Is there really media bias?

[Zguy28]

I was just browsing journalism.org's State of the Media Survey for 2008 and thought it was very interesting.

I will admit that I was originally led to the site by a Christian news report (which was biased itself I think).

But it led me to research the facts myself on the survey. I found a lot of neat info at http://www.journalism.org/

The part that the news story I read was referencing:

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2008/

Journalists’ Ideology

As was the case in 2004, majorities of the national and local journalists surveyed describe themselves as political moderates; 53% of national journalists and 58% of local journalists say they are moderates. About a third of national journalists (32%), and 23% of local journalists, describe themselves as liberals. Relatively small minorities of national and local journalists call themselves conservatives (8% national, 14% local).

Internet journalists as a group tend to be more liberal than either national or local journalists. Fewer than half (46%) call themselves moderates, while 39% are self-described liberals and just 9% are conservatives.

mong the population as a whole, 36% call themselves conservatives – more than triple the percentage of national and internet journalists, and more than double the percentage of local journalists. About four-in-ten (39%) characterize their political views as moderate, while 19% are self-described liberals, based on surveys conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

So, is there a media bias?

Does the bias influence the news to become more commentary than facts?

More liberal or more conservative?

And why are more liberals in journalism than conservatives?

[Bang]

I think the question is, is there truly a 'news' organization left in America? Is there any group solely interested in reporting the facts, with no spin, no omission, no addition, just the facts of the world around us.

I'd say there must be, but I couldn't name one for you. Of all the major sources of 'news', I couldn't pick one that would simply deliver the facts without a modicum of opinion that is slanted to one side or the other.

Fox news, CNN, many others aren't in the business of reporting news. They're "info-tainment". It's entertainment with an obvious slant that panders to the audience that believes the same thing. They will distort facts, they will omit details, they will add innuendo so as to keep their audience satisfied. And keeping their audience satisfied means not rocking the boat of the base they've cultivated.

Those who insist one network is fair and balanced over the other, it makes me chuckle,, the wool is over your eyes. It's about selling you the idea that will keep you tuned in so they can sell you Mr. Clean, and Pizza Hut, and Pepsi, and Fords and AT&T and everything else. You aren't going to tune in to the viewpoint you don't agree with, right? Of course not. Liberals are ready to vomit 5 minutes into a Fox news broadcast, and likewise conservatives are hollering Bias and pointing fingers 5 minutes into Wolf Blitzer. But there's enough of us that are polarized that they don't have to cater to both to survive, there's plenty of advertising revenue to go around.

Sure, when news happens, they're all there, and they act like news agencies. But the moment the breaking news has finished breaking, they all fall into opinion mode, and they will all have an opinion that is pre-ordained, and it will NOT vary from the agenda they're pushing 100% of the time.

And you have to know that, right?

Conservatives HAVE to know that Fox news simply pushes their positive buttons, and Liberals have to know other networks do the same to them, right? It's not even like they try to conceal it.

You can agree with it, but you still see propaganda as propaganda, right?

Anyway, there IS media bias, and it exists on both sides. It is flat out propaganda in many cases. And we have to be smart enough to know that they are trying to lead us around by our noses. (OH, and here's a tip. They really don't care who gets elected. In fact, getting Obama or Hillary elected would have the guys over at Fox overjoyed. They'd have an endless supply of material for which to pontificate and complain. Talk about ratings! Likewise, four more years of the conservatives to complain about,, i mean it's been great for business since Bush has been in, rght? Hey! Lookit the monkey everyone! Hahahaha! And who can deny that war isn't good for the news business? Plenty to talk about! Airtime fills itself, and sponsors line up.)

Whereas it used to be our right to the truth, now it's our obligation to go find it. And if you only listen to one side's version of the truth, you'll never get it.

~Bang

[JimmyConway]

Yes.......

[81artmonk]

Fox news, CNN, many others aren't in the business of reporting news. They're "info-tainment". It's entertainment with an obvious slant that panders to the audience that believes the same thing. They will distort facts, they will omit details, they will add innuendo so as to keep their audience satisfied. And keeping their audience satisfied means not rocking the boat of the base they've cultivated.

CNN maybe, but What Iv'e found with FOX news is that they acually ask tough questions to both sides, or at least the sides that will agree to come on FOX news. They ask fair questions that IMO aren't slanted.

Those who insist one network is fair and balanced over the other, it makes me chuckle,, the wool is over your eyes. It's about selling you the idea that will keep you tuned in so they can sell you Mr. Clean, and Pizza Hut, and Pepsi, and Fords and AT&T and everything else. You aren't going to tune in to the viewpoint you don't agree with, right? Of course not. Liberals are ready to vomit 5 minutes into a Fox news broadcast, and likewise conservatives are hollering Bias and pointing fingers 5 minutes into Wolf Blitzer. But there's enough of us that are polarized that they don't have to cater to both to survive, there's plenty of advertising revenue to go around.

I won't go out on a limb and say that FOX is NOT biased, but I will say that FOX, even though they may be slanted one way, are the fairer of the news networks. They treat all sides the same. I've seen them grill republicans and make them angry by thier questions whereas, I haven't seen that from the other news networks. they tend to cater to one side while grilling the other.

Sure, when news happens, they're all there, and they act like news agencies. But the moment the breaking news has finished breaking, they all fall into opinion mode, and they will all have an opinion that is pre-ordained, and it will NOT vary from the agenda they're pushing 100% of the time.

And you have to know that, right?

Wrong, IMO

Conservatives HAVE to know that Fox news simply pushes their positive buttons, and Liberals have to know other networks do the same to them, right? It's not even like they try to conceal it.

You can agree with it, but you still see propaganda as propaganda, right?

Wrong, IMO

Anyway, there IS media bias, and it exists on both sides. It is flat out propaganda in many cases. And we have to be smart enough to know that they are trying to lead us around by our noses. (OH, and here's a tip. They really don't care who gets elected. In fact, getting Obama or Hillary elected would have them overjoyed. They'd have an endless supply of material for which to pontificate and complain. Talk about ratings!)

Whereas it used to be our right to the truth, now it's our obligation to go find it. And if you only listen to one side's version of the truth, you'll never get it.

~Bang

I will argee with you that no one anymore is news. Not like how it used to be. But, if you look at the other networks and how slanted to left they are, considering, if FOX news is the other way, than wouldn't you call that fair?

One out of how many others??

If you are going to call them out, than I would consider Fox to be fair.

[PleaseBlitz]

I only read the first paragraph of Bang's post. I know what the rest says without reading it, and he's right.

ALL media has an agenda......to make money. Being moderate doesnt make money. Firing people up does.

[PleaseBlitz]

81Artmonk getting flamed in 5......4.......3........2........

[Duckus]

Media has a bias - it is all about $$$$.

I have brought this up a few times, in fact I think there was an entire thread on it, but here it is again:

If the main stream media is biased politically towards liberals - then why on earth are they drawing out this Democratic primary purposely like they have - which has only HURT the Democrats. If you watch the news - you would think HRC was the front runner in the campaign, the media even calls the race a dead heat a tie. What? A dead heat? How can it be a dead heat if there is no possible way she can pass him in delegates, votes, or states.

So if the media wanted what was in the best interest of liberals - they would have helped end this mess long long ago. What have they done instead? Pushed it further. Why? Because no one is watching the news right now unless this is going on. The general election is two far away and right now you have two lighting rods of news who are making you LOTS of $$$.

If there is media bias, they sure suck as helping the Democrats.

[PleaseBlitz]

Media has a bias - it is all about $$$$.

I have brought this up a few times, in fact I think there was an entire thread on it, but here it is again:

If the main stream media is biased politically towards liberals - then why on earth are they drawing out this Democratic primary purposely like they have - which has only HURT the Democrats. If you watch the news - you would think HRC was the front runner in the campaign, the media even calls the race a dead heat a tie. What? A dead heat? How can it be a dead heat if there is no possible way she can pass him in delegates, votes, or states.

So if the media wanted what was in the best interest of liberals - they would have helped end this mess long long ago. What have they done instead? Pushed it further. Why? Because no one is watching the news right now unless this is going on. The general election is two far away and right now you have two lighting rods of news who are making you LOTS of $$$.

If there is media bias, they sure suck as helping the Democrats.

That doesnt make any sense. Their goal isnt to HELP the democrats, their goal is to ATTRACT democrat viewers.

[81artmonk]

Well let's take a look at bias. Shall we?

This NY gov mess. Everyone reported on him and other than that stayed pretty quite.

What makes the bias, you ask? Well, he was a democrat. Still wondering?

Well that's it. Nothing was said other than the scandal.

Had he been a republican. All the news stories and commentary from news people(CNN, MSDNC....ooops I mean MSNBC CBS) Pelosi, and other democrats, would have been,

"look at how corrupt the republican party is. Look at the culture of corruption"

We would have heard at nasium how bad the republican party has become. We would have heard about how this is going to hurt the nomination or candidicy for president. How it would affect voters who don't want this kind of behavior anymore. However, we heard nothing like that about this NY gov. Nor did we hear much about his replacement who we have found out is a cheater also!

How about all the Democrats who have been in trouble with the law?? Haven't heard much about them have you. Nope, cause the news ran with the Republican scandals. Truth be told, there were just as many Democrats in hot water as there were Republicans, but we didn't hear about the democrats?? Why? Hummmm I wonder?

Things have been going pretty well in Iraq. Haven't heard much about it. Except maybe a small blurb at then end of a news cast. No ones talking about it.

However, get some deaths of our troops or a mass car bombing or something big and the news will talk about it till the cows come home about how the Iraq war is wrong, we need to get out.

I wonder why when things are starting to look up in Iraq the major News agencies pretty much ignore that. When things weren't so good, that's all you heard about and the endless commentary about how this will hurt repuiblicans in the election.

To prove my point, I was watching the O'riely factor and Andrea Mitchell from NBC was on being interviewed by O'reily. He asked her about the media bias and she denied it. So he asked her "how many Republicans work at NBC"?

She sat there, with a really puzzled look on her face and couldn't answer the question. finally I believe she answered, "none that I know of".

[Zguy28]

Media has a bias - it is all about $$$$.

I have brought this up a few times, in fact I think there was an entire thread on it, but here it is again:

If the main stream media is biased politically towards liberals - then why on earth are they drawing out this Democratic primary purposely like they have - which has only HURT the Democrats. If you watch the news - you would think HRC was the front runner in the campaign, the media even calls the race a dead heat a tie. What? A dead heat? How can it be a dead heat if there is no possible way she can pass him in delegates, votes, or states.

So if the media wanted what was in the best interest of liberals - they would have helped end this mess long long ago. What have they done instead? Pushed it further. Why? Because no one is watching the news right now unless this is going on. The general election is two far away and right now you have two lighting rods of news who are making you LOTS of $$$.

If there is media bias, they sure suck as helping the Democrats.

Perhaps, like almost half of your party, they believe helping Clinton and the Party are synonymous?

[buenosdiaz]

yes, espn always shows us getting burned

[Bang]

I will argee with you that no one anymore is news. Not like how it used to be. But, if you look at the other networks and how slanted to left they are, considering, if FOX news is the other way, than wouldn't you call that fair?

One out of how many others??

If you are going to call them out, than I would consider Fox to be fair.

I called out both.

I have a bad habit of revising a post a few times after I re-read it, you got an 'unfinished version'. My fault there. I don't have a preference of one over the other.

Bias is bias. You can't excuse one because you believe that particular bias. As one we should demand better. As you put it yourself in your post, it's not like 'the old days' and I take that to mean you to realize in days gone by there was a level of trust that we just don't have anymore.

If our news sources were unbiased, we would still be just as passionate in our beliefs. And maybe our leaders would be held a bit more accountable than they usually are.

~Bang

[Zguy28]

Things have been going pretty well in Iraq. Haven't heard much about it. Except maybe a small blurb at then end of a news cast. No ones talking about it.

However, get some deaths of our troops or a mass car bombing or something big and the news will talk about it till the cows come home about how the Iraq war is wrong, we need to get out.

I wonder why when things are starting to look up in Iraq the major News agencies pretty much ignore that. When things weren't so good, that's all you heard about and the endless commentary about how this will hurt repuiblicans in the election.

Why News of Iraq Dropped

Perhaps the bias log is in your own eye on this one?

[Duckus]

That doesnt make any sense. Their goal isnt to HELP the democrats, their goal is to ATTRACT democrat viewers.

What doesnt make sense is to believe the giant multi-national corporations that control the news programs care more about politics than making money.

Now, if I get what you are saying right, you believe that the media is not biased to help the democrats in anyway? Then why do people care about liberal bias in the media IF it is not supposed to help. Why complain if there is no effect?

[Duckus]

Perhaps, like almost half of your party, they believe helping Clinton and the Party are synonymous?

Right. If you had to guess which statement was true which would you say.

1) Enormous multi-national companies care mostly about money and the bottom line. What makes money and sells will be done.

2) Enormous multi-national companies are pro-Clinton (not just liberal in general) and have a desire to keep this particular democrat (not all) in power.

Right......

[buenosdiaz]

Zguy, good read, one thing I would like to know especially with research centers that publish these reports is what the measure of reporting is?

time? frequency of the mention? choosing to base it on one or the other could mean a large difference in the reports being published

[PleaseBlitz]

What doesnt make sense is to believe the giant multi-national corporations that control the news programs care more about politics than making money.

Now, if I get what you are saying right, you believe that the media is not biased to help the democrats in anyway? Then why do people care about liberal bias in the media IF it is not supposed to help. Why complain if there is no effect?

No, what im saying is that the media IS biased because being that way attracts viewers more effectively than being moderate.

People that watch CNN fall into 2 categories: Liberals that think it is unbiased because it agrees with what they think and Conservatives taht tune in to see what those dumb****s are saying now.

People that watch FoxNes fall into 2 categories: Conservatives that think it is unbiased because it agrees with what they think and liberals tune in to see what those dumb****s are saying now.

Look at what 81artmonk is saying. Foxnews isnt biased but CNN/MSBC is. Guess what, i cant say i remember a single other post of his, but i guarantee he's a big right winger.

Political thread fasting starts now.

[Bang]

What doesnt make sense is to believe the giant multi-national corporations that control the news programs care more about politics than making money.

Now, if I get what you are saying right, you believe that the media is not biased to help the democrats in anyway? Then why do people care about liberal bias in the media IF it is not supposed to help. Why complain if there is no effect?

The goal is to attract viewers or readers or listeners, etc.

If a democrat gets elected for example, Fox and other conservative info-tainment outlets are set. they have their plan laid out for the next four years. They have an audience already disposed to hate whatever the liberal president will do. To pander to that audience is the easiest thing in the world.

It works the other way, too.

Look at liberal based media now. they';ve got a war to complain about every single day. They have an endless supply of people who are feeling the same way, and so they tune in. why? Because over on Fox they're trumpeting the glory of the battle, and these folks don't want to hear that. So they go over o a channel that will cater to how THEY feel about it.

People love to gripe. And for the network, four years of griping is just as good for business as having their agenda go through. Because after all, the only real agenda is selling advertising.

They don't REALLY care who wins.

~Bang

[Duckus]

The goal is to attract viewers or readers or listeners, etc.

If a democrat gets elected for example, Fox and other conservative info-tainment outlets are set. they have their plan laid out for the next four years. They have an audience already disposed to hate whatever the liberal president will do. To pander to that audience is the easiest thing in the world.

It works the other way, too.

Look at liberal based media now. they';ve got a war to complain about every single day. They have an endless supply of people who are feeling the same way, and so they tune in. why? Because over on Fox they're trumpeting the glory of the battle, and these folks don't want to hear that. So they go over o a channel that will cater to how THEY feel about it.

People love to gripe. And for the network, four years of griping is just as good for business as having their agenda go through. Because after all, the only real agenda is selling advertising.

They don't REALLY care who wins.

~Bang

And this is where I agree with you 100%. I believe media does have political bias. My only point was that it is not some secret giant conspiracy in board rooms to try and get politicians elected (like MANY on here think), but that the bias is driven by $$$ and how they can make more of it.

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

[Zguy28]

Right. If you had to guess which statement was true which would you say.

1) Enormous multi-national companies care mostly about money and the bottom line. What makes money and sells will be done.

2) Enormous multi-national companies are pro-Clinton (not just liberal in general) and have a desire to keep this particular democrat (not all) in power.

Right......

The Clintons are practically a multi-national corporation.

Seriously, do you think Rupert Murdoch decides what stories Hannity or Greta cover?

Or that NBC execs really determine what coverage Chris Matthews and Joe Scarboro give to particular issues? Editors and program/newsroom managers are journalists too. And they are the one's making the decisions on coverage. Somehow, I don't think its entirely about money.

[Duckus]

No, what im saying is that the media IS biased because being that way attracts viewers more effectively than being moderate.

People that watch CNN fall into 2 categories: Liberals that think it is unbiased because it agrees with what they think and Conservatives taht tune in to see what those dumb****s are saying now.

People that watch FoxNes fall into 2 categories: Conservatives that think it is unbiased because it agrees with what they think and liberals tune in to see what those dumb****s are saying now.

Look at what 81artmonk is saying. Foxnews isnt biased but CNN/MSBC is. Guess what, i cant say i remember a single other post of his, but i guarantee he's a big right winger.

Political thread fasting starts now.

I agree with that too. I think my point was a bit lost. I got the sense that many people believed in a conspiracy of media bias in which they are purposely leaning news to HELP political parties.

My point was that bias is driven through money and in the end they don't care about who actually wins.

So I think we are kind of saying the same thing, just I did not say it right.

[Midnight Judges]

IMO, perfect unbias may be difficult to attain but it's a worthy goal. Seems a lot of wingers think "it's impossible so why even try."

IMO, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and PBS are the best examples of real journalism.

[Zguy28]

81Artmonk, check this out:

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2008/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.php?cat=1&media=7

Content Analysis

By the Project for Excellence in Journalism

For all the time it has to fill, roughly 18 hours of original programming each day, cable news has become in many ways a niche medium that offers viewers narrow formula rather than a broad-based agenda of the events of the day.

That formula in 2007 was a combination of controversial opinion, a dose of tabloid-tinged crime and celebrity, edgy personalities, and, during the daytime, a focus on the immediate.

In emphasis what is defined as significant amid this formula varies significantly, too, by the channel one watches, the time of day and to some extent the program. More than any on other medium we have studied, the definition of news differs depending on the outlet.

• In general, cable news focuses much of its time on three or four topics a day and relies on wires and brief “tell stories” for much of the rest of the news.
  
• There are distinct differences among the different channels, only some of which reflects the demographic differences of their audiences.
  
• MSNBC, at least in terms of time spent, was indeed the place for politics in 2007 — by nearly double over its rivals in the percentage of time studied (28% vs. 12% on CNN and 15% on Fox News). Fox, in turn, spent less time on the war in Iraq than the others (10% vs. 18% on MSNBC and 16% on CNN). And it was more oriented to crime, celebrity and the media than its rivals (28% vs. 19% on MSNBC and 16% on CNN).
  
• The host-oriented culture of cable, particularly in prime time, now translates into notably different agendas and character even among programs on the same network. Not only does Lou Dobbs have a news agenda of his own on CNN, but so does Anderson Cooper versus Wolf Blitzer on CNN, and Shepard Smith versus Brit Hume on Fox News.
  
• In a medium that relies heavily on being “live” and not on taped and edited packages prepared by correspondents, MSNBC is the most ephemeral and live-oriented of all, despite its connection to a broadcast news division or perhaps because it must borrow correspondents from its NBC sibling. Only 10% of time studied was made up of taped, edited packages, versus 45% on CNN and 28% on Fox.
  

Bolded and underlined for your reading pleasure. ~ Z

[dreamingwolf]

Ive noticed that when its a republican in trouble the headline always mentions his party, not so for democrats. Like the mayor in detroit, you have to read the story to find out his party(although you can pretty much guess that the mayor of detroit is a dem). Its really wild though if you start to look for it.

[RabidFan]

because Democrats are all referred to as Liberals by the right and they don't even use the word democrat...while the left uses the party name of republican and doesn't call all republicans, conservatives or neocons...the right is the label using machine.