Honest question for the Right

[CounterTre]

Oh no doubt that BBC has an AntiAmerican slant on certain issues, but I've found that they are a h#ll of a lot more accurate and tell a lot more of the story than CNN does when it comes to War correspondence and giving a world view of how things are seen. Granted the last few months the AntiAmerican crap has gotten excessive, but CNN still sugarcoats anythign we do worldwide. This became REALLY apparent when I was in Australia for a few weeks and cuahg tnew broadcasts down there. It was amazing how much more info was being reported than what CNN doles out. I don't rely on any one source, I think you kind h\of have to hit several different ones if you're going to get the complete picture. I do still believe that BBc does a much better job of it than CNN or ABC or NBC or CBS. USA Today is top notch IMO.

[BG]

Originally posted by CounterTre

Oh no doubt that BBC has an AntiAmerican slant on certain issues, but I've found that they are a h#ll of a lot more accurate and tell a lot more of the story than CNN does when it comes to War correspondence and giving a world view of how things are seen. Granted the last few months the AntiAmerican crap has gotten excessive, but CNN still sugarcoats anythign we do worldwide. This became REALLY apparent when I was in Australia for a few weeks and cuahg tnew broadcasts down there. It was amazing how much more info was being reported than what CNN doles out. I don't rely on any one source, I think you kind h\of have to hit several different ones if you're going to get the complete picture. I do still believe that BBc does a much better job of it than CNN or ABC or NBC or CBS. USA Today is top notch IMO.

I agree with most of these assesments. True BBC is out there, but they are fundamentally accurate in their reporting of events. How you the listener chooses to interpret such reports as to the merits of their known bias is what you ultimately have to deal with.

I don't particularly mind the BBC or NPR, but have to shut them off from time to time when they do interviews or have guest commentators on. 9 times out of 10, when that happens, I almost wreck. So now I just turn it off. The same goes for talk radio and the likes of Rush, Savage and others.

FOX is really going for the "shock" factor. With Savage blatently showing Iraqi 'atrocities' against the Kurds in the back round and dogging stupid celebrities for their lack of informatin to promote their views is the new way of celeb right wingers. However, they are right when it comes to these issues.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

In fact, CNN altered its coverage to please conservatives. It reached out to leading Republicans to ask what it could do to appeal to conservatives and it did so because of the bias in its reporting. It had EVERYTHING to do with criticism from the right. It had EVERYTHING to do with the right's boycott.

Art, I think we agree on principle, but differ on motives.

The criticism from the right is a symptom. Believe me, if CNN had a monopoly on news viewers they wouldn't give a damn about appeasing the right. If you sat among the bean counters in any television station, or newspaper for that matter, the driving concern is Nielsen ratings and readership/viewership. Advertising rates are based on number of viewers and station revenue hinges on viewership. It's called capitalism.

That's why CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson met with Republican leaders to discuss how to improve relations between the network and the right. It's why Isaacson said, "I was trying to reach out to a lot of Republicans who feel that CNN has not been as open to covering Republicans, and I wanted to hear their concerns." So, when you say it had nothing to do with criticism from the right, in fact, the chairman of CNN said that's precisely what it was about.

Stated another way, CNN acknowledged that to increase viewership they were going to have to increase their appeal to conservatives. Let's face it, if you target your news coverage to a finite group of people your revenues will become stagnant unless that target audience increases in numbers.

The fact that CNN was losing viewership to Fox was the reason it reached out to address concerns of the right about its reporting. Since that point CNN has been a changed network on its face. It still leans to the left with straight reporting, but, it is no longer so brazenly left as it had been until about a year ago when it reached out to the right, based on criticisms from the right, to appeal more to the right.

EXACTLY! See, we finally do see eye-to-eye.

[Darth Tater]

Truth is, a headline like Rueters, especially if I just had read the AP headline, would probably get me to drill more into the story, since it would seem to conflict.

'Bias' in the news media has never really bothered me. Bias is natural. Failure to admit bias is what gets me.

[Ghost of Woodson]

This is not even a debate, well perhaps on CNN it might be.

The claim about bias has been easily verified. Simply by using a LEXIS-NEXIS search of certain loaded terms and where they appear and how often, the bias is obvious.

I'd have to dig up an article, but typically Anti-self Defense rights like Handgun Control, Inc., VPC, etc or similar organizations are called "concerned citizens groups" or some such nonsense. In fact they represent a tiny minority even of those that believe in limits on firearms ownership. Then in reference to the NRA or GOA, they refer to them as "gun lobby" or other verbal devices designed to separate these entitites from their massive constituencies. The fact is GOA and NRA and a few other groups have memberships totalling in the MILLIONS while the anti-gunners have memberships in the thousands.

Also LEXIS-NEXIS search of "far right wing" or "Right wing" brings up thousands more occurrences of that term than "left wing extremist" or similar terms. A casual glance at the news would suggest that the anti-American protestors are believed by journalists to be concerned citizens and NOT mostly Communist front group-led and anti-Bush activists. Peace has nothing to do with 99 percent of the people out there. Just ask those that beat a policeman in Portland.

ART, perhaps you can show these guys one of those LEXIS-NEXIS based articles. The bias is real, it is not a myth, it is even mathematically proven.

We won't start on how colleges are breeding grounds for far left militants and how the ANSWER signees list is an interesting blend of Communist orgs, professors and Muslim groups(except Iraqis who actually want Hussein out)

[Ghost of Woodson]

TheKURP,

To be sure, when it comes to certain stories, the guys making the decisions are looking at ratings.

HOWEVER, one can still do stories that get ratings and express bias. Can anyone remember DateLine NBC and their rigged trucks? OR how about the rigged Isuzu Trooper tests? OR Food Lion with 20/20?

Heck, Jon Stossel gets his own specials because he appeals to common sense(and libertarian) viewers, and is probably more popular and gets more ratings than Baba on political/social issues(obv. she wins on celeb interviews)

The fact is, people want to hear about the economy, right? But then you put someone from a LITERALLY socialist org on and just call them a "think tank" but when the Cato institute comes on they make sure to call them "right wing" or "conservative" although Cato is moderate libertarian, mainly.

Do people enjoy movies? YES. But if someone makes a movie on Kent State, will they show students burning buildings, attacking firefighters and forcing those young National Guardsmen onto the top of the hill while shouting "KILL KILL KILL!" and hurling chunks of concrete and rock at them?

NO, they'll show a lie and have kids holding flowers and hugging the troops and then evilly just shooting them down.

See, did you even know Kent State was caused by extremely violent protestors? And if you didn't, might that be caused by bias, either in school or media or BOTH?(media in this case meaning a mix of entertainment and "news")

[Talent Wasted at a Desk]

We shouldn't expect our media to be objective...throughout human history, throughout the world, media sources have had an axe to grind. We're doing fine...let's take this thread as a example: some people are ticked at the mainstream media, or want to know others' opinions about it, and we're all able to share our views without censorship in what is essentially our own medium. That is the First Amendment at work, my friends!

Having said that, I regularly learn from Jim Lehrer's show, BBC WorldNews, washingtonpost.com, This Week with George Stephadoodoo, and of course The Daily Show.

[Canyonero!]

Originally posted by Talent Wasted at a Desk

We shouldn't expect our media to be objective...throughout human history, throughout the world, media sources have had an axe to grind. We're doing fine...let's take this thread as a example: some people are ticked at the mainstream media, or want to know others' opinions about it, and we're all able to share our views without censorship in what is essentially our own medium. That is the First Amendment at work, my friends!

Having said that, I regularly learn from Jim Lehrer's show, BBC WorldNews, washingtonpost.com, This Week with George Stephadoodoo, and of course The Daily Show.

I agree that we shouldn't expect the media itself to be objective, but I do expect the news to be presented in an objective manner. Just a pipe dream I suppose.

news ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nz, nyz)

pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)

1. Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.

2. A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.

ed·i·to·ri·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tôr-l, -tr-)

n.

1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.

2. A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network.

[Glenn X]

People, listen to Art. The man knows what he's talking about here.

The reality is that there is no conspiracy to slant the news to the left. Why? Because it's not necessary. Certain types of jobs naturally tend to attract certain types of people. For example, the military and law enforcement tend to attract those interested in upholding and protecting the status quo, which is a conservative impulse. On the other hand, journalism tends to attract those who want to change the world and, in the process, challenge the status quo, which is a liberal impulse.

ABC News' Peter Jennings made this clear when he was quoted by the Boston Globe in July of 2001 as saying, "Those of us who went into journalism in the '50s or '60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do. Save the world." While Jennings is dead on, the fact is that the vast majority of people going into journalism today are still doing so to "save the world." And at journalism schools and in newsrooms across this country, saving the world typically amounts to viewing "everybody to the right of Lenin [as] a 'right-winger,'" as Bernard Goldberg humorously puts it in his provocative and insightful exposé, Bias. Jennings, who has frequently denied the existence of a liberal tilt to the media, then conceded to the Globe that "Conservative voices in the U.S. have not been as present as they might have been and should have been in the media."

[codeorama]

Glen X... thanks, you turned a light bulb on for me... I think you explained it in a way that I could better understand.

That makes total sense, that's why military guys and police are more likely right conservative and the media left lib...

I had never really looked into it that way.

[NavyDave]

Four years ago?

Heck last year Israel was ready to kick them out of their country because of their slant and Turners anti semitic views.

There was a reason for it being called the Clinton News Network.

Especially the original TalkBack live when you could enter their chatroom.

Bring up too many facts and the sources for them and you mysteriously were bumped out of the room.

One thing about Rush when he was on the air was that he would use the sound bites from CNN and CSPan to catch the liberals when they try to deny things they said 6 months ago.

I still remember the "they are coming for our children" nonsense about school lunch or gore's the GOP will poison your children because of their environmental viewpoint.