Log In | Register
"In my experience, when people say the media is biased, they don't mean all the media, just most of it. Each of us, it seems, can recognize distortions of the truth because we know what the actual truth is -- from some selected subset of the media, presumably."
Has Media Bashing Become the New National Pastime?
Seeded on Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
Article Source: MSN- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (25)
Some interesting insights about the media and journalism.
I especially like the section about Peer review. Here's a quote:
When scientists critique one another's work, they focus purely on methodology. Journalism also needs critical criteria that go purely to method, not content. A report should never be labeled biased because it's too favorable to X or too harsh to Y. In theory, we should be able to evaluate the validity of a news statement without even knowing what it says, so long as we know how the journalist arrived at it.
To make this model work, however, we have to agree as a public that delivering objective news takes some sort of expertise.
We've had that agreement in the past. Two centuries ago, journalism was in much the same state as it is today: News came only from broadsheets slapped up by anyone with a message to shout and access to ink. There was no higher standard to appeal to.
- 2 votes
#1 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:37 PM EDTWhen people label the media as being biased, they are generally referring to the fact that rather than reporting an event, they tend to put their own spin on it. Thus, they decide for the reader/viewer if they should support or denounce a particular viewpoint or event.
Very rarely does any major media outlet simply report the facts in full, its nearly always slanted and ultimately it points to a financial or political agenda. Worse is when they don't report an event, or bury it somewhere where it gets little exposure.
As such, there should be some laws on Op-Ed pieces by these corporations, as it is not free speech as exercised by individuals, but corporate agendas.
- 4 votes
Isn't there a huge distinction between an op-ed piece and news reporting? (After all, "op-ed" means "Editorial Opinion".) I'm not under any impression of unbiased reporting when it comes to op-ed pieces.
Commentators, such a Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow are providers of such editorial opinion, and I don't view them with any expectation of unbiased commentary. (If they were friends of mine, or if they even happened to listen to my opinion, I would tell them I yearn for a little more intellectual honesty in how they present their opinions. I feel such honesty actually strengthens their positions, not weakens them.)
Journalists and reporters on the other hand should stick to the facts unless they clearly mark their words as opinion. There is also the issue, mentioned downthread, of reporting all the facts... even the ones they don't like.
So much of this comes down to the expertise of these journalists and reporters and our expectations and requirements of them. Never forget that the primarypurpose of Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly is to entertain and thereby sell commercials. Sadly, that is also the primary purpose of most news-reporting organs these days.
The really sad thing is that it's mostly our fault. We, the viewing public, have generally made it clear that pure news is boring and we want shallow entertainment that makes us feel good about ourselves and our choices.
- 2 votes
sn't there a huge distinction between an op-ed piece and news reporting? (After all, "op-ed" means "Editorial Opinion".) I'm not under any impression of unbiased reporting when it comes to op-ed pieces.
Yes there is and I find it endlessly frustrating when people generalize about news media to include both reporting and opinion writing to complain about bias when the goals of the two (news reporting and opinion writing) are so different
- 2 votes
Yes there is and I find it endlessly frustrating when people generalize about news media to include both reporting and opinion writing to complain about bias when the goals of the two (news reporting and opinion writing) are so different
The opinion of an individual is not an issue. There is a major problem when an opinion piece is written and syndicated by corporations. Many of these news organisations have substantial and diverse interests in a wide range of industries and they have the ability to manipulate governments to financially benefit themselves.
Also, this bias is not restricted to Op-Ed pieces only, news reporting is fair game too if it has a financial or political aspect.
You won't find many naive enough not to understand this.
- 1 vote
major problem when an opinion piece is written and syndicated by corporations.
So every syndicated writer - which is to say any columnist we have heard of - is suspect?
Sorry but this reminds me of when viners talk about boycotting corporate media to which i remind them that Newsvine itself is part of a corporation so does this mean i must boycott said discussion and site?
Put another way
I think bashing the media is an easy lazy way of criticizing capitalism
So every syndicated writer - which is to say any columnist we have heard of - is suspect?
Every publication has an editorial line and if a piece does not match that editorial line, it doesn't get published. Columnists work for a corporation, if their articles would damage the financial interests of the publication, or the financial interests of the parent organisation, it will never be printed.
Sorry but this reminds me of when viners talk about boycotting corporate media to which i remind them that Newsvine itself is part of a corporation so does this mean i must boycott said discussion and site?
Newsvine does set an editorial line. Its just an advanced blog service.
Put another way
I think bashing the media is an easy lazy way of criticizing capitalism
There is not much difference between media under capitalism and state controlled media. Different goals, same problem.
- 1 vote
PBS seems to provide honest, neutral information.
I wouldn't say all media is biased, just the media that has a bottom line to feed.
#2 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:53 PM EDTThat's a good point. But then look where we can head: only not for profits give media a fair shake; not for profits- good, for profits-bad; socialism- good, capitalism-bad.
(Actually I've always felt this way but haven't felt comfortable talking such treason until now.)
- 2 votes
So Gwen Ifel is not bias? Come on. She has a book coming out right after the election that will be a best seller, only if Obama wins. She is no longer a credible journalist. I do agree that PBS does have more unbiased journalists than other MSM. I really think that when the MSM decided to cover for Obama they, the media, lost all credibility with the public.
- 1 vote
Gwen has a book about being black in the current era.
It's not a book about Obama.
It's not even out, how could you with any integrity call her bias without having read the book?
Have you watched her on PBS for the past few years?
She's pretty straight forward, goes after information, not bias.
I really think that when the MSM decided to cover for Obama they, the media, lost all credibility with the public.
reggie, so FOX is not part of the MSM? I get a kick when people start saying the MSM is slanted for Obama. If every single radio and television station, newspaper, magazine, and website was for Obama, then I could see that. However, there are large newspapers and television stations that are slanted towards McCain. You don't hear McCain supporters complaining about the biased MSM when they run a negative report about Obama.
Are there more MSM sources for Obama than McCain? I don't know, mainly because I've not seen anything with numbers. However, there are other sources for news on the web and in print and television that if people wanted to really find out the information they can find it. The problem is, as this article stated, that people surround themselves with the media that confirms their views about things. If you truly want to be informed about a subject, do the research and don't rely on just one source, but remember to check if your sources lean one way or another before using them.
Just one question for you BO followers. And please just answer the question. If there was a tape out there with Sarah Palin toasting a PLO leader would you want the media to show it?
- 1 vote
I honestly don't really care one way or the other. It's not news. It's not now.
First, public figures by necessity associate with all sorts of people, and I'm not going to judge anyone for being at a dinner with someone long ago. History isn't news, it's history. I judge public figures by what they do today and what they plan for tomorrow.
Second, and more importantly, I believe in redemption and forgiveness, which is why I don't have much interest in anyone's past history.
(My past history, for example, is pretty dark in spots, but that's not who I am anymore. And the history I mean is a whole lot more than being at a dinner with someone or offering a toast in their honor.)
- 1 vote
I know FOX is tilted to the right and CNN to the left. But, MSNBC is over the top liberal left. I mean from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p..m. every night during the week it is like a BO pep rally. Chris Matthews said he gets a tingling feeling up his leg when BO talks. What's that all about? He usually has 2 leftys on and throws Buchanan in the mix and it's three on one. Did any of you see Matthews before the so-called debates? It looked like a Obama campaign event. Then comes Keith Olberman. This guy is totally nuts! I used to listen to his commentary but it is so crazy liberal now I can't stand it. The other day Keith totally ripped good old "joe the plumber." I don't get it. Who cares? After that comes on Rachel Maddow. All this show is, is Keith Olbermann in a pant suit. MSNBC just continues to spew the same stories over and over. And the problem is that a lot of the stories they talk about are not based on any facts. These so called journalists continue to use unnamed sources. Or as Campbell Brown from CNN did just yesterday, she used an anonymous Palin campaign adviser, to write a story about problems with the McCain/Palin campaign. And this was on her NO BIAS NO BULL blog. No facts. It's not even journalism. It's just a bunch of people giving their bias viewpoints. I just wonder what will happen to these people when the election is over. There is no way Maddow will be able to keep any sort of viewership.
- 2 votes
#4 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:48 PM EDTI tend to see MSNBC as the Anti-Fox (or vice-versa), and to me CNN seems more-or-less in the middle-ish kinda sorta. Olbermann is the anti-O'Reilly (or vice-versa), and they both can get a bit over the top.
I suspect this is, at least in part, for show. O'Reilly was on Letterman the other night, and he seems a lot more balanced outside of this show. I remember seeing him give a speech at Yale many years ago, and I was impressed by how balanced he was.
Perhaps this election cycle has made us all a little crazy.
I do wish that between Hardball, Countdown and The RM Show, there was a little more variety in the stories they choose. I try to catch all three every night, and some nights it gets pretty old by the third hour.
- 2 votes
Did anyone see O'reilly interview BO. O'reilly was very fair, I thought anyway. Do you think Olbermann would give McCain or Palin a fair interview? No way. And although Bill can get out of hand at times Olbermann attacks people. And it's not just the politicians he goes after. He goes after anyone who doesn't believe in BO. And Maddow follows up with the exact story line. And CNN is in no way middle of the road. I've tried to watch Campbell Brown and she also brings on 3 liberals and one conservative. Brown is always on the side of the liberals. And if you look at FOX on any given night you actually will see they have people on that are from both sides in even numbers.
- 2 votes
CNN also has Dobbs and Beck, and during the debates they did feature McCain supporters. I credit them for at least trying to find balance, but as I've said elsethread, I can imagine that's hard to do, even for professionals.
But this is fruitless, because I have a similar reaction to Fox as you do to CNN (let alone MSNBC). As viewers we have our own set of biases, and it's very difficult to separate those out.
A more interesting question might be, WHY are so many media people liberal? Is there some aspect of being "in the media" that leads one to liberal views?
- 2 votes
I suspect that during such a political Amazing Race as this, people's opinions are becoming very polarized. People feel this is so important that they're willing to get pretty extreme to insure "the right thing" happens.
Of course, "the right thing" is a matter of perspective.
I would like to see this discussion focus on the role of media, its possible bias and the idea of peer review and expertise outside of the current hot election cycle. (Which will be over soon, anyway. :-)
- 1 vote
#5 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:53 PM EDTThe role of the media should be to report the facts to the public. Not opinion. The media seems to be so into themselves. They want to be the story. So they spin it to meet their point of view. They choose what story they want you to read not the story that needs to be told. I really think if BO wins this election there will be a lot of changes at MSNBC. They will have nothing to report on. To them, we will be in a perfect world.
- 2 votes
The role of the media should be to report the facts to the public. Not opinion.
Depending on how you define media, I may completely disagree. I would only agree if you define media very narrowly to mean "news reporting". Otherwise no.
Media (meaning all printed, broadcast or canned material) serves many purposes including education, entertainment, news and opinion. All those, to me, are very valuable services that I would never prohibit or restrict (and would fight against anyone trying to prohibit them).
As consumers of media, it is up to us to recognize what is entertainment, what is opinion and what is news. The only thing I would ever change is (as the article suggests) improving our expectations of news and its reporting. And I'd like to see more outlets for it and more thorough coverage.
- 2 votes
reggie92 -
I agree with your point about the media liking stories about itself. It's an attempt to sell their product, so I consider it similar to Pepsi (or whatever) commercials.
I don't think opinion should be removed from the news, primarily because it's impossible to remove it.
The editorial process of determining which news stories to cover, for example, is based on the opinion of the editor.
I've been watching Fox, CNN, and MSNBC cable stations for a couple months, after not watching much TV news for many years. Many of the hosts seem very opinionated as a matter of style. The same ones seem to be most popular ones. The same goes for the most popular radio programs.
I seem the same effect in the local newspaper (San Diego). I remains a GOP paper, as far as the editorial position goes, reflecting the majority opinion of the community. In more liberal cities, liberal leaning newspapers have the largest circulation.
The point being that media companies are businesses. They present the news in a way that appeals to their audience. I think that's the reason I find all of them extremely lacking in content.
edited to add: I've been around a few years, and it's always been that way in my experience.
Great seed. Clipped to my column.
and to answer the headline question:
"it's been a media past time at least as far back as Agnew's classic line about the "nattering nabobs of negativism"
#6 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 11:31 AM ESTI thought that the '04 and the '06 election cycles were bad. This time the media dug the hole, hopped inside and pulled the dirt over themselves. They can no longer be considered a credible source of news for anyone other than the most ardent Obama supporter.
If the Messiah is elected, watch the headlines over the first six months of his Presidency. I will gaurantee that the constant media pounding with the bleak headlines will disappear. The huge massive problems that they now bemoan will no longer be such a big deal. It happened with Clinton too.
#7 - Sun Nov 2, 2008 3:22 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
