On Media Bias

[rushmc 23]

One pharagraph from the article.

"It turned out that Halperin's fears were realized. The mainstream media carried the water for the Democrats. The level of bias in network news coverage was quantified in a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It showed that from September 5th through October 11th, 77% of coverage of Democrats was favorable, while just 12% of coverage of Republicans was positive"


The article in total.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/arnoff121506.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

One pharagraph from the article.

"It turned out that Halperin's fears were realized. The mainstream media carried the water for the Democrats. The level of bias in network news coverage was quantified in a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It showed that from September 5th through October 11th, 77% of coverage of Democrats was favorable, while just 12% of coverage of Republicans was positive"


The article in total.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/arnoff121506.htm

Not really a surprizing report considering that the author works for "Accuracy in Media" which by all accounts (except its own) is a biased organization.

Might wanna give them a bit of a google.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

One pharagraph from the article.

"It turned out that Halperin's fears were realized. The mainstream media carried the water for the Democrats. The level of bias in network news coverage was quantified in a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It showed that from September 5th through October 11th, 77% of coverage of Democrats was favorable, while just 12% of coverage of Republicans was positive"


The article in total.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/arnoff121506.htm

Not really a surprizing report considering that the author works for "Accuracy in Media" which by all accounts (except its own) is a biased organization.

Might wanna give them a bit of a google.

Can't I have any fun?

But I am always used to any org not in agreement to the left being lamblasted as bias, when thier own sources are a clean as the wind driven snow......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

But this is exactly how the world works today.

A group has a viewpoint that is difficult to support. They create an outside entity to do "research" that supports their position and then they publish the "research" and quote the "independant research organization" as proof of their opinion.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

So you don't think the media (when is comes to politics) generally speaking, has any bias?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

So you don't think the media (when is comes to politics) generally speaking, has any bias?

I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on "the media". Over the course of my life I've worked on both sides; in newsrooms AND as part of the PR machine.

Generally speaking, no; there isn't a bias overall.

Are there specilfic organizations that are VERY biased; yes. Absolutely.

But is "the media" biased; no. I can't really say that.

What -I- find hilarious is how people like Rush Limbaugh talk about the bias of "the media" as if he's not PART OF IT. Does he really think his audience is that stupid? Maybe.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So you don't think the media (when is comes to politics) generally speaking, has any bias?

They're biased towards whatever they think will sell.

[billvon 3,118]

>So you don't think the media (when is comes to politics) generally
>speaking, has any bias?

They do whatever makes money. When the republicans are in power, they make money by putting the Lewinsky scandal on the front page. When it's a toss-up, they make money by reporting on sensational news. When democrats take power, they'll make money reporting on Bush's decline.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on "the media". Over the course of my life I've worked on both sides; in newsrooms AND as part of the PR machine.

Generally speaking, no; there isn't a bias overall.....

I think this could mean what it says, or it could just mean that the media has no bias over your personal set of values therefore you don't see any bias because "media" aligns nicely with you (or you align nicely with 'media').

I don't have enough information on one mr. P. Quade to know if he is centerline in values and opinions.......I am fond of his camera work and appreciate the videography hints and tips

Limbaugh's reactionary tripe should be considered nothing more that political entertainment (like that guy that played the piano all the time). I'd hate to call him media except that media has also evolved in his direction, not the other way around.......

media used to mean news sources.....now, it's just another episode of Home Improvement

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Not really a surprizing report considering that the author works for "Accuracy in Media" which by all accounts (except its own) is a biased organization.

Might wanna give them a bit of a google.

Accuracy in Media tend to address issues that support the right side of the fence, but I can't recall anyone showing that AIM's claims are flawed.

It's funny. You have media bigwigs coming out of the woodwork saying "Yes. There is a liberal bias in the media", but no one is claiming a conservative media bias - except disgruntled ex-FoxNews employees. And not many people are claiming Fox is neutral and objective.

Here's an interesting study on media bias that came out a few years ago,
http://economics.missouri.edu/Working_Paper_Series/2005/wp0501_milyo.pdf

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

The level of bias in network news coverage was quantified in a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It showed that from September 5th through October 11th, 77% of coverage of Democrats was favorable, while just 12% of coverage of Republicans was positive"


The article in total.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/arnoff121506.htm

It's only bias if the Republicans and Democrats are equally heinous. However, right now the Republicans are the party of right royal fuck-ups (Iraq, deficit, Foley, do-nothing 109th Congress, idiot in the White House) so of course the covereage will reflect that. 12% positive seems like more than the GOP really deserves.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

What did the Dems do to receive 77% favorable coverage?

[billvon 3,118]

>What did the Dems do to receive 77% favorable coverage?

Not screw up. (not that they wouldn't if they had the opportunity - but they didn't.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So you don't think the media (when is comes to politics) generally speaking, has any bias?

I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on "the media". Over the course of my life I've worked on both sides; in newsrooms AND as part of the PR machine.

Generally speaking, no; there isn't a bias overall.

Are there specilfic organizations that are VERY biased; yes. Absolutely.

But is "the media" biased; no. I can't really say that.

What -I- find hilarious is how people like Rush Limbaugh talk about the bias of "the media" as if he's not PART OF IT. Does he really think his audience is that stupid? Maybe.

On the bias in general I totally disagree with you. The bias is easy to show and see simply by looking at how stories are reported depending on who is in power at the the time.

As for the Limbaugh comment? Come on now. He is and entertainer not the nightly news. Viewed totally differently.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So you don't think the media (when is comes to politics) generally speaking, has any bias?

They're biased towards whatever they think will sell.

Hmm, this statement is hard to agrue with........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>What did the Dems do to receive 77% favorable coverage?

Not screw up. (not that they wouldn't if they had the opportunity - but they didn't.)

Seems like just "not screwing up" might deserve a 50% rating. More than 3/4ths the time? Right.

Speaking of bias...
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/10/compare_and_con.html

On another situation... funny how that whole Rathergate business died down in a matter of days. National network anchor involved in story that could impact a presidentia lelection. Evidence found to be fraudulent and unsubstantiated. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Hey! how 'bout that Britney Spears???

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

......... I'd hate to call him media except that media has also evolved in his direction, not the other way around.......

AAaaaaaaaaaaMen!

[billvon 3,118]

>Seems like just "not screwing up" might deserve a 50% rating.

Many people see everything as a black and white issue; everyone is either on the winning or losing side. "If you're not with us, you're against us!" If you go with that thinking, whenever you have a loser, you have a winner (even if by default.) And that thinking has been all too common lately.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

>What did the Dems do to receive 77% favorable coverage?

Not screw up. (not that they wouldn't if they had the opportunity - but they didn't.)

Seems like just "not screwing up" might deserve a 50% rating. More than 3/4ths the time? Right.

I don't know, I'd have a very favorable rating of a politician who didn't screw up, regardless of party. Just as one example, I have a favorable opinion of McCain, and I believe his coverage in the media is also favorable.

But getting back to your question, NOT having Bush in their ranks must be worth the extra 27%

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

I think when -most- people talk about bias what is really meant is an intentional slating of a story.

And when -I- say that I do not believe "the media", as a whole, is biased, that's also exactly what I mean.

By and large "the media" does it's job of attempting to tell the stories as they really happen and without an intentional distortion of the facts.

There are some notable exceptions, but as a whole, "the media" in my opinion simply doesn't do this.

That said, "the media" is highly prone to taking the easy way out and are easily manipulated by the "facts" handed out by PR firms or propaganda agencies.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[narcimund 0]

You seem to be championing canadafreepress.com as your ideal for a neutral, unbiased, sober news source. This same website (in a story you refer to in another thread) calls a Nancy Pelosi a "bug-eyed lady" and says the democrats are "the enemy".

Would a news source that called a republican politician "bug-eyed" and said the republicans are "the enemy" also be unbiased by your rules? Or is it only unbiased when you get a giggle from hearing it?

I'm just trying to understand your principles here. They're a little hard to pin down.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think when -most- people talk about bias what is really meant is an intentional slating of a story.

And when -I- say that I do not believe "the media", as a whole, is biased, that's also exactly what I mean.

By and large "the media" does it's job of attempting to tell the stories as they really happen and without an intentional distortion of the facts.

There are some notable exceptions, but as a whole, "the media" in my opinion simply doesn't do this.

That said, "the media" is highly prone to taking the easy way out and are easily manipulated by the "facts" handed out by PR firms or propaganda agencies.

Quotes from the authors of a UCLA study of media bias:

Quote

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

Then you have Mark Halperin of ABC going on national TV and talking about the bias found in the MSM... yeah, I'd say it's there... but most folks don't see it as a bias because they agree with the views presented...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You seem to be championing canadafreepress.com as your ideal for a neutral, unbiased, sober news source. This same website (in a story you refer to in another thread) calls a Nancy Pelosi a "bug-eyed lady" and says the democrats are "the enemy".

Would a news source that called a republican politician "bug-eyed" and said the republicans are "the enemy" also be unbiased by your rules? Or is it only unbiased when you get a giggle from hearing it?

I'm just trying to understand your principles here. They're a little hard to pin down.

Can't agrue with the point go after the source.

At least some things are consistant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I think when -most- people talk about bias what is really meant is an intentional slating of a story.

Your words and despite of what you think this is happening. And much more for one side than the other.

Hell, even (some of)the editors are starting to admit it.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Remster 30]

Quote

Can't agrue with the point go after the source.

You're funny! This is a discussion about source bias!

Remster