Poll Is the media biased?

[unclemick]

Al-Jeezera for the straight skinny - mixed in with a little Fred on Everything when he sets forth to pontificate.

heh heh heh - I'm waiting for the female reporters to pole dance while doing interviews - to juice up the ratings vs other networks. .

 

[Westernskies]

Is the media biased?

is this a trick question?

 

[Moemg]

Is the media biased?

is this a trick question?

It's like asking "Is the Pope catholic "

 

[ERD50]

Is the media biased?

is this a trick question?

It's like asking "Is the Pope catholic "

From some of the responses, I'd say we may be learning/confirming more about bias in the poster than about bias in the media.

Kinda like that old phrase that the definition of someone with "good taste" is a person who likes the same things you do?

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

It's like asking "Is the Pope catholic "

...a blinding flash of the obvious?

 

[Leonidas]

From some of the responses, I'd say we may be learning/confirming more about bias in the poster than about bias in the media.

Kinda like that old phrase that the definition of someone with "good taste" is a person who likes the same things you do?

Not sure I agree.

When I was trained on how to deal with the media (yeah, we had a school for it, why not? we had one for everything else), The Big Rule was "never lie". Or more accurately, never get caught lying to the media. Apparently their pet peeve is to find out that a source has given them false info. Violators were subject to unmerciful public floggings, with video, live at 6 and 10.

So, you told the truth or dodged the question, but never told a lie.

For all that honesty, there was never one story that they got right. Not even the ones where all the reporting they did was come by and pick up a copy of the press release - which just amazed me. They would get the date and the location right, some of the basic facts, and then they would ad lib something that made you wonder what they were smoking.

The last couple of years of my career I had an open door to the media, most particularly the local "investigative" reporters. My boss told me "we play ball with these guys, give them access, or they'll still figure it out and broadcast their own version, which will not be complimentary."

My experience was that the more open you were the better they treated you, but they always slanted the story. Even when the reporter would admit we had done something perfect, his story would make it sound as if we had barely managed to pull victor from the jaws of incompetence. No outright lies were told, it was just the way they told the truth (and what they chose to include or cut from the story).

And the advertising frenzy leading up to some stories (Tonight at ten, Local 10 Investigates reporter Roger X reports on a crime problem out of control and XPD's response - you'll be shocked!) was ridiculously slanted. The story would be the usual, but it bore no resemblance to what a viewer would expect from the hype.

I called and complained the first time that ever happened to me and was told to wait and watch the story. The story was okay, but God knows how many millions saw the advertisements, never saw the story, and came up with an opinion based on pure BS. Their answer to that was that the marketing department made up the ads and the reporters had no control over what they put out. Yeah, right.

All the general assignment reporters, radio talk show hosts, newspaper reporters, etc., ALL had their story written before they ever approached me. I was just the 30 seconds of film they needed, or the guy who gave the quotes that they would take out of context in their stories.

Color me biased, I figure I earned it.

 

[ls99]

Very long ago, I was installing a seismometer in Vermont near Bennington. Since the media paid $50.- for leads, at least five people called in my presence.

A reporter duly showed up with cameraman in tow. Interviewed me for about 10 minutes. My face was presented on the evening news, then again "live at ten", breaking news.

The only thing the reporter got right is the fact that it had something to do with earthquakes.

All the other facts were wrong. Even though he took notes in addition to my words. My sound bite was "I'll be here about 4 more hours setting up telemetry". I guess he was impressed with the word telemetry, after trying five times still could not pronounce it.

 

[Leonidas]

I might dig out some stuff out of one of my boxes of old work stuff and try to find the tally sheet I had for the most times I was misquoted on one story. It was over a high profile moment of a scandalous and titillating publicity stunt seen by a large television audience, setting records for TIVO replays and tongues wagging. One of the secretaries started a count on how many times the same misquote was picked up by different media sources as fact. It was a couple of hundred or so if I remember correctly.

So, what you're saying is 'X'? "No, not at all"

So, are you saying 'X'? "No, that's not what I said"

An hour later I looked at the newspaper's website and saw myself quoted as saying "X".

I guess once it is in print all they have to do is attribute the original source and they're done "fact checking".

 

[Walt34]

For all that honesty, there was never one story that they got right. Not even the ones where all the reporting they did was come by and pick up a copy of the press release - which just amazed me. They would get the date and the location right, some of the basic facts, and then they would ad lib something that made you wonder what they were smoking.

That seems to be the universal experience. I've been the investigator on several events and then wondered where the reporter got their story from.

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective, and what one believes to be important.

Reminds me of DW the day before our wedding, and she was very concerned about the weather. Channel 9 said the next day would be "partly cloudy" and channel 7 said "mostly sunny".

So she only watched channel 7. We still laugh about that one.

 

[lets-retire]

As an aside to Leonidas' story I had one in particular. I arrested a prominent black civil rights leader in the community, for simply not signing a traffic ticket. According to him he was stopped because he was black and given the citation because he was black, and arrested because he was black. The truth of the matter is he was driving a nondescript SUV, when driving an SUV was the thing to do. The SUV had dark tinted window as was the norm in the state I worked. The traffic stop occurred at 1200 AM so as far as I knew there wasn't a driver in the vehicle, because I couldn't see in the SUV. The local rag got word of the incident and ran with it. They published his side of the story that I was rude, discourteous, racist etc. When the case went to court the person tried to argue that I was rude, discourteous, racist, etc. It would have worked, except I had the whole traffic stop on video tape. The person, who was a lawyer, was told by the judge if he continued to lie in the court room he would be held in contempt of court and spend some time in jail. As soon as the guy found out the whole thing had been videoed he changed his plea. The local rag never printed "the rest of the story." So life went on the DW continued to be harassed at her work, and I finally grew tired of the issue and moved on to greener pastures.

Oh yeah, the arrest and conviction were later expunged, and the person is now a representative in the state's legislature.

 

[FUEGO]

In my first encounter with newspaper reporting, I was misquoted a number of times and selectively excerpted for an important front page issue. Very slanted reporting (they should have stuck it in the editorial section!). I also learned that off the record doesn't mean off the record. I soon got into a bitter email exchange with the reporter, and then eventually she explained how things worked in the media biz.

Moral of the story - be very guarded in what you say, and don't take offense when you are misquoted or your opinion is mischaracterized. That has worked pretty well with ensuing encounters with the media. Say a bunch of nothing and don't lie. When you have a printed press release or fact sheet available, shove that in their face and don't go into specifics, especially if you are being recorded. And remember that the reporters are putting together 10 stories at a time and probably understand your area of expertise about half as well as the average Joe Blow out there. Facts aren't nearly as important as spicing things up to sell advertising.

 

[missionfinder]

It seems to me that often the bias becomes apparent not in how an outlet covers stories, but in what stories they do not/will not cover. Or, when they give certain politicians a free pass by not digging deeper at news conferences when the politician (of any party) glosses over something or outright lies.

Its not just in this country either. My uncle from Australia thinks most everyone in the USA loves the current administration (and the health care plan) and hated Bush. Told me those are common beliefs where he lives. He also thinks Americans are racist... but justifies how (white) Australians feel towards the Aborigines.

I watch and listen to a variety of news sources: CNN, Fox, BBC networks, and many online newspapers.

I know a former reporter for CNN, and she had some great inside view of a big part of the problem: 24 hour news and so many outlets competing for market share. Editorial is far cheaper to produce than news and none of the major outlets has the resources to produce true 24 hour news... far easier to pay a few talking heads to talk for hours with a handful of reporters than to have reporters devoting resources to digging into stories, going on scene, investigating and actually reporting. A 15 minute news story is far more profitable when you have a talking head stretch it out into an hour long editorial/discussion.

 

[novaman]

I think the Van Jones controversy that led up to his resignation this weekend shows just how biased the media is. It is notable that prior to his resignation, much had been made on certain media channels of some controversial statements he had recently made, and his name being on a petition to investigate a government conspiracy concerning 9-11. Yet, not ONE word was mentioned about this "Green" czar by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS. Just do a nexis search.

 

[Midpack]

Just one data point, but our local newspaper in our small (pop 30K) came to the manufacturing plant about 15 years ago because we called the Fire Dept as a precaution from a welding fire. He arrived within minutes after the FD, pen/pad and recorder at the ready, and wanted to speak to our Plant Manager (me).

First question: How many fatalities (I kid you not)?
Me: None

Second Q: Any serious injuries.
Me: No injuries of any kind.

Third Q: Was there an explosion?
Me: No, it was small fire on an empty storage tank (outside) we were repairing/welding on. We called the Fire Dept as a precaution in case the fire got away from us. We had fire extinguishers and a water cannon standing by before we started welding (SOP) in case of a fire. [In 36 years, we have never had a significant fire, but the Fire Dept has always told us to call them as a precaution - better safe than sorry.]

Fourth Q: Any signficant damage?
Me: No, we were able to put out the first quickly. All that burned was some residue on a carbon steel storage tank outdoors.

Turned off the recorder, back in his car, and away he went...

 

[virginia]

I agree. Fox news is the only media outlet that i've noticed that is overtly biased. I'm sure others are in their own way but Fox News makes no effort to hide it.

I guess you may have not seen MSNBC then....Seriously!

 

[virginia]

I guess you may have not seen MSNBC then....Seriously!

Well - actually I was thinking of Rachel Maddow - I guess that would not be considered news, but would still be considered media, and is very biased.

 

[aaronc879]

I guess you may have not seen MSNBC then....Seriously!

You're right, I haven't. I don't often watch any national news channel. I don't recall ever having watched MSNBC.

 

[grumpy]

I think media bias is in the eyes of the beholder. We only tend to notice media bias when a particular media outlet's philosophy and approach to a story disagrees with our own. When they are in agreement with us we tend to think of them as being completely objective. There probably is no such thing, in reality.

 

[M Paquette]

I'd suggest that the different channels adapt their content a bit for their target audiences. That is, FOX News probably has a somewhat different target audience than MSNBC, and makes adjustments in the editorial content between news stories, or even between news lines.

This, of course, has been going on for a long time, all over the world.

Monty Python put together a skit poking fun at this a generation ago.

YouTube - Monty Python - News For Parrots / Gibbons / Wombats

 

[chinaco]

It depends on what you mean by Media. Assuming you mean Non-editorial news (those that are really attempting to report the facts instead of opinion). I think there is some political bias (affects some of how they present the information-- or do not). But by and large they are credible... whether they have a liberal or conservative bend.

The increase in radio talk shows and cable TV has introduced more shows like Rush Limbaugh and the Liberal equivalent. Those people are not news shows, rather political mouth pieces. At best they politically biased editorials at worst, they tend to exaggerate and mislead.

 

[novaman]

It depends on what you mean by Media. Assuming you mean Non-editorial news (those that are really attempting to report the facts instead of opinion). I think there is some political bias (affects some of how they present the information-- or do not). But by and large they are credible... whether they have a liberal or conservative bend.

The increase in radio talk shows and cable TV has introduced more shows like Rush Limbaugh and the Liberal equivalent. Those people are not news shows, rather political mouth pieces. At best they politically biased editorials at worst, they tend to exaggerate and mislead.

As was previously mentioned, a large part of the bias is found simply in what the media chooses to report on and what they omit

 

[novaman]

Here's a good article



Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets | Washington Examiner

 

[ERD50]

Here's a good article



Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets | Washington Examiner

In a similar vein - here's a couple google news searches. One for:


sheehan bush protest texas OR crawford OR ranch - Google News Archive Search

Cindy Sheehan's protests of Pres Bush in 2005 (5,420 results for sheehan bush protest texas OR crawford OR ranch.), and one for...

sheehan obama protest massachusetts OR vineyard OR "cape cod" - Google News Archive Search

Cindy Sheehan's protests of Pres Obama in 2009 (36 results for sheehan obama protest massachusetts OR vineyard OR "cape cod").

And a couple articles about the media coverage:

Will Nets Note Sheehan's Anti-Obama Protest?

ABC's Charles Gibson to Cindy Sheehan: Thanks for your sacrifice. Now get lost. | Washington Examiner

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

The increase in radio talk shows and cable TV has introduced more shows like Rush Limbaugh and the Liberal equivalent. Those people are not news shows, rather political mouth pieces. At best they politically biased editorials at worst, they tend to exaggerate and mislead.

You mean lie?

Here's a good article



Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets | Washington Examiner

But he started it...

 

[ERD50]

A less political version...

Though as haha says, everything is political (or something like that).

Anyway, when I heard this podcast, I thought of this thread. This isn't specifically media bias, but I detect bias from one guest. I've often said I can tell if someone is distorting the truth, even if I have little/no knowledge of the subject matter, just by the quality of their debate. Some prime examples in here:

Offshore Wind Power: The Promises and the Realities - To the Point on KCRW

Offshore wind is an alternative energy source ... But plans may be delayed by controversy over a project planned for waters off Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard.... We hear about green power and global warming, natural beauty and the tourist economy, and what's at stake for America's energy future.

Paraphrasing from memory here (I'm not going to take the time to re-listen and do dictation), but the person arguing against an off-shore wind farm near Cape Cod gives some very twisted arguments. She goes on about how tall these wind turbines are, compares them to buildings in Manhattan, says that the turbines are not proven technology, why not build them on the west coast which has better wind potential, blah, blah, blah.

The pro wind farm person provided what seemed like clear arguments to those points.

1) Yes, the turbines are tall. But they are so far offshore, that they would appear less than 1/2" in height at your outstretched arm (imagine pinching one with your fingers). And it would need to be a very clear day to see them at all. Isn't that a better perspective?

2) Unproven technology? It seems that GE had designed a specific model to match the requirements of a number of these proposed offshore farms, but because of delays in approvals, GE canceled production of that specific model. It's a real stretch to go from a specific model to an entire range of technologies, and there are many similar installations world-wide.

3) West Coast windmills? How convenient, NIMBY? Talk about "unproven technologies". Turns out the west coast drops off sharply, and to get wind farms far out to sea, they would require floating platforms. There are NO floating platform wind installations anywhere. But she doesn't see that as a problem?

Considering that wind turbines can provide power in the night time, when solar is useless, it made me want to personally introduce this opponent to a wind turbine installed where the "sun don't shine".

-ERD50