Media Biases

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

The Tom in VA/JayDuck discussion in wolfman's thread got me thinking about overall media biases. There are obviously exceptions that prove every rule, but for the most part, I think we can all agree on the following:

Print media seems to generally slant to the left.

News/talk radio seems to generally slant to the right.

TV is pretty close to being centrist. I think the overabundance of "political correctness" on TV makes it seem a little more left-leaning than it is, but in terms of blatantly pushing a specific agenda, stations not named MSNBC or Fox News seem to do a fairly decent job of staying neutral.

Since TV is still the most popular medium, it makes sense that it would be the most neutral. But why do you think conservatives gravitate to radio and liberals gravitate toward print? Is it just that conservatives love to talk and liberals love to write? Conservatives are good listeners and liberals are avid readers??

[Tom In VA]

You know the only people I know that listen to Rush and Hannity on a regular basis are ---- libs.

Believe it or not. I get in discussions with people at work from time to time and they say "Rush Limbaugh is an idiot he said ..."

I ask why they listen to them. Maybe it's something like "Know your enemy".

I listen to Coast to Coast as often as possible :D

I read the board, follow links when they're provided. If not I google stuff and research on my own. I check CNN and Drudge. Google stuff and research on my own.

The rare instance when I hear Rush or Hannity I know enough that I don't appreciate their commentary anywhere the level of a Mark Levin. Levin, is sharp. He's a constitutional attorney who knows his shit. Rush and Hannity always were and always will be radio personalities. This guy, Levin, has experience in the "trenches" of politics and law.

But the interwebs is and will always be my primary source of information.

Print is dead. Ironically this is one of the reasons to which some attribute their blatant bias this year. Linked.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188

Decent story. A few choice quotes. Overall it doesn't just mention the "decline" with respect to the election. It starts out with the author framing his piece by acknowledging an element of subjectivity - historically and the human inability to be totally objective. He goes into a bit of his history to qualify himself. Then he speaks of instances that caused him to open his eyes a bit to more egregious subjective reporting. He cites an experience in Lebanon. Slowly he leads up to our current state of affairs and then dives in:

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play

Now he gets into it.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

And finally on page 4-5 he gives his explanation as to why he thinks he's seeing what he's seeing.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits

Aaaah the EDITORS ... not the reporters/journalists ...

Bad Editors
Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power … only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

The conclusion delves into the fairness doctrine which is sure to be resurrected with Obama as Pres, and a majority in the house and senate for the Dems.

In hindsight, as I look at some of my own bitching and moaning about the bias that exists I forgot and was reminded by this article and ..... HISTORY ...

Ok and a few folks on the board. That some element of bias is standard operating procedure.

But if this guy is right ... and I'm inclined to agree with him ... it really has been a bit blatant and one sided in this election than in any other election I can recall.

[Screw_Michigan]

You know the only people I know that listen to Rush and Hannity on a regular basis are ---- libs.

Tom...my neighbor...you are fucking retarded.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Tom,
From the excerpts you posted, that sounds like a very interesting commentary, and I definitely plan to read it in its entirety.

Speaking as someone who is about a month and a half from a Master's in said dying medium, the really troubling aspect isn't so much the liberal slant but the seemingly inevitable demise of print journalism as a whole. It worries me that I might live to see the day when having a newspaper delivered to my doorstep every morning isn't even a possibility any more. I can't stomach local newscasts and their incessant "Are Your Children Safe From _____?" pandering. I know I can get "printed" news online, but it's just not the same. I can't take my computer into the shitter or out onto the patio with a cigarette and a cup of coffee.

Maybe I just need a laptop. :? I still don't think it would be the same though...

[battery chucka' one]

Print slanted to the left and is now dead. New media will follow suit if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstituted. TV is rather left oriented. The only network that slants to the right is Fox News (the weekend honks are the worst) and even then, the main guys are rather centrist. Hannity slants right (but he IS a 'commentator' and makes no bones about being balanced as doesn't Colmes). O'Reilly is moderate (though he tends to agree with the right more than the left, he will readily attack both without prejudice). Rivera? Smith? Humes? Van Sustren? Can you tell me all these are all right leaning?

MSNBC is a joke.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Kitten-stuck-in-a-tree stories outnumber Iraq policy debate 3-1.


Yeah. "Left-leaning" my ass.

[Dinsdale]

Print slanted to the left and is now dead. New media will follow suit if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstituted. TV is rather left oriented.

I'd probably enjoy explaining how you've once again raised the bar on retardation... except you're so fucking stupid that it would probably go over your head.


For everyone else -- BCO's solution to the percieved "liberal bias" in TV media...


Yup, pretty sure you read that right...


His solution to the "liberal bias" is...

Extreme liberalism.



The pure genius of BCO at work.

[battery chucka' one]

Print slanted to the left and is now dead. New media will follow suit if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstituted. TV is rather left oriented.

For everyone else -- BCO's solution to the percieved "liberal bias" in TV media...

Yup, pretty sure you read that right...

His solution to the "liberal bias" is...

Extreme liberalism.

The pure genius of BCO at work.

1. Would you care to elaborate on this accusation?

2. There is no solution to the bias. Other than fair-minded people joining the media and applying this objective rationale to their work, there is no way to stem this tide. Unlike you, I don't see the need for legislation to deal with this problem. I also don't advocate quieting the media. If they can't be responsible on their own with the huge responsibility they've been given, people will stop reading them (sup' NY Times) or buying them altogether (howdy LA Times). There's a reason that the WSJ hasn't taken a bath with the rest of the print media.

[War Wagon]

It worries me that I might live to see the day when having a newspaper delivered to my doorstep every morning isn't even a possibility any more. I can't stomach local newscasts and their incessant "Are Your Children Safe From _____?" pandering. I know I can get "printed" news online, but it's just not the same. I can't take my computer into the shitter or out onto the patio with a cigarette and a cup of coffee.

Maybe I just need a laptop. :? I still don't think it would be the same though...

Yep. Life w/o my daily KC Star liberal fishwrap wouldn't be the same. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where you can't buy a newspaper, but I wonder how much longer home delivery will last.

I subscribe to Time and SI, though I'm going to let SI drop because they want like $92 for one year. Fuck that. I just renewed my Time subscription - 3 years for $30. And Readers Digest sent me an offer of one year for $8, so I'm going to take advantage of that as well.

Print media may be dying, but it isn't dead yet. Hope it lasts as least as long as I do.

[battery chucka' one]

It worries me that I might live to see the day when having a newspaper delivered to my doorstep every morning isn't even a possibility any more. I can't stomach local newscasts and their incessant "Are Your Children Safe From _____?" pandering. I know I can get "printed" news online, but it's just not the same. I can't take my computer into the shitter or out onto the patio with a cigarette and a cup of coffee.

Maybe I just need a laptop. :? I still don't think it would be the same though...

Yep. Life w/o my daily KC Star liberal fishwrap wouldn't be the same. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where you can't buy a newspaper, but I wonder how much longer home delivery will last.

I subscribe to Time and SI, though I'm going to let SI drop because they want like $92 for one year. Fuck that. I just renewed my Time subscription - 3 years for $30. And Readers Digest sent me an offer of one year for $8, so I'm going to take advantage of that as well.

Print media may be dying, but it isn't dead yet. Hope it lasts as least as long as I do.

Why don't you substitute the Sporting News for SI? Better baseball coverage, at least.

[Tom In VA]

You know the only people I know that listen to Rush and Hannity on a regular basis are ---- libs.

Tom...my neighbor...you are fucking retarded.

Okay. So what does that have to do with the fact the two people I know that listen to Rush and Hannity on a REGULAR basis, i.e. EVERY DAY ... are liberals ?

Do you know them too ? Do you spy on me and on them enough to know precisely what our conversations entail ?

Ignorance can be cured dude, come correct and get your medicine.

[Diego in Seattle]

You know the only people I know that listen to Rush and Hannity on a regular basis are ---- libs.

Tom...my neighbor...you are fucking retarded.

Okay. So what does that have to do with the fact the two people I know that listen to Rush and Hannity on a REGULAR basis, i.e. EVERY DAY ... are liberals ?

Do you know them too ? Do you spy on me and on them enough to know precisely what our conversations entail ?

Ignorance can be cured dude, come correct and get your medicine.

What S&M doesn't get is that the best way to get book is to counter-program the local political leanings. Here in Seattle most of the talk show programs are hosted by right wingers. Listeners may get angry at Rush, Hannity, Medved, & Monson, but at least their listening (in the view of the PD's).

[Cuda]

S&M .

Freudian slip?

Everything revolves around sexual deviancy with you, doesn't it?

[Tom In VA]

S&M .

Freudian slip?

Everything revolves around sexual deviancy with you, doesn't it?

That was a LOL'r.