculous comparison.

You mean because it is such an accurate depiction of what can happen when the media turns into merchants of propaganda instead of news?

 

[Bill3000]

Bias is part of the problem, though. If there was no bias there would be no problem, and, while I agree that it's concentration that should be stopped (because you can't stop bias).

I certainly wouldn't do away with bias even if I could; although it irks me how often journalists forget that their primary duty to society is to be biased against any and all authority figures, particularly the legislative and executive.

That's hard to do when you agree with the establishment.

You mean because it is such an accurate depiction of what can happen when the media turns into merchants of propaganda instead of news?

It's not about media, it's about how propaganda can be used by governments, like the Soviet Union or China. It's not accurate as well; you don't see fox news manipulating facts - just providing a tone that leads towards a particular interpretation.

 

[Cutlass]

That's hard to do when you agree with the establishment.


It's not about media, it's about how propaganda can be used by governments, like the Soviet Union or China. It's not accurate as well; you don't see fox news manipulating facts - just providing a tone that leads towards a particular interpretation.

View attachment 201710

 

[Evie]

That's hard to do when you agree with the establishment.

The media have a responsibility to the people to take a skeptical view (at the very least) toward the establishment. You can conclude they're right, you can agree privately, but you're supposed to be extra-skeptical of what they say.

 

[Elta]

Fox News does not make up facts

View attachment 201710

 

[Formaldehyde]

you don't see fox news manipulating facts - just providing a tone that leads towards a particular interpretation.

I see you didn't pay any attention to the video clips and articles I posted earlier. Here's one of them to referesh your memory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpChNJbILZM

You can't defend Fox News. There are simply way too many examples to the contrary.

 

[scherbchen]

it is exactly these moments when we Europeans get our little "neener neener neener" kicks. not to say that there is no bias in European media, shuh-uh. but in an environment where (taking Germany as an example) green constantly forms a coalition with either the right or the left or the liberal wing (or the far left wing) in order to form a functioning government (and to get paid and to not have to get a real job) on a state and federal level, just to pick an example, you just do not have these entrenched lines I perceive in US politics.

somebody you run against this year might be somebody you have to woo next year so you better watch your tongue and hold the negative campaigning (alas, we seem to like that trend and warm to it). this, I believe, makes for a far more amiable environment in politics (not necessarily better, merely less devisive). this is continued in the printed press andother media. you do not merely have (R) and (D) -and yes, I simplify for my argument's sake- but you have many more shades of grey.

but hey, it all depends on what you are accustomed to. I am sure most Americans find our multi-party system preposterous.

 

[Miles Teg]

Bill, just to clarify, I have no problem with media being biased. I just feel it's important to remember which are biased which way. Honestly, I'm less interested in philosophical discussions of the role of bias in the media than I am in what so and so's angle is.

 

[Formaldehyde]

but hey, it all depends on what you are accustomed to. I am sure most Americans find our multi-party system preposterous.

What? Are you kidding? A two-party system is only one tiny party different than our worse enemy of all time: The evil Soviet Union.

And it's not like they are all that different, either.We can choose either chocolate or vanilla ice cream when I think most people would prefer cake for a change. If it were the fascists vs. the commies, at least we would have some grounds to compare and contrast them other than their stances on what women should or shouldn't be able to do with their own bodies.

 

[Arwon]

There are two things people who complain about media bias often forget: The difference between reporting and editorial content, and the difference between political bias and sensationalism aimed at selling more papers or getting higher ratings.

 

[downtown]

I dunno if I'd call the Politico Conservative.

 

[Miles Teg]

I dunno if I'd call the Politico Conservative.

No, not really, they just like reporting on strife inside camps. Sensationalistic if you will. Since Obama is obviously the biggest political infrastructure at the minute, that means allot of mockery for him. Of course, the CEO is a Reagan crony, although I'm not sure how much influence he has in hiring people and the like.

 

[carmen510]

Yeah, Fox either really wants to cover up Republican embarrassments, or have a horrible political facts team.