Annoying (not Big) Media Bias

[Thunder]

Did you notice every time a Republican wins, it's all about anger, irrationality, getting-back-at so-and-so, etc. -- but when a Democrat wins, it's all about peace 'n' love 'n' hope 'n' change?

I love how you start your thread with an obvious and laughable strawman. One must wonder if you want us to take the thread seriously.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There's actually a pretty dumb statement that Obama made recently where he himself states that he was elected due to the population being frustrated*.

*-Note: this isn't the dumb part of the quote.

 

[Brainster]

Hrm. You must've watched a different segment. I saw Stewart's dressing-down of Olbermann, and the undercurrent I saw would be more accurately described as "you used to be intelligent, articulate, and made good points; now you're just blowing smoke and attacking people."

This presupposes there was some time where Olbermann was intelligent and articulate and made good points.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This presupposes there was some time where Olbermann was intelligent and articulate and made good points.

Yes, but its still worlds apart from your previous characterization.

 

[Sporanox]

Yes, but its still worlds apart from your previous characterization.

What ticks me off is that Olbermann has always been like that...and Stewart pretends that it's just something he started recently.

EDIT: I liked the segment, though. Stewart's a more honest broadcaster than many newspeople.

 

[Praktik]

Many dowsers appear to be sincere in their belief that they are able to detect water with their rods. Similarly, I suspect you are sincere in your belief that the media almost always portrays Republican wins as the result of negative feelings and Democratic wins as the result of positive feelings. But just as a dowser's ability to detect water tends to fail once a fair protocol is established and testing is carried out, I suspect your ability to detect significant differential media treatment in this regard will fail if you establish a fair protocol and apply it to news reports.

Nova Land - fighting a lonely crusade for skepticism in this subforum. Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your contributions here and even if the frequency isn't to my liking the quality of your posts kinda makes up for it... kinda..

 

[Skeptic]

Are you claiming that every time a Republican wins it is characterized by a significant percentage of the media as all about anger, irrationality, getting-back-at so-and-so, etc. (and not about peace 'n' love 'n' hope 'n' change), and that every time a Democrat wins it is characterized by a significant pecentage of the media as all about peace 'n' love 'n' hope 'n' change (and not about anger, irrationality, getting-back-at so-and-so, etc.)?

Well, not every time. Certainly when it was Bush in 2004 or Obama in 2008.

My suspicion is that you are more prone to notice stories in which Republican wins are characterized as being about negative feelings on the part of the voters (perhaps because you disagree with these stories, and thus have a stronger reaction to them) and not to notice stories in which Republican wins are characterized as being about a positive feelings on the part of the voters (possibly because you agree with these stories, and thus take them for granted).

That might be... it would be hard to test objectively, however. But that's why I asked if others noticed it too. Again, I'm not claiming some sort of evil media conspiracy; just some sort of annoying bias in terminology, which, if it in fact exists, is probably unconscious.

 

[Skeptic]

EDIT: I liked the segment, though. Stewart's a more honest broadcaster than many newspeople.

That, alas, is true -- and shows you something about the level to which American media had deteriorated, when openly fake comedy news show which make no claims to objectivity or seriousness do a better job than many allegedly "serious" newscasters.

 

[Sporanox]

That, alas, is true -- and shows you something about the level to which American media had deteriorated, when openly fake comedy news show which make no claims to objectivity or seriousness do a better job than many allegedly "serious" newscasters.

Question: is the media any better in your locality, and why if so?

Not trying to stop your dumping on the American MSM - I'm all for that.

 

[Skeptic]

Question: is the media any better in your locality, and why if so?

I think Israeli news reporting is, on the whole, better for two reasons.

First, it is such a small country that the three or four main newspapers are all national newspapers -- so they analyze the national news, in any rate, at greater depth than TV can, and are still the main source of information for most people.

Second, there is (surprisingly, come to think of it) no dedicated news-only channel, but only daily news shows on the two "big" local channels (of course in case of war or something all bets are off and emergency broadcasts take over). So there is no "let's put a zillion meaningless stories to fill the 24-hour time slots for seventeen news-only channels" drive.

 

[Sporanox]

First, it is such a small country that the three or four main newspapers are all national newspapers -- so they analyze the national news, in any rate, at greater depth than TV can, and are still the main source of information for most people.

Granted, print is a deeper medium, even if it is something like the NYT. I'm beginning to have a lot of problems with the rags in the wake of 08, though. The cheerleading is making me nauseous.

Second, there is (surprisingly, come to think of it) no dedicated news-only channel, but only daily news shows on the two "big" local channels (of course in case of war or something all bets are off and emergency broadcasts take over). So there is no "let's put a zillion meaningless stories to fill the 24-hour time slots for seventeen news-only channels" drive.

Yeah, that sounds great. How is the interview quality?

 

[Drysdale]

OK, can someone point me to a major newspaper or radio/television media excluding Fox and the conservative talking heads on the radio that have a tingle running down their leg or something to that effect from Brown's win?

Maybe I just did'nt see them or hear them but I have'nt seen or heard any.

 

[ProbeX]

Not a big thing. But an annoying one, in the wake of the Brown election.

Did you notice every time a Republican wins, it's all about anger, irrationality, getting-back-at so-and-so, etc. -- but when a Democrat wins, it's all about peace 'n' love 'n' hope 'n' change?

It depends on the election cycle. And no offense, but comments like this remind me that I hate party politics. Anger, irrationality and vindictiveness happen on both sides, regardless of who the present "winner" is.

During the Bush Jr. years, many on the Left were anti-government and talking about the world going to Hell in a handbasket ... some, full of vitriol, did a whole lot of name-calling w/a few openly calling for Bush's assassination. Those Leftists were called "unpatriotic". These days those on the Right are acting out, with those on the Left chastising them for being "unpatriotic". Both parties act out.

 

[Nova Land]

That might be... it would be hard to test objectively, however.

To demonstrate rigorously whether you are correct or not probably would take a lot of work. But demonstrating to a reasonable certainty whether or not you are correct should not be that difficult.

First you need to think about what you are trying to claim (just as folks trying to take the Million Dollar Challenge do) and write it down more clearly. What are the characteristics which you think are distinctive about the coverage of Republican victories (i.e. what you have informally described as it's all about anger, irrationality, getting-back-at so-and-so, etc.) and what are the characteristics which you think are distinctive about the coverage of Democratic electoral victories (i.e. what you have informally described as it's all about peace 'n' love 'n' hope 'n' change)?

Once you have written down the key things which need to be present in a news story to make it fall into one of those categories, pick out some examples of news stories you feel fall into these category, and some examples of stories you feel do not fall into these category, in order to provide a clearer picture of which stories qualify for inclusion.

If you are right in your claim, then it should be very easy for you to find stories about Republican victories which fall into category 1, and stories about Democratic victories which fall into category 2. It should also be very difficult for anyone to find stories about Republican victories which fall into category 2 and stories about Democratic victories which fall into category 1.

For a rigorous demonstration, we'd probably need to agree on a time period and on several media outlets, and go through all the election coverage which appeared in those outlets during that time period to see how many stories about Republican and Democratic victories fell into one, both, or neither of those categories.

But just as Randi starts with a preliminary test which is much less rigorous than the final test for the MDC would need to be, so in politics a preliminary test should in general be sufficient for seeing whether a claim such as yours has merit worth pursuing more rigorously. An informal test -- permitting examination of any news story from any major media outlet which came out in, say, the past 10 years -- should be good enough.

Once you've defined what kind of stories you're talking about well enough that it's reasonably clear if a story falls into one of your categories or not, it should be possible for others to look over various news stories about election results to see if they can find any significant number of stories about Republicans which fall into the second category and/or any significant number of stories about Democrats which fall into the first category. If it isn't possible to do that, then your claim would appear to have merit. But if it is possible to do that, then it should be reasonably clear this is simply a case of selective perception on your part.

 

[Magyar]

Are you kidding me? Do remember how the Dems treated Bush? Like this, "involve anger, irrationality, or getting back at so and so." Get off your high horse. The Dems are just as bad.

Yea the SAME way that Reps treat Clinton, But what is THAT got to do with my point.
I wasn't talking about BUSH, I was talking about issues.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yea the SAME way that Reps treat Clinton, But what is THAT got to do with my point.
I wasn't talking about BUSH, I was talking about issues.

No you weren't. You were talking about your own prejudices against conservatives.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So far as I can tell, every election is the "end of America" according to some pundits. What annoys me is not that, so much, but the idiots who say it would be a wonderful thing.

The thing that really bothers me is the pervasive class of ever-present political talking heads (every damn network has them now) who insist upon telling us, constantly and loudly, that the next election is THE BIG ONE!!! THE ONE ELECTION TO RULE THEM ALL!!!11!1

All they're really doing is trying to keep everyone on the hook, watching the TV, so they can make money and justify their existence. A colleague of mine calls it "filling the news hole".

No wonder I don't watch TV or cable news - it's all just crap in this regard and I have better things to do than swallow such swill.

 

[MattusMaximus]

EDIT: I liked the segment, though. Stewart's a more honest broadcaster than many newspeople.

True dat

 

[tyr_13]

The only issue that Democrats promote freedom more than Republicans is sexual freedoms (abortion, gay marriage). Free speech? Nope, they've got the hate speech thing going. Right to bear arms - do I even need to comment? Financial freedoms - who is the party of lower taxes and less regulation?

No you weren't. You were talking about your own prejudices against conservatives liberals.

You tell you.

 

[Ziggurat]

You tell you.

You seem to be having some trouble reading. Let me help you.

In response to YOUR post, I listed a number of issues regarding democrats and republicans, along with my opinion on how their positions on those issues matched your description. You have not provided any counterargument to my argument.

In Magyar's previous post, he listed no issues at all, but only negative qualities he felt conservatives had. He then defended that post by saying he talked about issues when he had not.

Now, with that little bit of Cliff notes, can you spot a difference? Look, I'm not asking that you agree with my evaluation of Republican and Democrat positions, but if you honestly can't see a difference between my post and Magyar's, well... actually, you're smart enough that the only way you wouldn't spot the difference is if you're not trying.