US media

[Oliver]

Since I'm studying the US media's view about the world, I always have the impression that it's far beyond a neutral view about the world and themselves concerning politics and foreign policies.

Now I could be wrong and prejudiced - so I'm asking you Americans:

Is the US Media's view independent&neutral about politics, also considering coverage during war?

 

[mr rosewater]

What does 20/20 mean.

 

[MelBrooksfan]

What does 20/20 mean.

The U.S. media has exceptional eyesight?

 

[Oliver]

The U.S. media has exceptional eyesight?

Well, in Germany we use to say 50/50. I thought the American Term is 20/20, meaning that it's "50% / 50%" - meaning 50% neutral but also 50% patriotic/dependant.

 

[brodski]

Like all "free" media, the US media generally reflects the biases of its market.
Any paper in the USA which ran the headline "America sucks, hallways has, always will" wouldn't last long.
The trick is not to expect an unbiased media (I don't believe that such a beast exists, and never has or will), the trick is to recognize the bias inherit in all media, and judge it accordingly.

 

[Oliver]

Like all "free" media, the US media generally reflects the biases of its market.
Any paper in the USA which ran the headline "America sucks, hallways has, always will" wouldn't last long.
The trick is not to expect an unbiased media (I don't believe that such a beast exists, and never has or will), the trick is to recognize the bias inherit in all media, and judge it accordingly.

I know what you mean about the current interesting topics and markets. My question rather is: Do they report issues in a neutral way if it involves politics.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have asked two different questions. Are you only asking about our media's independence? Or are you also asking about its neutrality? The two things aren't the same. And when you ask about media independence, what do you mean? Independence from the government? Independence from corporate interests? Independence of the reporters from editorial opinions?

 

[MelBrooksfan]

I know what you mean about the current interesting topics and markets. My question rather is: Do they report issues in a neutral way if it involves politics.

No. Not entirely. They may try to make it appear so, but it will always be subject to the biases of the writer, editor, and perhaps even the company owner.

 

[Oliver]

You have asked two different questions. Are you only asking about our media's independence? Or are you also asking about its neutrality? The two things aren't the same. And when you ask about media independence, what do you mean? Independence from the government? Independence from corporate interests? Independence of the reporters from editorial opinions?

*lol* Sorry for the confusion. In here I'm talking about political independence, meaning a neutral view in political issues and also the coverage in War-times which may result in patriotic coverages instead education based on facts.

 

[fuelair]

Well, in Germany we use to say 50/50. I thought the American Term is 20/20, meaning that it's "50% / 50%" - meaning 50% neutral but also 50% patriotic/dependant.

six of one/half a dozen of the other.

US media overall does not fit the poll choices - especially with patriotic undefined (is patriotic supporting the gov't/popular opinion all the way OR is it supporting what is right and publicizing what is wrong - both are used to define patriotism here and obviously only one can be correct).

 

[parrotslave]

It depends on who owns the media.

For example, Robert Murdoch told his outlets not to cover stories that show China in a bad light.

GE owned outlets gave favorable coverage to the political party who promised relaxing of regulations on their business.

As more and more news sources are being bought up by multi-national corporations with other business interests, the bias will get worse.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought the American Term is 20/20, meaning that it's "50% / 50%" - meaning 50% neutral but also 50% patriotic/dependant.

The only meaning I know of for the term "20/20" involves metrics for eyesight - namely at what distance you can read a given text (the first number, in feet) compared to someone with a reference of what's considered good eyesight (the second number). So 20/40 isn't very good vision, but 40/20 would be exceptional.

 

[brodski]

I know what you mean about the current interesting topics and markets. My question rather is: Do they report issues in a neutral way if it involves politics.

There is no such thing as a neutral stance when it comes to politics.
It is not even possible to be neutral on political issues, as neutrality is a stance in and of itself.

 

[Ziggurat]

*lol* Sorry for the confusion. In here I'm talking about political independence, meaning a neutral view in political issues and also the coverage in War-times which may result in patriotic coverages instead education based on facts.

The US press, on average (since it's not monolithic), is not politically neutral. It leans Democrat. What do you think that means in terms of war coverage?

 

[Oliver]

It depends on who owns the media.

For example, Robert Murdoch told his outlets not to cover stories that show China in a bad light.

GE owned outlets gave favorable coverage to the political party who promised relaxing of regulations on their business.

As more and more news sources are being bought up by multi-national corporations with other business interests, the bias will get worse.

And this is a problem because there are no regulations forcing the Media to report in a neutral way, right?

I know there is the Federal Communications Commission - which should be able to intervene if someone breaks up with the principle of neutral coverage, but I guess their power is limited or corrupt.

 

[Oliver]

The US press, on average (since it's not monolithic), is not politically neutral. It leans Democrat. What do you think that means in terms of war coverage?

By that I meant that the coverage is more patriotic than before the war, portraying the war in a more justified way ignoring the backgrounds that show that it's not as patriotic as in reality - by skipping facts that doesn't fit in this ideology.

I also consider the Fear-Mongering after 9/11 as non-realistic, portraying an global enemy which doesn't exist in a scale as it was portrayed.

 

[ConspiRaider]

The US press, on average (since it's not monolithic), is not politically neutral. It leans Democrat. What do you think that means in terms of war coverage?

Completely wrong. The right-wing dominates the U.S. press and you know it, Zig. But the typical right-wing tactic is to say, and then vigorously promote, the exact opposite.

Rest of the world: Pay no attention to Zig, he's a right-winger. The U.S. mainstream media is heavily controlled and dominated by the right-wing extremists.

That's the reason why a turd-spewer like Ann Coulter can get away with calling presidential candidates "faggots", and be regularly featured on new/talk/commentary shows across the broadcast spectrum.

It's why Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage are rated 1, 2 and 3 in the extremely influential radio talk show market. They are all hate-spewing right-wingers - and are top rated, top-promoted, top-paid. They hurt the USA and the world in innumerable ways. The only way that can occur is through direct right-wing backing.

But most importantly - it's why we still have Bush as President. Clinton was impeached (in the House, not convicted in the Senate) because he had an affair with an adult woman. The right-wing media crucified him, fanned and fueled the flames of impeachment. Bush deliberately started a war that has now killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden (another 7 killed Sunday). Killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. All based on lies, deception, greed and so forth. And the right-wing press gave him an absolute free pass, and still is.

Zig: Become a liberal Democrat now. Start undoing all of that support you gave the right-wingers - the ones who have done, and are still doing - tremendous damage to my country. Join us. We'll forgive you.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It depends on who owns the media.

For example, Robert Murdoch told his outlets not to cover stories that show China in a bad light.

Murdoch doesn't own the source of this story, which is the Washington Post:

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5941513

But Murdoch could own the source of this story; what's more it demonstrates which agencies are politically driven and which are not:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3189113

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some 80,000 birds held on Indiana farms are safe to eat despite being fed rations that contained tiny amounts of the chemical melamine, the U.S. government said on Friday.

The decision by the Agriculture Department to allow the poultry to go to market came a day after the Food and Drug Administration said fish from two commercial fish farms were free of melamine and could be processed for food.

There are more "malamine is safe to eat" stories on pigs fed food contaminated with Chinese supplements containing the plastic melamine.

The Department of Agriculture is a politically driven bureacratic agency with a Bush appointee as Secretary in his cabinet. The FDA, which is consumer oriented, is not. So it looks like the FDA and Ag are butting heads now on whether farm animals fed contaminated feeds are safe to eat or not. Wonderful. What do we do now? Raise our own produce and feed it feed we also raise.

 

[Oliver]

Completely wrong. The right-wing dominates the U.S. press and you know it, Zig. But the typical right-wing tactic is to say, and then vigorously promote, the exact opposite.

Rest of the world: Pay no attention to Zig, he's a right-winger. The U.S. mainstream media is heavily controlled and dominated by the right-wing extremists.

That's the reason why a turd-spewer like Ann Coulter can get away with calling presidential candidates "faggots", and be regularly featured on new/talk/commentary shows across the broadcast spectrum.

It's why Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage are rated 1, 2 and 3 in the extremely influential radio talk show market. They are all hate-spewing right-wingers - and are top rated, top-promoted, top-paid. They hurt the USA and the world in innumerable ways. The only way that can occur is through direct right-wing backing.

But most importantly - it's why we still have Bush as President. Clinton was impeached (in the House, not convicted in the Senate) because he had an affair with an adult woman. The right-wing media crucified him, fanned and fueled the flames of impeachment. Bush deliberately started a war that has now killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden (another 7 killed Sunday). Killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. All based on lies, deception, greed and so forth. And the right-wing press gave him an absolute free pass, and still is.

Zig: Become a liberal Democrat now. Start undoing all of that support you gave the right-wingers - the ones who have done, and are still doing - tremendous damage to my country. Join us. We'll forgive you.

While the Two-Party-Mentality sounds nuts to me:
If you're right, then even the "right-winger" should see that the Media is behaving pretty strange concerning facts. So why are there no regulations?

 

[MelBrooksfan]

And this is a problem because there are no regulations forcing the Media to report in a neutral way, right?

I know there is the Federal Communications Commission - which should be able to intervene if someone breaks up with the principle of neutral coverage, but I guess their power is limited or corrupt.

No! Bad! Government regulation would only make it worse. Let the FCC decide what constitute non-neutral reporting? The last thing news outlets need is the FCC lording over them like an ogre. And how do you rule something like an editorial which is, by nature, a biased account or commentary on something? Trying to enforce neutrality on the media would only make things worse and I'd imagine it's also way unconstitutional.