US media

[Undesired Walrus]

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?

Who cares if they are biased? Just turn off the news and pick up a book.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

You're forgetting the "this story confirms what I already believe, and all my colleagues agree with me, so it must be right" bias. And that leans overwhelmingly left-wing, not right-wing. If you think the media has been so "incredibly right-wing", why is it that journalists consider increases in casualty rates in Iraq to be news, but decreases not to be? Why do both party registration and political donations from journalists tilt so dramatically towards democrats? If journalists were really so influenced by corporate interests rather than ideological preferences, why on earth are they doing so poorly as a business?

I don't buy it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're forgetting the "this story confirms what I already believe, and all my colleagues agree with me, so it must be right" bias. And that leans overwhelmingly left-wing, not right-wing. If you think the media has been so "incredibly right-wing", why is it that journalists consider increases in casualty rates in Iraq to be news, but decreases not to be? Why do both party registration and political donations from journalists tilt so dramatically towards democrats? If journalists were really so influenced by corporate interests rather than ideological preferences, why on earth are they doing so poorly as a business?

I don't buy it.

The problem with this sentiment is you are just cherry picking evidence (I'm not even sure if your facts are accurate but it doesn't matter).

You have to look at valid measures if you are going to claim which way the media bias swings.

Who gets interviewed is a valid measure. Which stories get covered and which are ignored? How many op ed editors are right, left or middle and how much air time or column space do they average?

In order to make a valid determination using scientific principles you have to identify and validate your objective measures before you do the analysis. Otherwise you are too subject to confirmation bias.

So pick your objective criteria, let's discuss the validity and agree on the measures first. Then let's go see what the measured data actually say.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem with this sentiment is you are just cherry picking evidence (I'm not even sure if your facts are accurate but it doesn't matter).

And that's different from your argument... how?

In order to make a valid determination using scientific principles you have to identify and validate your objective measures before you do the analysis. Otherwise you are too subject to confirmation bias.

Funny, but you didn't apply any of these standards to Joe's argument that journalists have a right-wing bias. It's only when presented with a counter-argument that you decide to raise the bar. Confirmation bias indeed.

 

[Grasshopper]

Here's a question:

Is it wrong for the American media to be somewhat patriotic when its very freedom to report what it wants depends on our system of government? How should that play out?

Just to avoid barbs, I believe we've become woefully subservient to the government and that has threatened our system of government. But when it comes to war, I think there are some definite ethical boundaries. You don't report things that would jeopardize our troops, for example.

But as a former journalist, I'd be interested in what you all have to say about when the watchdog function comes into play. When facts are unclear and the administration is relying on them to start a war, do you report them right away if it could lead to more deaths for our troops? Or would the subsequent disclosure of those mistakes, if proven to be so, be enough of a deterrent to our leaders?

 

[Oliver]

Here's a question:

Is it wrong for the American media to be somewhat patriotic when its very freedom to report what it wants depends on our system of government? How should that play out?

Just to avoid barbs, I believe we've become woefully subservient to the government and that has threatened our system of government. But when it comes to war, I think there are some definite ethical boundaries. You don't report things that would jeopardize our troops, for example.

But as a former journalist, I'd be interested in what you all have to say about when the watchdog function comes into play. When facts are unclear and the administration is relying on them to start a war, do you report them right away if it could lead to more deaths for our troops? Or would the subsequent disclosure of those mistakes, if proven to be so, be enough of a deterrent to our leaders?

What ethical boundaries? If everyone is hyping the "Support
our Troops!", then the Media should also report about the
suffering and the corpses as a result of "Supporting the Troops".
The hypocrisy to paint everything in Red-White-Blue instead
showing the truth and asking the tough questions - well, sucks.

The first victim of Wars today - is the truth.

And did anyone else noticed that everything is hidden under
the jacket of national security and secret strategic information.
It's one big farce.

"Hey look, this guy is foot-tapping!!!1!11!"
"OMG, what did Limbaugh say???!!1?!1!!"
"Burn MOVEON.org!! Burn them!!1!!11!"
"BREAKING NEWS: Britney lost toenail!!!!!"

 

[Puppycow]

Who cares if they are biased? Just turn off the news and pick up a book.

Reading books is great but they aren't really a substitute for news. And they can also be biased. I tend to think the mainstream media in general is pretty good about checking the facts.

 

[dudalb]

Reading books is great but they aren't really a substitute for news. And they can also be biased. I tend to think the mainstream media in general is pretty good about checking the facts.

The MSM is not perfect by a long shot,but I think it is more reliable then a lot of the "alternative media",which inevitably has a ideological ax to grind.
What amuses me is when people attack Fox News for being biased...which it is...while swearing that the Daily Kos or NPR ( and yes,I feel NPR has a heavy left wing bias) is the source of all truth and wisdom.

 

[Oliver]

The MSM is not perfect by a long shot,but I think it is more reliable then a lot of the "alternative media",which inevitably has a ideological ax to grind.
What amuses me is when people attack Fox News for being biased...which it is...while swearing that the Daily Kos or NPR ( and yes,I feel NPR has a heavy left wing bias) is the source of all truth and wisdom.

Funny thing is that nearly everything is black or white, dems or
reps, good or evil - all over the media. So instead presenting
facts - it's one big pile of all sorts of crazy opinions.

Basically there should be a separate name for the US-Media, namely
"Opinion Media - We say what our viewers/party/sponsors wanna hear".

Laughable.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here's a question:

Is it wrong for the American media to be somewhat patriotic when its very freedom to report what it wants depends on our system of government? How should that play out?

Just to avoid barbs, I believe we've become woefully subservient to the government and that has threatened our system of government. But when it comes to war, I think there are some definite ethical boundaries. You don't report things that would jeopardize our troops, for example.

But as a former journalist, I'd be interested in what you all have to say about when the watchdog function comes into play. When facts are unclear and the administration is relying on them to start a war, do you report them right away if it could lead to more deaths for our troops? Or would the subsequent disclosure of those mistakes, if proven to be so, be enough of a deterrent to our leaders?

Did anyone in the press cover those objecting to the war, and their reasons for the objection? I saw plenty of coverage of that, and very much enjoyed one C Span piece on Daniel Ellsberg, and his civil disobedience act that got him arrested. This was before the Iraq War.

Newspapers and magazines carried information on arguments people like Anthony Zinni made against the war.

That the media covers things does not always parlay into political action. The critical mass of an audience, the Congress, were either unreached, unreachable, or so worried about their image on security matters that facts, argument, and public debate appears to have rolled off of many of their backs.

He may have done it for all the reasons that got no traction, standard isolationist cum libertarian positions, but Ron Paul at the least had an objection in the House. What he didn't have was the leadership skills to swing a bunch of other reps to his way of thinking.

DR

 

[jsiv]

Funny thing is that nearly everything is black or white, dems or reps, good or evil - all over the media. So instead presenting facts - it's one big pile of all sorts of crazy opinions.

Basically there should be a separate name for the US-Media, namely "Opinion Media - We say what our viewers/party/sponsors wanna hear".

Laughable.

Sadly, this is what it is like in most democracies. Maybe not always as extreme and obvious (one could argue that extremely subtle bias is actually worse) as in America, but it's still there. The problem -- if you can call it that -- is bigger than just the US.

 

[Ziggurat]

What ethical boundaries? If everyone is hyping the "Support our Troops!",then the Media should also report about the suffering and the corpses as a result of "Supporting the Troops".

That phrase ("Support our troops") has essentially no meaning. It is used by both proponents and opponents of the Iraq war. And Iraqi and American troop deaths get lots of coverage in the US media. But that's not really the question anyways.

The hypocrisy to paint everything in Red-White-Blue instead showing the truth and asking the tough questions - well, sucks.

But that's not what's actually going on with the media. I know that German media portrayal of American media might lead you to believe this, but it's simply not the case.

The first victim of Wars today - is the truth.

Perhaps. But you apparently have no clue that this cuts both ways - the anti-war movement has hardly been paragons of truth and honesty.

And did anyone else noticed that everything is hidden under the jacket of national security and secret strategic information. It's one big farce.

No, Oliver. Nobody else noticed because it's not actually true. Lots of things aren't hidden. And unfortunately, some things which plainly should be hidden are not (our infiltration of Al Qaeda's "Obelisk" computer system being a prime example). I know you write in hyperbole, but do you also think that way too? It's a wonder that you haven't given yourself an aneurism.

 

[Grasshopper]

Believe it or not, journalists do have ethical codes and endlessly debate ethics and boundaries. One clear ethical boundary is not disclosing information that would jeopardize the lives of the troops of your own country. By following that code, journalists become citizens of their own country and in a sense, patriotic, rather than citizens of the world who care equally about everybody regardless of whether they oppose us in a war.

I think we could have done better in the lead-up to the war by doing more to verify the facts and assertions made to support the war. Clearly, the media need to do that. But I can also envision a situation where that effort could jeopardize troops or intelligence efforts, thus moving us into a gray area.

Finally, I've come to disagree that the first casualty of war is truth. In my former life as a reporter, I covered an anti-war and pro-war rally on the same day. The biggest concern of the organizers was who drew a bigger crowd. I need not point out the fallacy in that thinking to this forum. Ultimately, I sat down to write and could find nothing in any of the speeches that helped me write a story helping my readers make up their own minds based on good, critical reasoning.

That leads me to believe that the first casualty of war is reason, not truth.

 

[gumboot]

This poll is a false choice fallacy. It assumed that the media are either neutral or patriotic. They are neither. They care about the United States about as much as they care about the truth.

All they care about is sensationalising the news as much as humanly possible so it sells better. They're absolutely completely, hopelessly, utterly biased. But only a complete tool would think they were even remotely "patriotic".

-Gumboot

 

[quixotecoyote]

All they care about is sensationalising the news as much as humanly possible so it sells better. They're absolutely completely, hopelessly, utterly biased. But only a complete tool would think they were even remotely "patriotic".

-Gumboot

Unless you think that patriotism sells. In which case it becomes a perfectly rational idea.