US media

[g4macdad]

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 cannot agree.

I think the owners of the media know their interests in politics, and it seems to be reflected in the views expressed there.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,
Perhaps you should ask someone in your neighborhood who Rheinhard Gehlen was. CIA, Black Budget, Scandals, Oh My! (Also sex, treason, Swiss bank accounts and Minox cameras.)

Robert Klaus

Well, this is a pretty long time ago. Germany is pretty dead in terms of scandals. And even when we have a scandal here, I consider them as boring nevertheless. Don't ask me why. I guess it's the secrecy in the US that makes it interesting.

 

[President Bush]

It is not even possible to be neutral on political issues, as neutrality is a stance in and of itself.

A systematically propagated and potentially biased take on what's happening tends to limit one's inclination to cite evidence showing uncertainty about that systematically propagated and potentially biased take on what's happening.

 

[RandFan]

A systematically propagated and potentially biased take on what's happening tends to limit one's inclination to cite evidence showing uncertainty about that systematically propagated and potentially biased take on what's happening.

Not when it comes to badgers.

 

[President Bush]

Not when it comes to badgers.

And here I thought you were just going to ask me: "Why?"

My answer was going to be: "Since this is an atheists' forum, it has something to do with ion channels, neural pathways, and axonal projections."

 

[RandFan]

And here I thought you were just going to ask me: "Why?"

My answer was going to be: "Since this is an atheists' forum, it has something to do with ion channels, neural pathways, and axonal projections."

Doesn't change the badgers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I like certain Frontline and other PBS shows, but are we saying here that Bill Moyers (and PBS) has no political bias?

I think it is a mistake to condemn a journalist's choice of stories as biased if the stories are based in facts, or at least well supported or good investigative journalism.

To me the more biased, the less factual a story is. Otherwise, how do you report on anything political at all?

This is one thing currently wrong with the nonsense claim both parties are equally anything. It's like saying you have bought the conclusion before the facts are out. The pendulum swings and right now there simply is more corruption in the Republican leadership, there is more incompetence, there is more abuse of power going on. So that's what any good reporter should be covering.

Yes, there have been times the tide was reversed. Yes, there are individuals in both parties that are all the bad things I just mentioned. But that is no reason to conclude all things are equal all the time. They aren't.

I don't know what Moyers would be writing about if the current political scene was different. Moyers had an extensive piece on mythogy a while back that wasn't political at all. Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers

 

[President Bush]

Doesn't change the badgers.

 

[steverino]

I think it is a mistake to condemn a journalist's choice of stories as biased if the stories are based in facts, or at least well supported or good investigative journalism.

My exwife worked for a "pro-life" media and lobbying organization. Their arguments for action against legal abortion was fact-based and well-supported. Their political and moral persepective, however, had a bias, and was, IMO, worth condemnation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, this is a pretty long time ago. Germany is pretty dead in terms of scandals.

How do you know they just haven't been uncovered?

 

[RandFan]

UHF good flick.

 

[Oliver]

How do you know they just haven't been uncovered?

Well, on one Side there is the Controll-Panel with Members of the Parliament that have access to the information and work of the Bundesnachrichtendienst - and the German Chancellery that coordinates their work.

On the other Hand I never heard of any military intervention to install or assassinate some unpopular foreign Politicians, human experiments, secret Bases, Torture and stuff like that - so all in all, they're boring as Hell.

 

[Fnord]

Doesn't change the badgers.

I wish it would change These Badgers!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Try the video from Democracy Now or read the transcripts for decent investigative news. And Bill Moyer's Journal, Now with David Brancaccio, Independent Lens, and Frontline are all excellent programs on our Public Broadcasting Service.

OK. Thanks for the suggestions, skeptigirl! Never heard of any of them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My exwife worked for a "pro-life" media and lobbying organization. Their arguments for action against legal abortion was fact-based and well-supported. Their political and moral persepective, however, had a bias, and was, IMO, worth condemnation.

It's a continuum with a mix and a fine line, not a black and white world.

Is the science biased if it supports one side better than another?

Are the supporting facts accurate but being cherry picked?

I don't consider arguments for evolution biased even though they support one side of the supposed debate. Anti-abortion and pro-abortion facts are by nature, cherry picked because the question is a values question.

If I value honesty in 'government by the people' and I report about false information the government put out leading up to a war, am I biased because I reported on the government lies? Don't both Republicans and Democrats want a government not to lie us into a war? A Republican may be in denial that occurred. A Democrat might not be giving the government the benefit of the doubt. If the facts provide an answer to that question, is the reported biased? Should the reporter balance the facts, even if the facts aren't balanced as reporters typically do in the formula news we see in the mainstream media today?

To me that last issue makes the news biased toward pleasing both sides and presenting a facade of non-bias when the actual bias toward presenting both sides is preventing factual reporting.

 

[Oliver]

Here's another great summing about the Propaganda-Media
nowadays - and how they're subtle enough to fool the the
common John Doe X's:

Spinning us to Death

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[JoeEllison]

I think a big part of the problem is the concept of "fair and balanced". Honest reporting cannot be both fair and balanced. On just about every issue, there is a position that is better supported by evidence, more accurate, and more in keeping with reality. The only way to treat the issue fairly is to report that the position is the superior one. It is NOT fair reporting to balance the truth with lies, or to give equal time and emphasis to inferior points of view.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think a big part of the problem is the concept of "fair and balanced". Honest reporting cannot be both fair and balanced. On just about every issue, there is a position that is better supported by evidence, more accurate, and more in keeping with reality. The only way to treat the issue fairly is to report that the position is the superior one. It is NOT fair reporting to balance the truth with lies, or to give equal time and emphasis to inferior points of view.

The problem, Joe, is that reporters rarely have the expertise to figure out which is which, and often simply rely upon their ideological biases to guide them to a conclusion which they then report in the manner you describe, whether or not it's really the better-supported position. About the only area of reporting in which expertise in the topic is a definite prerequisite is sports.

 

[JoeEllison]

The problem, Joe, is that reporters rarely have the expertise to figure out which is which, and often simply rely upon their ideological biases to guide them to a conclusion which they then report in the manner you describe, whether or not it's really the better-supported position. About the only area of reporting in which expertise in the topic is a definite prerequisite is sports.

The real media biases I see today are three-fold. There's the "too lazy to do journalism" bias, the "wow, that looks like the sort of story I can make witty comments about, even if I have to make stuff up" bias, and the "I work for a big corporation and I need to reflect the values of my bosses so I get promoted to a bigger spot and maybe get a book deal" bias.

That certainly explains why the media has been so incredibly right-wing and outrageously stupid over the past 15 years or so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The real media biases I see today are three-fold. There's the "too lazy to do journalism" bias, the "wow, that looks like the sort of story I can make witty comments about, even if I have to make stuff up" bias, and the "I work for a big corporation and I need to reflect the values of my bosses so I get promoted to a bigger spot and maybe get a book deal" bias.

That certainly explains why the media has been so incredibly right-wing and outrageously stupid over the past 15 years or so.

While we agree about the end result, I think there is more to what has caused the anemia of the current mainstream news reporting.

First consider the consolidation of sources: That created a much more generalized target audience being catered to. You don't have a mainstream media source for minority interests. We do, fortunately, still have that on the Internet.

That has led to the typical news framing of everything being about fear, scandal, outrage yadda yadda which is the typical news report model. The claim that good news doesn't sell is a lie. It's how you frame it and which good news you choose that could make it sell but these guys just aren't very creative. More importantly, they aren't willing to take the chance of breaking from the tired format. Missing or murdered white girls is a sure sell. Why test the waters for something new.

Then you have the profit motive rather than the motive of actually informing the public: That has led to those hours of commentary instead of actually investing in investigative reporting. It's also cheaper to put on a video news release paid for by some corporation which has learned the marketing lesson that the news is viewed as more credible by one's target audience than a commercial is. And it's cheaper to just go to the White House press conference than it is to again, do any investigative reporting. Reporters aren't lazy, investigative reporting isn't funded.

Finally you have corporate control: There are blatant examples of corporate interference in media messages beyond the news. Clear Channel censored the Dixie Chicks and claimed it was fan initiated when it wasn't. Disney censored Michael Moore's, "Fahrenheit 911" by refusing to put it in theaters and put on the very distorted "Path to 911" or whatever that TV movie was called. And there is no doubt Rupert Murdoch has his right wing sentiments expressed in his media empire.