Seven things I've learned from FOX news.

[On Guard for Thee]

It isn't - but it is still filled with reporters and producers with left wing political views and these views come across in a lot of the programming. Have you listened to Q recently? The host constantly engaging in leftist diatribes on air.

I do liste to Q some times. But hey, it's an entertainment segment, not a political one. He intervies people who are in the arts, and they may be left, right or somewhere in between.Whoever the interviewee is, you can agree, or not, with them. I guess artist's tend to be left leaning. He plays music and he talks to musicians. This is not a political panel. You must come to understand the diference.

[TimG]

He plays music and he talks to musicians.

He also begins every show with a monologue which is often a leftist political polemic. This is where he crosses the line from a entertainment show into a political one.

[On Guard for Thee]

He also begins every show with a monologue which is often a leftist political polemic. This is where he crosses the line from a entertainment show into a political one.

Arts and entertainment often, for obvious reasons, have political overtones. Here's the deal. His show is not meant to be a reading of what is going on currently in politics. Power and Politics on the other hand is exactly that. And that is why it is worthwhile to watch, certainly more so than anything fox puts out, because all major political parties are invited to have their say.

[bleeding heart]

I think Gian's leftist leanings are clear enough, and I doubt he'd dispute it.

(And, not to tack off-topic, but arts and entertainment tilt pretty heavily in liberal/leftist waves anyway, though of course not in every case.)

But the CBC's "leftist bias" has been much alleged, and never proved in any substantive way.

In fact, the charge is part of a larger charge...that of a "leftist media" generally.

But if this were the case, the many conservatives with education, intelligence,insight, interest, and financial means (many a conservatives, I'd suggest) should by now have released some expansive works explaining the "leftist bias," why it exists.....

...and demonstrating that it exists.

The failure to do so is the elephant in the room of this entire discussion.

That is, they could undertake a serious institutional analysis, the way that Chomsky and Herman did with "Manufacturing Consent" (which, contrary to popular belief, does not propose a "rightwing bias" in the media....but it certainly takes on the "leftwing bias" allegation quite well).

Until we get that, we have only bland claims...and, very rarely, a bit or piece of selectively-chosen "evidence"...the same method I could use to "prove" any sort of bias I wish.

[TimG]

But the CBC's "leftist bias" has been much alleged, and never proved in any substantive way.

It is self-evident if you listen to it enough and unlike some critics I do listen regularly and wince at the constant disparagement of right of center viewpoints in its news coverage. I don't see the same treatment of left wing views which are usually presented in a sympathetic light even if the coverage does not overtly support the left wing view. I once complained to the ombudsman about a particularly flagrant news segment and was told that since the BBC covered the topic in the same way the CBC coverage cannot be biased. The idea that the BBC could also be biased never occurred to them.

IOW - determining bias is difficult to do because the bias of the person measuring the bias matters a lot. i.e. if a right wing institute conducted a study to show bias in CBC they would find it. A left wing institute could conduct its own study and conclude that CBC is not biased.

I think a better way to measure bias is to survey listeners with different views and ask if the CBC represents their views fairly. If the percentage self described right wing listeners claiming bias exceeds the percentage of left wing listeners claiming bias then that is evidence of bias against right wing views. Given the public discussion about the CBC there is not much doubt what such a study would find if it was conducted.

Edited February 18, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

nm

Edited February 18, 2014 by Guyser2

[DogOnPorch]

He is on saltspring, or at least he was. I was showing my mother around when she came to visit me a few years back and we got off an early am ferry in Ganges and went to a coffee shop and there was Arthur. He was alone and I couldn't resist saying hello and he invited us to sit with him. We had some laughs, my mother was intrigued, the breakfast was tasty, and all in all it was a great start to the trip.

That's excellent. I've always enjoyed his show, Basic Black.

One I really miss on CBC is Dead Dog Cafe. Now that was funny. Jasper Friendlybear's Wilderness Golf, in particular.

Jasper: Hey, Tom. Want a coffee??

Tom: I'd love a coffee, Jasper.

Jasper: That's great. Can you buy me one, too?

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj3oT_PeDCu6DDi5vndFtVg

[bush_cheney2004]

nm

Gee...what happened to that gnarly anti-American ^^^^^ rant ? Fox News loves that kind of stuff.

[bleeding heart]

But tim, you've completely ignored my points--about the need for serious, institutional analysis--in lieu of the "I knows it when I sees it" argument, which is a non-starter.

Such an analysis of "left-wing bias" has never been seriously undertaken, using solid methodology (a point which matters to you in any other instance...why not this one?)

The reason it's never been seriously undertaken? Well, you'd have to ask those making the "leftist bias" claims...and further ask them why they continue to make the allegation based only on their gut impressions.....a notoriously unreasonable way to look at a matter of such scope.

The true, robust institutional study is THE only possible way to even discuss the matter intelligently.

As for your notion that a study from right-wingers would find leftist bias, and a study from lefties would produce the opposite. Only if the person conducting the study is deluded or dishonest. I can say this especially since I offered an example (arguably the best-known example ever) in which such is not obviously the case: the Chomsky-Herman analysis.

They did not expect to find a right-wing bias....nor a left-wing bias; but they were determined to let the analysis speak for itself, if either bias appeared to present itself in clear ways. It did not. Rather, the major news media, they discovered, conformed with remarkable (though of course not universal) tendencies to support Power: political and economic. Whether this power resided in or was sympathetic to liberal or conservative ideology didn't matter, as the essential agreements on everything about Power remained usually consistent.

So, which big party a specific media outlet or organization supported varied (though papers switch support, editorially, more often than both left and right critics tend to claim); but as for the "hard news", there is no institutional left-wing bias. The bias that exists is that powerful people are trustworthy--not always, but when it counts....like when the military is sent somewhere, which evidently is proof positive that we are In the Right. Almost all major news organizations support even terrorism, provided it is us or our allies committing or supporting the terrorism. (There are numerous examples, some of them quite unequivocal, if you find this particular point dubious).

In short, the "leftist bias" trope is lazy thinking....period. It's fluffy and self-indulgent, and the adherents refuse to put their money (or their effort) where their claims are.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's excellent. I've always enjoyed his show, Basic Black.

One I really miss on CBC is Dead Dog Cafe. Now that was funny. Jasper Friendlybear's Wilderness Golf, in particular.

Jasper: Hey, Tom. Want a coffee??

Tom: I'd love a coffee, Jasper.

Jasper: That's great. Can you buy me one, too?

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj3oT_PeDCu6DDi5vndFtVg

I'm with you on that one too. Never missed it if I was anywhere near a radio. I even went to their site and got my "Deaddog" native name. I can't quite recall what that name was at the moment but I recall having a hearty laugh.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm with you on that one too. Never missed it if I was anywhere near a radio. I even went to their site and got my "Deaddog" native name. I can't quite recall what that name was at the moment but I recall having a hearty laugh.

Or Gracie Heavyhand's conversational Cree. Which was, as she put it...simple but useful phrases in Cree. Like...

Please ask the chauffeur to bring the car around.

or

Have the purser take our luggage to the promenade deck.

Then...of course...the ultimate CBC radio shows for the 'alternative' crowd....'Brave New Waves' and 'Night Lines'. Those two were good late night listening... Heard a lot of groups for the first time on late night CBC like Smashing Pumpkins, The Orb, Moby, Breeders, etc, etc, etc. Now CBC blows the big Kahuna @ night.

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

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

Edited February 19, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[On Guard for Thee]

Or Gracie Heavyhand's conversational Cree. Which was, as she put it...simple but useful phrases in Cree. Like...

Please ask the chauffeur to bring the car around.

or

Have the purser take our luggage to the promenade deck.

Then...of course...the ultimate CBC radio shows for the 'alternative' crowd....'Brave New Waves' and 'Night Lines'. Those two were good late night listening... Heard a lot of groups for the first time on late night CBC like Smashing Pumpkins, The Orb, Moby, Breeders, etc, etc, etc. Now CBC blows the big Kahuna @ night.

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

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

Thanks for those links. I did enjoy both of those shows, and more recently Madly Off in All Directions. Where did Lorne Elliott get to I wonder?

[TimG]

As for your notion that a study from right-wingers would find leftist bias, and a study from lefties would produce the opposite. Only if the person conducting the study is deluded or dishonest.

They don't need to be dishonest. They are simply blind to their own biases and cannot escape them. I simply do not accept the claim that anyone can be unbiased. It is impossible. You will likely disagree but it does not change my opinion nor do I believe that you can provide any evidence to support your claim that unbiased observers exist.

Conducting a survey of opinions based on self identified ideological leanings is not perfect but the is the only way I can think of to cancel out the effect of a bias. If a news organization is close to unbiased then both groups will complain that the organization is biased against them in equal numbers. If the numbers are different then the difference tells the direction of the organizational bias.

Edited February 19, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

They don't need to be dishonest. They are simply blind to their own biases and cannot escape them. I simply do not accept the claim that anyone can be unbiased. It is impossible. You will likely disagree but it does not change my opinion nor do I believe that you can provide any evidence to support your claim that unbiased observers exist.

Conducting a survey of opinions based on self identified ideological leanings is not perfect but the is the only way I can think of to cancel out the effect of a bias. If a news organization is close to unbiased then both groups will complain that the organization is biased against them in equal numbers. If the numbers are different then the difference tells the direction of the organizational bias.

You're making this way too complicated. We each may have some sort of built in biased, but I reject your idea that we can't set that aside to entertain someone elses ideas, or biases, if you need to call them that. This is why I like CBC, and of course they are not the only people that can at least try to be fair. For instance, I'm sure Kevin Solomon on Power and Politics has his biases. But he invites cabinet ministers from all parties to be interviewed and make their own comments on his show. There is no script, it gets noisy, because it's not FNC it tends to remain intelligent and reasonably polite. Of course all those people have biases, some quite strong, but you get the opportunity to listen, and make your own mind up. You may even find a bias changing.

[bleeding heart]

Tim, I'm not claiming that there are no biases, or that perfect objectivity is going to be achieved.

But your argument was, to paraphrase, that "a right-winger conducting a media study will discover leftwing bias; and a leftwinger will discover right-wing bias."

This is not obviously the case. It is your claim, so you should prove it.

I DID offer an example of a pair of scholars--obvious left-wingers--who undertake a major, expansive study of media, bias, and propaganda....and did not conclude that there was a "right-wing bias."

And your idea that a good way to determine bias in media would be to conduct an opinion poll is, frankly, useless. That doesn't indicate bias, but impression, and in the majority of cases by people who have never thought much about the matter and are speaking off the cuff.

Conduct an opinion poll of Canadians asking them if Canada or the United States is a superior place to live. You know, Tim, exactly what the results would be...and that they don't give us an idea of which place is better to live in. Not helpful. Ask if there is a God. Ask them if they have good or bad views on "corporations."

Again, you keep ignoring the idea of institutional analysis, using robust methods of research, comparative examples, and a willingness to suspend preconceived biases in favour of letting the information--based on non-partisan methodological approaches-speak for itself.

It's not that zero bias of the authors will assert themselves...it's that it's the best we have to approach a look at how institutions work....and you prefer opinion polls (which you elsewhere have disparaged, let's not forget).

Further, what would a question about "liberal" vs "conservative" bias even mean? To some respondents, it would have to do with (their personal impression, based on zero actual work or study) on "which party leaders are criticized the most"; for others it would be matters of how homosexuality is reported or discussed; for others it would be about reporting on the economy; or religion; or war.

Etc.

The majority of Canadians believe in God. That doesn't tell us there's a God; nor does it mean, all things being equal, that the odds of his existence are greater than for his non-existence. Indeed, it carries exactly zero information, beyond what people think. (And, again, most people actually don't spend much time, energy or effort thinking about this...nor about "media bias."

[TimG]

I DID offer an example of a pair of scholars--obvious left-wingers--who undertake a major, expansive study of media, bias, and propaganda....and did not conclude that there was a "right-wing bias."

The pair of scholars in this case had a different agenda and they found results that supported their agenda. Is this a surprise? (I realize they claim they did the study first but that is not how these things work. They would have done some initial work to see if there was anything interesting because no one wants to waste their time. Once they established that they would not be wasting their time they created a formal process and pretended that they did not have any expectations from the outcome).

And your idea that a good way to determine bias in media would be to conduct an opinion poll is, frankly, useless. That doesn't indicate bias, but impression, and in the majority of cases by people who have never thought much about the matter and are speaking off the cuff.

What is bias then? I see it as the representation of facts in a way that favors one side of political argument. Bias can be extremely subtle - the use of terrorist instead of freedom fighter - denier instead of skeptic - etc. In most cases bias exists because the same words to different people mean different things. It is impossible for a single group of researchers to objectively determine everything that constitutes bias because it is so complex. Asking people to say where they see bias is the only way to collect this information.

If you wanted a more formal process you could put together a group of people with different views and get them to assess the bias in a random selection of news reports presented in the interview. But asking any human to objectively assess bias is an impossible task.

Not all questions are like media bias because it is often possible to assess evidence objectively (i.e. does god exist). Bias happens to one of the questions where objective assessment of evidence is impossible.

Edited February 19, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Of course the scholars had "an agenda," in that they believed the media act often (and not always) as a propaganda vehicle in support of powerful interests.

In other words, their thesis was that the media does indeed have a bias....as you yourself point out, as it's made up of human beings, how could it not?

But their "agenda" was not to disprove a rightwing bias in the media (as their personal biases, one might suppose, would wish to find)....why would they be go in this direction...at all?

Again, I'm not discounting biases in people conducting the work; nor are the authors. Nor is anybody.

I am discounting the self-serving claim, frequently made but avoiding tried and true research methods...that the media is soaked in a :left-wing bias."

The "agenda" of Chomsky-Herman's propaganda model is this: the major news media will allow, even encourage robust debate and present differing points of view; but within pretty severe restraints, fairly strict parameters.

So when the "leftish" NYTimes or Washington Post (Canadian media are no different, but I'm talking about the model itself) reports on, say, state terrorism or mass murder, the authors' hypothesis (that is, their "agenda") is that reporting will vary sharply depending upon who is the victim....but moreso on who is the offending agent.

That is a crucial part of their model...and anyone who, say, reads the news will be unsurprised by the hypothesis.

So they set up a theoretical framework of how and why mostly honest and professional journalists will behave as propagandists, positing five "filters"; to paraphrase:

1. Ownership/control

2. Advertising and its influence on content

3. Flak

4. Sourcing

5. Ideological commitment to "fear of the enemy," originally "anti-communism" but updated since.

They then go on to show case examples using comparative methods, number and tenor or reporting.

So of course the state terrorism of Indonesia against the East Timorese is going to be mostly ignored, while the mass murder of the KR in Cambodia in the same era will be cause of great media self-congratulatory consternation. Legitimate consternation, but lacking even a cursory examination of concurrent atrocities (and major ones) in which Western nations shared direct and intentional culpability.

This has nothing to do with "liberals vs. conservatives" (much less the L and C Parties themselves)...because both are tied to the same extremist behavior, and both are rewarded by a compliant media.

We see it again in 1999, with much (more often liberal than not) self-stroking over our "new military humanism" and our "responsibility to protect" and stop genocide...in Serbia. While at precisely the same moment, the chief allied forces--the US and UK--were busily arming the Indonesian Generals, arming them with full knowledge and approval of their mass killings, which of course dwarfed anything committed by the Serbs. Which tells you just how horrific the West-supported attempted genocide was.

Now, this is a serious, strictly researched and strongly-argued model....and you think public opinion surveys are preferable? The former uses tried-and-true scholarly methods, relies on the subject inditing or exonerating itself as per proper observational methods....and remains open to critiques, counter-arguments, and room for debate.

Unlike asking a bunch of people" do you think the media is left-wing, right-wing, or neither"...and proposing that the answer supplies us with, well, knowledge, aside from "knowledge" of what a certain number of people believe about something.

Hell, the reason that polled people might say "yeah, leftwing bias" OR "rightwing" is precisely because BOTH liberal and conservative leaders and a compliant media have managed to avoid talking too much about such enormous stories.

Edited February 19, 2014 by bleeding heart

[guyser]

Gee...what happened to that gnarly anti-American ^^^^^ rant ? Fox News loves that kind of stuff.

There wasnt one.

There was one about stupidity and ignorance , which is a FOX love thing. You must have recognized yourself I suppose .

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks for those links. I did enjoy both of those shows, and more recently Madly Off in All Directions. Where did Lorne Elliott get to I wonder?

He's touring as usual. All small venues which is, no doubt, the best way to see him.

http://www.lorne-elliott.com/schedule.shtml

[bush_cheney2004]

CBC is the number 1 watched news program in Canada. Sorry.

Update: this is patently false based on Numeris ratings.

[littleguy1]

Let's get something straight. Fox and other cable outlets are not NEWS networks but tabloid presentations of news events. Opinion is their forte and they are there to attract the base of the party they support. Real news has no party affiliation and leaves interpretation of the events to the viewer.

Fox is the worst of the bunch because even tragic news events are given to their controversial right wing spin. MSNBC is called the place for politics and except in times of disaster that is what they cover, the political ramifications of stories presented. CNN tries to be neutral in it's presentation but the on air presenters steer the debate so a bias will appear depending on the presenter. I do, however, like the political contributors they bring on because they all show the real divide that there is in American politics. It is so sad that the self proclaimed greatest nation on earth cannot find common ground to move things forward.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... It is so sad that the self proclaimed greatest nation on earth cannot find common ground to move things forward.

It is even sadder that non-Americans spend so much time worrying about it.

Just change the channel....to all that other American content enjoyed the world over, especially in Canada.

Edited May 21, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

It is even sadder that non-Americans spend so much time worrying about it.

Just change the channel....to all that other American content enjoyed the world over, especially in Canada.

Im sure a lot of Canadians tuned into watch Lettermans final show. As far as news, most of us have long since changed the channel.

[cybercoma]

It is even sadder that non-Americans spend so much time worrying about it.

Just change the channel....to all that other American content enjoyed the world over, especially in Canada.

I mean, really. What kind of loser wastes their time following foreign politics, when they could just make uninformed posts trolling foreign politics forums.

[bush_cheney2004]

The same kind of "loser" who spends their time watching so much foreign television programming, including Fox News:

http://assets.numeris.ca/Downloads/May%204%20-%20May%2010,%202015%20%28National%29.pdf