American Media bias, admit it!

[Guest American Woman]

But they (and you) will fight tooth and nail trying to deny bias.

Excuse me. But you made a claim that I think is false. I don't think refusing to print McCain's op ed piece is proof of any sort of bias on the part of the NYT, so I refuted your claim with facts. The claim that the media is liberally biased because Democrats in the media give more to the candidates they support than Republicans do is also no proof at all that the media is liberally biased. So I refuted that, too. Isn't that what one is expected to do on a discussion board? I hardly call pointing out that your claims are not valid "fighting tooth and nail trying to deny bias." I call it showing that your claims are not valid based on your 'proof.'

Edited July 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Not at all. But this topic isn't up for debate. The science is settled.

Scientifically speaking, the information that more journalists donate to the Dems than the GOP proves one thing and one thing only: more journalists donate to the Dems than the GOP. That information does not speak to any bias within the content produced by these journalists. That's an assumption on your part.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Black Dog

[JerrySeinfeld]

Scientifically speaking, the information that more journalists donate to the Dems than the GOP proves one thing and one thing only: more journalists donate to the Dems than the GOP. That information does not speak to any bias within the content produced by these journalists. That's an assumption on your part.

Yes. Technically you're correct.

But out in the real world, where cargo-pants-wearing camera operators hate the world for making them poor and fat, the evil republicans already "have too much". Gay Joey CNN camera dude spent last night at a gay bar in the French quarter bitching about how much he hates the war and loves gay marriage and Barack, which is why the photo ops have Barack sitting down at a table holding court with European leaders, then cutting to a shot of a big mole on McCain's face.

Pictures are powerful. And it's amazing how much power some of these liberal twits in the media are continuously allowed to wield. And to top it off, the rest of the liberal press has a fit when one network (FOX) actually has the GALL to present the other side of the story.

That's how badly the media bias is: FOX is considered an outcast because it's the only right wing network. Think about that context.

The only thing more powerful is the general incompetency of the Democrats to take advantage of such a huge media love in. Despite how swimmingly everything's gone for Barack Horseshoe-up-his-arse Obama, he's still only ahead by 6 points, plus or minus the 3% margin of error.

Or as I once hear a commentator say "if GW Bush is so stupid, just think of how stupid you have to be to continuously lose elections to him".

Edited July 29, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[bush_cheney2004]

...Or as I once hear a commentator say "if GW Bush is so stupid, just think of how stupid you have to be to continuously lose elections to him".

Amen to that!

[Guest American Woman]

Scientifically speaking, the information that more journalists donate to the Dems than the GOP proves one thing and one thing only: more journalists donate to the Dems than the GOP.

Looking at the low numbers in the study, I think it's safe to say that there are many, many more journalists who don't give to either party, or else they were omitted from this study, such as it was. So this study doesn't even really prove that more journalists give to the Dems than the GOP. There would have to be control factors, margins of error, etc., in order for it to actually prove anything.

[stevoh]

Excuse me. But you made a claim that I think is false. I don't think refusing to print McCain's op ed piece is proof of any sort of bias on the part of the NYT, so I refuted your claim with facts. The claim that the media is liberally biased because Democrats in the media give more to the candidates they support than Republicans do is also no proof at all that the media is liberally biased. So I refuted that, too. Isn't that what one is expected to do on a discussion board? I hardly call pointing out that your claims are not valid "fighting tooth and nail trying to deny bias." I call it showing that your claims are not valid based on your 'proof.'

I am not claiming the New York Times is biased due to the Obama piece. I believe you. Sure, they were completely fair in their choice of op ed pieces, no problem.

Why does admitting bias matter so much? You are fighting pretty hard to say that the Obama piece does not indicate bias. You may be right. But why are you fighting? Why does it matter? THAT is my question. My question is not "is the new york times biased", it is "why does it matter if it is"?

[Black Dog]

Looking at the low numbers in the study, I think it's safe to say that there are many, many more journalists who don't give to either party, or else they were omitted from this study, such as it was. So this study doesn't even really prove that more journalists give to the Dems than the GOP. There would have to be control factors, margins of error, etc., in order for it to actually prove anything.

Totally agree. I just picked the most glaringly obvious flaw in Jerry's statement. Speaking of...

Technically you're correct.

You mean "scientifically."

But out in the real world, where cargo-pants-wearing camera operators hate the world for making them poor and fat, the evil republicans already "have too much". Gay Joey CNN camera dude spent last night at a gay bar in the French quarter bitching about how much he hates the war and loves gay marriage and Barack, which is why the photo ops have Barack sitting down at a table holding court with European leaders, then cutting to a shot of a big mole on McCain's face.

I love fake anecdotes. You're missing an imaginary cab driver, though.

Pictures are powerful. And it's amazing how much power some of these liberal twits in the media are continuously allowed to wield.

Whereas if they were biased to your side: no problem. It's hard to take anyone's complaints about bias seriously when they are actually bitching about the wrong kind of bias.

Also: "allowed to wield?" Sounds like you've got some issues with freedom of the press.

And to top it off, the rest of the liberal press has a fit when one network (FOX) actually has the GALL to present the other side of the story.

IMO, the main beef with Fox is it's claim that it is "fair and balanced".

That's how badly the media bias is: FOX is considered an outcast because it's the only right wing network. Think about that context.

Conspicuous in its absence amid the bogus anecdotes, unrelated studies, unstrung tennis rackets, bowling balls and whatever else has cascaded out of the closet of Jerry's brain is any actual analysis of content that would support his hypothesis.

[HisSelf]

I agree. The media is very biased. Not only in the US. Have you ever looked at the Toronto Sun (Brian Mulroney, Chairman of the Board).

There are very very few neutral players on the media scene.

Look into the history of any North American media outlet and the chances are you will find a Citizen Kane. An ugly yellow journalist with a bully politician standing behind him. God bless Teddy Roosevelt. And by the way. Is Puerto Rico a state yet?

Just remember that one of our most successful media barons is now a convicted felon serving time. Pick up any issue of Macleans. You'll find his little wifey pining away for her Marie Antoinette costume.

Thank heavens the boomers are retiring. It takes a lot of free time to do the reading needed to figure out the media is just one big load of crap.

[peter_puck]

Or as I once hear a commentator say "if GW Bush is so stupid, just think of how stupid you have to be to continuously lose elections to him".

George Bush won because he had smart people working for him (or he was working for smart people), he had gobs of money from the people who bought him and he ran the dirtiest political campaigns in modern history.

He also ran up MASSIVE debts to bribe the electorate with tax cuts the country could not afford. He refused to cut spending less he offend someone.

He lied to gain support for his policies.

He also benefited from Clinton's scandals, the massive buget surplus left by Clinton (and the Republican Congress).

Remember also, that it took a bad ballot, Supreme court justices and Ralph Nader to give him the first election (even though he lost the popular vote).

This guy, with no doubt a lot of coaching, managed to score only in the 25th percentile on a pilot appitude test! (He still became a pilot above much more qualified people however because his daddy fixed it).

He was the idiot son of a bright man who had everything in life handed to him instead of earning it. Anyone points out flaws in your character, well you just have big money say they had black babies out of wedlock or lied about their war medals.

He is, in presidental terms, STOOPID!

[Guest American Woman]

Well said, peter_puck. No one has "continuously" lost to Bush. Gore got the popular vote the first time around, so basically one candidate lost one time to Bush-- and Bush had the advantage of 'fear' the second time around: fear of another attack; fear of being unpatriotic if people didn't give the Commander in Chief their vote; fear that things would be even worse than they already were if we changed leaders mid-war. An intelligent candidate needs more than intelligence to beat a "stupid" opponent; he needs strong, well-informed voters. Most Americans now realize their mistake in voting for Bush for a second term. If presidents were allowed a third term, GW wouldn't stand a chance.

[peter_puck]

and Bush had the advantage of 'fear' the second time around: fear of another attack; fear of being unpatriotic if people didn't give the Commander in Chief their vote;

He was actually on his way to becoming the first US wartime president to lose an election until he was rescued by his "swift boaters". Kerry was leading before he got swift boated.

[bush_cheney2004]

He was actually on his way to becoming the first US wartime president to lose an election until he was rescued by his "swift boaters". Kerry was leading before he got swift boated.

There is no such thing as leading before anything but the general election.....Senator Kerry was defeated. Kerry's "swift boaters" lost their jobs at CBS.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is patently false.....news media (American and others) devoted plenty of time and ink to the "war protesters", including body counts and the utter futility of such efforts. Don't blame the news media for failing to win the day.

I agree with you there. I remember the protests in all the U.S. cities before the war being televised on TV. Protestors had a decent say. Not sparkling, and i do believe that actual journalists/media types were discouraged from speaking out on the war (ie: Phil Donahue). But at least they covered the public outcries.

The real problem with the mainsteam media over the war is they have failed to inform & remind the general public on all of the lies perpetrated by the Bush admin. PBS had a bit of coverage (Frontline, Bill Moyers), and MSNBC had Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann. However, you've never seen Wolf Blitzer run a tape of all the pre-war instances members of the Bush admin mentioned Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda. And what portion of the public knows who "curveball" is? The MSM lets the admin say everything they want to say to spread their message, but a small portion actually calls them on it when it turns out to be B.S. The only thing you see on CNN is the occasional "mission accomplished" reference or the subtle Jack Cafferty anti-Bush quip. Most of the Bush B.S. info the public knows is from a freakin' Michael Moore movie!! Ridiculas!

Its amazing the % of Americans who sill think Saddam has links to Al-Qaeda, or the % that think he was in someway responsible for 9/11. We shouldn't have to do this much digging to get the real story. Media failure!

Edited July 30, 2008 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

...The real problem with the mainsteam media over the war is they have failed to inform & remind the general public on all of the lies perpetrated by the Bush admin. PBS had a bit of coverage (Frontline, Bill Moyers), and MSNBC had Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann. However, you've never seen Wolf Blitzer run a tape of all the pre-war instances members of the Bush admin mentioned Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda.

This is a bit presumptuous ("lies")...even to this day, Congress is having a hard time just getting an inquiry established for "lies" that were established after the fact...as in 20/20 hindsight. VP Cheney's contentions were repeated in the MSM, particulary during the 2004 election campaign (60 Minutes, Air America Radio, Democractic Underground, Slate, etc.)

And what portion of the public knows who "curveball" is? The MSM lets the admin say everything they want to say to spread their message, but a small portion actually calls them on it when it turns out to be B.S.

They were called on it, but a majority of the public didn't care. Crtics often confuse the efficacy of MSM with consumer interest / concern. Same "lies" were perpetrated about Serbia and Operation Alled Force...big deal.

Its amazing the % of Americans who sill think Saddam has links to Al-Qaeda, or the % that think he was in someway responsible for 9/11. We shouldn't have to do this much digging to get the real story. Media failure!

Americans believe a lot of things that are right or wrong...it's their prerogative. The "real story" is that Americans have been dying for issues involving Saddam and Iraq for at least 22 years.....why the hell should they take time to parse this even further when their president(s) and Congress told them that bombing and strangling Iraq was a good idea (long before Bush came along). Who gives a crap whether he was involved with 9/11 given the stated policies of the United States? We do "know" that Saddam funded suicide bomber rewards.

[janedame]

I have to agree that they are biased towards Obama and McCain. It looked like Obama had press junket at every foreign country he went to last week.

[JerrySeinfeld]

George Bush won because he had smart people working for him (or he was working for smart people), he had gobs of money from the people who bought him and he ran the dirtiest political campaigns in modern history.

He also ran up MASSIVE debts to bribe the electorate with tax cuts the country could not afford. He refused to cut spending less he offend someone.

He lied to gain support for his policies.

This is unique among politicans, how exactly?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Bias is difficult to prove, but to say it doesn't exist is living in some kind of academic dreamworld.

When NBC's Chris Matthews says an Obama speech made him feel a "thrill going up my leg", it's a joke that he would actually present himself as "fair".

A good example of bias which would not be picked up in a "scientific" (cough/laugh) study on bias, would be how a question is posed during a debate: "Mr. Bush, given the lack of success in Iraq, what would you...."

"Mr. Harper given your poor record on gay rights...."

Certainly most media carries with it some kind of bias. How do I know this? Because I watch the CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, Fox, CBS, CBC, Global, CTV etc. They're not very smart people, and they all have a different take on how to tell a poltical story. To say they all tell it the same is pure DOGGYshit.

I realized in about 2nd-year university that the closest thing to truth can only be found by taking in many sources and doing your best to filter out the obvious biases.

People like black doggy and others who think the world is a laboratory in which we can litmus test for bias are still living in their college days when every answer was in a textbook right there in black and white - to be referred to at any moment during a heated discussion over a pitcher of beer.

Bias is like carbon monoxide, just because it's not easily detectible doesn't mean it's not killing you.

Come to think of it, the lefties would probably understand the anaolgy better if I mentioned global warming (mwaaa!)

The earth hasn't warmed at all, in fact it has slightly cooled in the past ten years. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

[August1991]

Bias is difficult to prove, but to say it doesn't exist is living in some kind of academic dreamworld.

I have to agree but I simply can't get my shorts in a know over this.

Bias? There are errors of omission and commission. Even if a reporter tries to report events objectively, they must summarize and leave out (seemingly) irrelevant details.

Objective truth exists ("the sky is blue") but there can be legitimate discussion about the shade of blue.

IMHO, the US media has a leftist bias. I explain in part the success of Fox because it noticed a niche in the media market and took it. I also suspect that leftists are overrepresented among consumers of news media.

----

Consider another (more realistic) setting: Reports of new car models. Different reporters have their biases and preferences. Anyone doing research before buying a new car will learn about these biases and take them into account before choosing what car to buy.

This comparison strikes as much closer to the real world of real people. Politics is a past time or a hobby for most people. People research political parties and politicians because they enjoy doing this - not because the information will help them make a critical decision that wil affect them personally. When someone chooses a car, there's alot of one's own money involved and one's own comfort for the next few years.

[eyeball]

The earth hasn't warmed at all, in fact it has slightly cooled in the past ten years. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

No, it could simply mean the energy we've put into the atmosphere has forced a cooling cycle to be colder. The next warming cycle could be a real doozy. We'll just have to wait and see and do nothing while hoping that's the right thing to do.

[Black Dog]

Bias is difficult to prove, but to say it doesn't exist is living in some kind of academic dreamworld.

No one has said it doesn't.

When NBC's Chris Matthews says an Obama speech made him feel a "thrill going up my leg", it's a joke that he would actually present himself as "fair".

A good example of bias which would not be picked up in a "scientific" (cough/laugh) study on bias, would be how a question is posed during a debate: "Mr. Bush, given the lack of success in Iraq, what would you...."

"Mr. Harper given your poor record on gay rights...."

Certainly most media carries with it some kind of bias. How do I know this? Because I watch the CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, Fox, CBS, CBC, Global, CTV etc. They're not very smart people, and they all have a different take on how to tell a poltical story. To say they all tell it the same is pure DOGGYshit.

Who said they did?

People like black doggy and others who think the world is a laboratory in which we can litmus test for bias are still living in their college days when every answer was in a textbook right there in black and white - to be referred to at any moment during a heated discussion over a pitcher of beer.

Your strawman is boring. I'm bored. A small suggestion: if you are going to preface a statement with "To say..." please enusure that it has been said.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Black Dog

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly most media carries with it some kind of bias. How do I know this? Because I watch the CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, Fox, CBS, CBC, Global, CTV etc. They're not very smart people, and they all have a different take on how to tell a poltical story. To say they all tell it the same is pure DOGGYshit.

Agreed...if they did, it would be very boring and bad for ad revenue. That's why one of the least biased sources for me has been certain PBS productions like the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, compared to whackjob efforts like Bill Moyers Journal. When criticized by "progressive" FAIR reports, PBS admitted to limitations to achieving complete objectivity.

I really just want the facts of the matter, not opinions, and if required they should be stated as such.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Agreed...if they did, it would be very boring and bad for ad revenue. That's why one of the least biased sources for me has been certain PBS productions like the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, compared to whackjob efforts like Bill Moyers Journal. When criticized by "progressive" FAIR reports, PBS admitted to limitations to achieving complete objectivity.

I really just want the facts of the matter, not opinions, and if required they should be stated as such.

I don't mind the opinions.

WHat really bugs me is the lefties posing as objective.

Doggy gets his tights into a knot about FOX, the only right-bias major network.

But the rest of the networks are so bloody left wing bias they don't even realize it.

Chris Matthews defended his Obama-gasm by stating that he IS cheerleading...he's a "freking american and I'm cheering for US." Simply implying that cheering for Obama IS cheering for us. How's that for objective? WHat a twit.

This happens all the time. Have you noticed in your evening news how the media now talks all day long about "whacky weather"? WHat the heck are they talking about. Hurricanes, storms, tornadoes and floods have always ALWAYS happened. Sometimes alot more than they have in the past couple of decades. Sometimes less. The fact that we have an internet or satellite capable of trasnmitting the images of a house blown over in Kansas doesn't make it any more whacky. It just makes it more noticable.

This is the common problem in the MSM. They all too often accept left wing dogma as a fact of life, which it is not, and report the news inside that context.

An actual british news report anchor:

"In the news tonight Prime minister Tony blair is back from vacation, and apparently unapologetic about YET ANOTHER carbon burning long haul desintation"

This from an ANCHOR!!! Anchors usually don't editorialize. Apparently, this left wing twit (or whoever wrote his copy) felt it necessary to sprinkle amidst the "news" some sort of social commentary about the environment.

Typical. Typical typical typical.

This is so funny, this debate. Just look at the people who get smoke coming out of their ears when Fox dresses up as "objective" while CNN has an entire series entitled "planet in peril" during a time when our planet is in the best environmental shape it's been in decades.

[bush_cheney2004]

Typical. Typical typical typical.

This is so funny, this debate. Just look at the people who get smoke coming out of their ears when Fox dresses up as "objective" while CNN has an entire series entitled "planet in peril" during a time when our planet is in the best environmental shape it's been in decades.

I agree...drama has become the main product, not facts, and that includes injections of personality quotients by the talking heads. News and weather "babes" get ranked by prurient criteria...to hell with the actual media content. News has become a cliche with all the usual suspects and outcomes. Some people blame OJ Simpson, but it started long before that.

[GostHacked]

I really just want the facts of the matter, not opinions, and if required they should be stated as such.

But in another thread you have indicated that more deceit should have happened in the ramp up to invade Iraq. So I really doubt you are looking for facts, you might be more looking for 'talking points'.

Jerry

Doggy gets his tights into a knot about FOX, the only right-bias major network.

But they claim to be 'Fair and Balanced'.

All media sources have bias. Plain and simple.

CNN is center left. Cafertey does go on Bush rants, just like Lou Dobbs.

MSNBC, yep, left. Or is being critical of the governments hypocracies considered a 'left' thing?

CBC - Left.

CTVnews - middle from what I can tell.

Foxnews - right.

I really do not know what other 'right' media outlets there are. We can also look at newspapers, they sure do have bias.

.... and that's the memo.

[bush_cheney2004]

But in another thread you have indicated that more deceit should have happened in the ramp up to invade Iraq. So I really doubt you are looking for facts, you might be more looking for 'talking points'.

Nonsense...you are confusing the news media with realpolitik...a common mistake. Life is not fair...and when it comes to matters such as these...it really isn't fair (or balanced)!