American Media (or, Where's the Rage?)

[The Captain]

"eestlinc/ed -- I have said many times over that I will gladly post evidence of liberal media bias as soon as those claiming that Fox News is oh-so biased towards the right, and I have yet to see anything remotely close to a valid point that claims such against Fox News. And I maintain that. If you believe so strongly that Fox News is leaning towards the right, it should be no problem finding statistics and examples of their bias, should it? And, once I see that, I will post examples of liberal bias in the rest of the media."

Since the evidence posted already has not been to your satisfaction, how about you post some of your evidence and we can get the ball rolling?

Take care all.

[Sasquatch]

I'll simply re-post some of the links The Redneck posted, obviously they must have been ignored.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/Camp...NNnetwork.html

http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/worst/welcome.asp

Eason Jordon

CNN's admission to hiding news in Iraq

Would y'all like any more? Now could I expect something--anything--about how biased Fox News is? Or will it still be simple opinion?

[eestlinc]

How does Eason Jordan implying (at some press soiree in Switzerland) that it might be official military policy to target journalists reflect liberal bias for Eason Jordan, nevermind all of CBS?

Regarding the Dan Rather 60 minutes story with the fabricated TANG memos, I think that gross error can be attributed in large part to haste to "get the story first" and the media's natural desire to tear down those in power regardless of ideology. Dan Rather may have been personally pleased to "take down George W Bush" but that doesn't my default prove intentional bias.

[The Captain]

Just to point out, the first two links have obvious political biases as well.

Also note that Rather did eventually apologize, something I've yet to hear from anyone else in the field of journalism, ideology aside, when a mistake gets made.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

I'll search for more in a bit.

I think, after much debate, that the best way to actually get fair news is to watch what both sides have to say and weigh them against one another as well as expose yourself to news sources outside the country to see their take on things. When it comes to news, it's always been my opinion that the wider variety of sources you can get, the better informed your opinion can become.

Take care all.

[edczxcvbnm]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/specificbias.htm

Some of this I wouldn't consider bias...just ty reporting all around.

Edit - I just realized my first link is the same one that The Captain posted >_<

[DMKA]

You posted in a thread about the presence of absence of media bias. Your post concerned the oppression of black people and the "persecution" of homosexuals, and blamed it on...what was it? "Racist, narrowminded, redneck bastards", or something like that, wasn't it? Extremely relevant, to something, I'm sure.

Go back and read the entire thread again. Do it slowly this time sweetcheeks.

[Sasquatch]

"How does Eason Jordan implying (at some press soiree in Switzerland) that it might be official military policy to target journalists reflect liberal bias for Eason Jordan, nevermind all of CBS?"

First of all, it would reflect upon CNN, not CBS. Secondly, if he gets people to believe U.S. military personell are intentionally targeting reporters, it makes the military look bad, thus making the Republicans look bad, because after all, CNN reports it as a Republican-led war anyway.

"Regarding the Dan Rather 60 minutes story with the fabricated TANG memos, I think that gross error can be attributed in large part to haste to "get the story first" and the media's natural desire to tear down those in power regardless of ideology. Dan Rather may have been personally pleased to "take down George W Bush" but that doesn't my default prove intentional bias."

There was no story to be gotten first. They made it up. It wasn't a case of "well, we heard this and that and figured we'd get it out as an exclusive, we just later found out it wasn't true." It was "Well, we either made this up or got it from an unreliable source, and it was proven to be fabricated, but we went ahead and put it on the air anyway because it made Bush look bad."

Rather eventually apologized, but shunned any and all responsibility from himself or most of CBS, and he only came out in the first place because a large part of the public was calling for CBS to axe him. Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and a transfer.

"http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/specificbias.htm"

The first of these links is an obviously liberally-biased source, and the other two come from "www.oreilly-sucks.com". Obviously, "oreilly-sucks.com" would not be a balanced source.

I'd also like to point out the book Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, a 20-year CBS reporter, that details reports concerning the bias of CBS reporting.

[edczxcvbnm]

While the site oreilly-sucks is bias at least the first link(middle) is just links to other places.

BTW, I just typed Fox News conservative bias into google and those are the first 3 things that came up. Not really trying on my part. Also way to completely dismiss them without giving them so much as a look. BTW. Your sites are bias also so BOO-YA!

[Sasquatch]

Actually, I can somewhat understand the Media Research Center being accused of bias, but the other two links were from the Washington Post, a liberal newspaper, and indymedia, a highly liberal organization, respectively. Those are biased to the right, you're saying? So, umm...boo-ya?

[edczxcvbnm]

Nah. I was more or less talking about Media Research Center. I really should have been more specific. I need really need more time so I can read more about what I am posting. Its just getting worse for me

[The Captain]

After much thought, I'm now of the mind that "liberal" and "conservative" biases of the media is a product of the last 10 or so years. Looking back into the late 1980's or even earl 1990's, I never once heard ANYONE accuse any news media source, unless it was overt, of being slanted just because their point of view was not represented. In fact, for close to 40 years or until the middle 1990's, everyone listened to or watched the same news, which if you listen to what people are saying now, means it must have been the "liberal" media because it was the very same stations with a great deal of the same people working behind the scenes. This 24 hour news society as well as having "news and debate" shows that cater only to the bloodlust that the Democrats and Republicans have for one another has caused everything to go spinning out of control.

I think all of the media-bashing is just another move to polarize the nation and we've bitten it hook, line and sinker. Drastic changes are needed to get back to some form of balance.

Take care all.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

You know we're taught to be unbiased? It's actually a rather big deal, they make sure we report in as unobjective a matter as possible, if you include anything even remotely like an opinion it usually gets axed. However, that doesn't suddenly make us inhuman. As reporters are human with their own views, their ideas will be flavored by how they think. Also, one of the things we DO learn is how to subtly guide someone to the conclusion we want. If you are looking for "proof" of a bias in either news medium, you won't find it (that applies for both what you accuse of being biased and what you refuse to admit is biased), because all news mediums try to at least uphold the ideal of unbiased. Note I say news, Coulter, Moore, and all the rest of them aren't news.

[edczxcvbnm]

You know we're taught to be unbiased? It's actually a rather big deal, they make sure we report in as unobjective a matter as possible, if you include anything even remotely like an opinion it usually gets axed. However, that doesn't suddenly make us inhuman. As reporters are human with their own views, their ideas will be flavored by how they think. Also, one of the things we DO learn is how to subtly guide someone to the conclusion we want. If you are looking for "proof" of a bias in either news medium, you won't find it (that applies for both what you accuse of being biased and what you refuse to admit is biased), because all news mediums try to at least uphold the ideal of unbiased. Note I say news, Coulter, Moore, and all the rest of them aren't news.

Thank you

[The Redneck]

You know we're taught to be unbiased? It's actually a rather big deal, they make sure we report in as unobjective a matter as possible, if you include anything even remotely like an opinion it usually gets axed.

I spent a year as a journalism major. and I know from experience that aspiring journalists are not taught to be unbiased--quite the contrary, in fact.

And that bias moves in one direction--the field of journalism is overwhelmingly liberal.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I spent a year as a journalism major. and I know from experience that aspiring journalists are not taught to be unbiased--quite the contrary, in fact.

And that bias moves in one direction--the field of journalism is overwhelmingly liberal.

I can't speak for how you were taught, but I do know how I am being taught. And the media is far from overwhelmingly liberal, although it does have a tendancy to be somewhat progressive in thought.