Media Bias? (1 Viewer)

billinms

Tiptoeing Through the Tulips
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
24,600
Age
48
Location
Ocean Springs
Offline
The Daily Caller was founded by Tucker Carlson and a former Dick Cheney aid. Lifezette was founded by Laura Ingram. Those are beside the point though, because often media can barely stop from laughing when Trump speaks.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
The media should be biased.

It's called the "fourth estate" for a reason. Well, an english dude called it that, but we inherited much from english civic society, including the role of the press in it. And the press should serve as a check on the rest of government.

It used to be like that. The biggest con ever pulled on journalism was by Fox news.

Fox news ran the "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" tagline. Somehow, Fox news managed to shame the media into believing that they didn't have a responsibility to challenge, correct, and remember lies and misdeeds. That somehow both sides had to be equally presented, even when one side was clearly not equal.

It's garbage. Honestly this pretense of fairness has been so destructive to journalism. It's ruined it. Other things have played into it and come from it (when you have to pretend to present both sides evenly it's difficult to editorialize, which leads to more "horse race" coverage as opposed to issue coverage, as an example) but the net effect has been a serious decline in journalistic quality.

The media should be biased. They're not nearly enough.
 

Saint Skippy

Expatriate
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
191
Location
DC
Online
My conclusion is that media bias is one of the original causes for today’s crazy political landscape. Here me out on the chronology.

A. The media has long been liberally biased (meaning left of the national center). Before someone argues too hard against this, please absorb the facts on some webpages.
How Biased Is Your Media?: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast - Freakonomics Freakonomics
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/GrosecloseMilyo.pdf (the paper itself)
Winning the Media Campaign | Pew Research Center (Pew Research)
Media Bias Basics (advocacy piece but with interesting facts about how many in the press vote for democrats pver many decades.)

Ideally, the leading TV, paper, and online media sources should roughly represents conservative and liberal views equally. If not, people start thinking the system is rigged against their views.

B. Conservatives thought that they could no longer get a fair shake from the main stream media (see above) and then defaulted to talk radio and later social media. This was a big mistake.

C. Conservative talk personalities and websites wanted to make huge profits, and therefore entertained conservatives with vitriolic and hyperbolic stances, which was sure to get conservatives very emotional. Light on facts, big on angry rhetoric. Social media and the Breitbarts of the world compound the problem.

D. Now many conservatives are not getting well vetted information/facts from more reputable news sources (which is what quality journalism is supposed to bring) and frankly have started to become unhinged.

In today's present state of the media, liberals are getting information mainly from better quality news sources that are left of center are getting wacky news that is very right of center. A chasm has now formed that cannot easily closed.

We cannot find common ground because we are being presented two different realities. How can we unwind this?
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
A. The media has long been liberally biased (meaning left of the national center). Before someone argues too hard against this
There's no doubt about this, but my point is they were biased because they were correct and had a duty to be so.

Should the media have really presented both sides of desegregation "equally"? Are ******* kidding me?
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
I can see it now. CNN existing 1963, putting 3 dumb racist bigots on a panel to provide "balance" to the likes of Claude Sitton, shouting him down.

I'm depressed even imagining it.
 

Saint Skippy

Expatriate
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
191
Location
DC
Online
Come on LSSpam. You are usually better than inventing a position to attack. I'd prefer dialogue than defending your strawman.
 

Saint Skippy

Expatriate
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
191
Location
DC
Online
There's no doubt about this, but my point is they were biased because they were correct and had a duty to be so.

Should the media have really presented both sides of desegregation "equally"? Are ******* kidding me?
Here is my very simple view. News should report facts (e.g., Alabama state troopers beat black marchers, one killed). Facts, events, behaviours can speak for themselves.

Opinion pieces should be be announced (no subtle attempts by news anchors to sway voters because of feelings about abortion, the national debt, etc.). This is intellectually dishonest and manipulative since your intent is not obvious. If you want to influence the nation towards your views, then declare it.

If your editorial board has 9 liberals and an independent, delcare it. All conservatives? Same. However, the top twenty or so news sources seem to want to pretend that they are centrist while actually being fairly liberal.
 

RetroMcBananaFace

AKA: retrobanana
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
20,847
Location
Henderson, Kentucky
Offline
My conclusion is that media bias is one of the original causes for today’s crazy political landscape.

A. The media has long been liberally biased (meaning left of the national center).
I don't buy this, at all, but I can totally understand why someone might think so. The answer is way more complicated than just "the media." I do believe that large conglomerates taking over individual outlets and putting them under one umbrella has caused something of a homogenized view of "the media" but even with that being said, you can't define hundreds of newspapers, thousands of radio stations and TV stations, and thousands of websites under one "media" umbrella and define their views anymore than you could do the same with a representative sample of individuals as the American public.

Ideally, the leading TV, paper, and online media sources should roughly represents conservative and liberal views equally. If now, people start thinking the system is rigged against their views.
Ideally those outlets should report the news as it happens, and when it happens. It is up to people to absorb the facts and make up their own minds.

B. Conservatives thought that they could no longer get a fair shake from the main stream media (see above) and then defaulted to talk radio and later social media. This was a big mistake.
They didn't "no longer think". It was a deliberate strategy designed to build an "us vs. them" contingent of Republican voters at a time when the party was weak exiting Bush Sr. administration and as Clinton was coming into office. See: Limbaugh, Rush This is my opinion, but it is rooted in studying the dynamics of talk radio in particular (I have a minor degree in broadcast journalism).

C. Conservative talk personalities and websites wanted to make huge profits, and therefore entertained conservatives with vitriolic and hyperbolic stances, which was sure to get conservatives very emotional. Light on facts, big on angry rhetoric. Social media and the Breitbarts of the world compound the problem.
Agree with this. The only thing we disagree on is the origin. You are saying it's a natural reaction to overall leftist stances by "the media" in general. I believe it was a calculated and deliberate action sanctioned by conservatives who felt like they were losing their long-standing grip on power when the country elected a Democrat to office after 12 consecutive years of GOP dominance.

D. Now many conservatives are not getting well vetted information/facts from more reputable news sources (which is what quality journalism is supposed to bring) and frankly have started to become unhinged.
Conservatives these days are not interested in getting solid info, they are only interested in listening to the conservative echo chamber. The same is true of liberal voters in large part, but is that "the media's" fault, or is it the result of intellectual laziness on the part of those people? Those certain branches of "the media" are pandering to their audience, giving them what they want, but they're doing it because people are telling them that's what they want with their ratings and advertising dollars. Basically, we all have a responsibility to seek out truth and be discerning of what we read/watch/listen to. That has always been true, though.

Now, as a result, liberals are getting information mainly from better quality news sources that are left of center are getting wacky news that is very right of center. A chasm has now formed that cannot easily closed.

We cannot find common ground because we are being presented two different realities. How can we unwind this?
One word: Education. That doesn't mean just sending people to school to rack up degrees, but teaching people to think for themselves and to challenge their own preconceptions. How do we do this? I have no idea, but it won't be easy.
 

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,594
Reaction score
15,312
Location
Denver
Offline
My conclusion is that media bias is one of the original causes for today’s crazy political landscape. Here me out on the chronology.

A. The media has long been liberally biased (meaning left of the national center). Before someone argues too hard against this, please absorb the facts on some webpages.
How Biased Is Your Media?: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast - Freakonomics Freakonomics
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/GrosecloseMilyo.pdf (the paper itself)
Winning the Media Campaign | Pew Research Center (Pew Research)
Media Bias Basics (advocacy piece but with interesting facts about how many in the press vote for democrats pver many decades.)

Ideally, the leading TV, paper, and online media sources should roughly represents conservative and liberal views equally. If not, people start thinking the system is rigged against their views.

B. Conservatives thought that they could no longer get a fair shake from the main stream media (see above) and then defaulted to talk radio and later social media. This was a big mistake.

C. Conservative talk personalities and websites wanted to make huge profits, and therefore entertained conservatives with vitriolic and hyperbolic stances, which was sure to get conservatives very emotional. Light on facts, big on angry rhetoric. Social media and the Breitbarts of the world compound the problem.

D. Now many conservatives are not getting well vetted information/facts from more reputable news sources (which is what quality journalism is supposed to bring) and frankly have started to become unhinged.

In today's present state of the media, liberals are getting information mainly from better quality news sources that are left of center are getting wacky news that is very right of center. A chasm has now formed that cannot easily closed.

We cannot find common ground because we are being presented two different realities. How can we unwind this?
Pretty good Dx, but I don't know the cure. I agree that sources like the WaPo and NYT are far better quality than the right-leaning sites (except WSJ). Yeah, they have conservative columnists, too, but yeah they lean liberal overall. If you don't care to read the op-eds, what should matter is whether the reporting and investigative journalism is accurate. The right wing have not only convinced themselves the media leans liberal, but all "liberal" sources are inaccurate or biased, while simultaneously trusting without question their own sources, even though they are easily debunked in many instances.

So short answer: "Conservatives" need to question their own sources, but won't do it because they're so entrenched in and committed to their own biases.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,806
Offline
It's a pretty thin distortion I think to call classic big media liberal. Starting a discussion point with the 60s and 70s, before the cable era but when complaints from the right about media started you have the real national reach of big papers being sold in other cities and television reaching the entire nation. So that's when it makes most since to talk about some kind of "mainstream media" that's not local. I still think it's a mistake to mush all those brands and their varied positions and such, but humoring for the sake of the argument.

You can narrow to responses to issues that matter to parties, but as Spam notes, sometimes being on the right side of "Vietnam is a quagmire" or civil rights comes into play. The big thing is that until extremely recently, long after the creation of for profit echo chamber newstainment and blogs, deep into the cable and first decade or two of mass use of the Internet, most "mainstream media" was thoroughly tilted toward white suburban audiences and deeply beholden and tilted toward conservative corporate interests. During the birth of PRI and Limbaugh and all that movement to create "conservative" media the "liberal" media spent a lot more time carrying water for big business than they ever did rocking the social boat.

Go back and look at major outlet coverage of Keating and how strong the damage control and keeping faith in Wall Street stuff went. Look at how Iacocca and other figures were practically made into Disney heroes whose tales were told on the nightly news and in the business section of the Sunday paper.

Seriously, before Fox News was full sized, and the Internet blogosphere fully grown, I seriously dispute that there was any meaningful liberalism across the board in media that wasn't more than balanced by meaningful conservatism.
 

Saint Skippy

Expatriate
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
191
Location
DC
Online
Pretty good Dx, but I don't know the cure. I agree that sources like the WaPo and NYT are far better quality than the right-leaning sites (except WSJ). Yeah, they have conservative columnists, too, but yeah they lean liberal overall. If you don't care to read the op-eds, what should matter is whether the reporting and investigative journalism is accurate. The right wing have not only convinced themselves the media leans liberal, but all "liberal" sources are inaccurate or biased, while simultaneously trusting without question their own sources, even though they are easily debunked in many instances.

So short answer: "Conservatives" need to question their own sources, but won't do it because they're so entrenched in and committed to their own biases.
Thanks for your views (and retrobanana's). I don't have the answer either but want to offer one.

Let's pretend that the industry started self policing for balance and the top media sources made it a core practice to be centrist and announced it). Would that attract enough conservatives back from the edge such that they put down the Hannities, Drudges, etc.? In my opinion, if you could get just 25%-30% or so of conservatives to listen to balanced media, I think it could sway the general tone (and outcomes) in our political battles.
 

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,594
Reaction score
15,312
Location
Denver
Offline
Thanks for your views (and retrobanana's). I don't have the answer either but want to offer one.

Let's pretend that the industry started self policing for balance and the top media sources made it a core practice to be centrist and announced it). Would that attract enough conservatives back from the edge such that they put down the Hannities, Drudges, etc.? In my opinion, if you could get just 25%-30% or so of conservatives to listen to balanced media, I think it could sway the general tone (and outcomes) in our political battles.
Sounds great, but we already have openly conservative, yet quality, sources like WSJ and National Review, but many conservatives found sources they like and "trust" more. Trump's supporters aren't reading the WSJ, or even watching Fox anymore. They're going to Breitbart and Alex Jones.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,806
Offline
I don't think there's much issue today, if there ever was, about political bias or interest. The key factor is integrity and ethics that prevents bias from influencing the factual parts of reporting. Look at major "liberal" outlets and their coverage of the various e-mail leaks or the "fainting incident" or other things that would be considered negative for the left. There are copious stories, they had front page links on CNN and NYT when the stories were active, and you had generally competent and full reporting.

These same sources stop well short of printing or airing unsubstantiated rumors about Trump. Things blog outlets like the now defunct Gawker site could have fun with and run with stories about Trump paying for complicated secret hair surgery, and run every innuendo about a connection to Russia in stories. The major outlets stuck to the integrity of only reporting items that rose to a certain standard. Like when reporting what Manafort did they reported years and public position, not rumors of dollar amounts or names of rumored other connections.

Fox could post Ailes change it up, but the right-wing "alternative" media has never shied from running stories about the innuendos below the usual journalistic threshold. They've also never shied from completely avoiding reporting on stories they don't like. CNN, the NYT, WP, LAT, etc hold to these standards because their audiences demand them. MSNBC attracts some by being more ethically like the conservative newstainment and blogs like Gawker or Mother Jones or Slate go further that way. They have much smaller audiences because liberal audiences generally peruse more sources and demand a certain baseline of integrity.

The answer isn't for other media to reach out to conservatives, it's for conservatives as news consumers to demand a baseline of integrity to be a foundation under the bias. Conservatives have to demand it from their own media, and they can do that by where they direct their page hits and channel clickers. Go hit WSJ, and if the Fox reform does happen, hit them instead of Breitbart or HeatStreet.
 

RetroMcBananaFace

AKA: retrobanana
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
20,847
Location
Henderson, Kentucky
Offline
Sounds great, but we already have openly conservative, yet quality, sources like WSJ and National Review, but many conservatives found sources they like and "trust" more. Trump's supporters aren't reading the WSJ, or even watching Fox anymore. They're going to Breitbart and Alex Jones.
So much this. So, so much this.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom