-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Is "Media Bias," Exactly?
- Thread starter Pah
- Start date
Recently, when I've heard talk radio hosts (such as Rush Limbaugh) charge that the media has a liberal bias, the hosts have either neglected to substantiate their claims, or they have resorted to nit-picking. I think the charge that the media has a liberal bias is over-blown. It's been repeated so often that people no longer take a critical look at it and ask whether it's significantly true.
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
I've actually read a few reports that indicate that there doesn't seem to be a media bias, or if there is one, it's in favor of the Republicans. One of them was about the last election. The researchers took the number of negative stories about Gore and compared them with the negative stories about Bush. They also did this with the positive stories for each candidate. For any media coverage that could be seen as having a positive or negative slant, they tallied 'em up, and there were more positive stories about Bush and more negative stories about Gore. (This was startling to me, since I was hoping liberals were in charge of the media. If nothing else, this would mean that they'd control Cartoon Network, which usually means more interesting programming.)
Mr Spinkles
Mr
That the people who work in the news media (journalists, reporters, anchors, editors) are much more liberal than the population at large is pretty well established (see: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative I would have simply used my Political Science textbook which also has lots of data to support this, but I don't have it with me). A much higher percentage of people in the media voted for Clinton than the American population at large; a much, much smaller percentage of reporters describe themselves as conservative than the average American; etc, etc. The fact is that liberal views are way over represented in the media and do not reflect the attitudes/views of the population at large.
For reference, according to a Gallup poll that can be found here http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012004.html , about 41% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 39% as moderate, and only 19% as liberal. In comparison, here are the percentages of people in the media who describe themselves as: liberal --61%; independent/other--24%; conservative: 15%.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative
There will always be bias in the media. When the people presenting the information/facts are so strongly homogeneous to a particular ideology, you can bet that when this bias occurs, it will usually be in support of that ideology. The Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, for example...even though it was a crushing defeat for the North Vietnamese, the media made it out to be a crushing defeat for the U.S. During the invasion of Iraq, I finally cancelled my subscription to Newsweek magazine because of how negative all the reporting was on how the invasion was going (before the occupation).
The article pah submitted suggests that a 'free truth market' contains more democrats/liberals because that is more what truth demands. To that, I say: baloney. More people who aspire to be reporters are liberal than conservative--the reason there are many fewer conservative/Republican people in the news media is that there is a much smaller pool of aspiring conservative reporters to choose from, and because when that strong of a majority develops they tend to prefer to hire other people of the same ideology. It has nothing to do with whether or not the liberal ideology is more 'true'.
For reference, according to a Gallup poll that can be found here http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012004.html , about 41% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 39% as moderate, and only 19% as liberal. In comparison, here are the percentages of people in the media who describe themselves as: liberal --61%; independent/other--24%; conservative: 15%.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative
There will always be bias in the media. When the people presenting the information/facts are so strongly homogeneous to a particular ideology, you can bet that when this bias occurs, it will usually be in support of that ideology. The Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, for example...even though it was a crushing defeat for the North Vietnamese, the media made it out to be a crushing defeat for the U.S. During the invasion of Iraq, I finally cancelled my subscription to Newsweek magazine because of how negative all the reporting was on how the invasion was going (before the occupation).
The article pah submitted suggests that a 'free truth market' contains more democrats/liberals because that is more what truth demands. To that, I say: baloney. More people who aspire to be reporters are liberal than conservative--the reason there are many fewer conservative/Republican people in the news media is that there is a much smaller pool of aspiring conservative reporters to choose from, and because when that strong of a majority develops they tend to prefer to hire other people of the same ideology. It has nothing to do with whether or not the liberal ideology is more 'true'.
Pah
Uber all member
While I agree with Mr. Sprinkles, I'd like to interject this thought.
The media is owned by few and getting fewer and fewer. Corporate interests have a way of affecting the news and sometimes that interest is the personal political bias of the owner. It is not true that we have a complete "freedom of the press" rather it is influenced by a "freedom of the monied".
-pah-
Mr Spinkles, you've mentioned somewhere else that you get your news from both NPR and the Fox Network. Those are two very different sources so far as bias goes. As someone who gets his news from a wide range of sources, just how biased do you think the stories you hear are? Are they mildly biased, moderately biased, or heavily biased?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Well, to be perfectly honest, I have no way of telling how biased the stories on the news are, unless I actually go to Iraq and do some investigation of my own.
I beleive (again, I don't know for sure) that both FoxNews and NPR report accurate facts when it comes to their stories. I think the liberal bias in NPR is exaggerated, and the conservative bias in FoxNews is greatly exaggerated.
The bias that does exist primarily manifests itself in which stories the media chooses to cover. A lot of news happens every day, but who decides what should be reported on, and what shouldn't? The media, of course...this is how they function as 'gatekeeper'--they have influence over which issues get public attention, and how much. For example, as I said in another thread, during the war NPR may choose to take a lot of time covering the looting of museums in Baghdad. Meanwhile, FoxNews might spend more time covering a unit of American troops and their progress in the invasion. Both stories are accurate, but the people in the media have to decide which one to focus on, and to do that they have to rely on their own opinions/biases.
I beleive (again, I don't know for sure) that both FoxNews and NPR report accurate facts when it comes to their stories. I think the liberal bias in NPR is exaggerated, and the conservative bias in FoxNews is greatly exaggerated.
The bias that does exist primarily manifests itself in which stories the media chooses to cover. A lot of news happens every day, but who decides what should be reported on, and what shouldn't? The media, of course...this is how they function as 'gatekeeper'--they have influence over which issues get public attention, and how much. For example, as I said in another thread, during the war NPR may choose to take a lot of time covering the looting of museums in Baghdad. Meanwhile, FoxNews might spend more time covering a unit of American troops and their progress in the invasion. Both stories are accurate, but the people in the media have to decide which one to focus on, and to do that they have to rely on their own opinions/biases.
DrM
Member
Some twelve - fifteen years ago, media bias was not a household term. If it was, it was so minute that few had households had heard of it.
Media bias became an issue when Limbaugh began his national broadcasts. There was only one right-winger broadcaster before Rush, but that is someone with some clout and respect in broadcasting, Paul Harvey. Paul is definitely skewed to the right but, no big deal (to me). This media bias compaint, among other inaccuracies, was one of the tools Limbaugh has used to spread hatred among political parties in this country and to make his $28 million a year. It wasn't long after his arrival on the scene that others saw that he was a gigantic profit center and they began to proclaim the same rhetoric. Now, without thinking for themselves, those who like the idea of media bias have adopted the term as though it was an honest complaint.
When a person reports a news story he uses terms and lingo to suit his style AND slant. This has always been true. But if media bias is so prevelant AND crucial to campaigns, why is Bush ahead in every poll at this point in the race? If what Limbaugh and his ilk are declaring is right, Kerry should be up by 20 or 30 points.
But Limbaugh and his cronies do not have to be responsible for what they claim. They can spout as many lies as their tongue can spew without recourse or responsibility. By mis-use of the 1st amendment they have a license to yell, "Fire" in a theatre and get away with it.
Media bias is a tactic used by the right to prove that the US is slanted in its look at the candidates. Wouldn't it be nice if any of these characters would run for public office? Oh well, I can dream.
Media bias became an issue when Limbaugh began his national broadcasts. There was only one right-winger broadcaster before Rush, but that is someone with some clout and respect in broadcasting, Paul Harvey. Paul is definitely skewed to the right but, no big deal (to me). This media bias compaint, among other inaccuracies, was one of the tools Limbaugh has used to spread hatred among political parties in this country and to make his $28 million a year. It wasn't long after his arrival on the scene that others saw that he was a gigantic profit center and they began to proclaim the same rhetoric. Now, without thinking for themselves, those who like the idea of media bias have adopted the term as though it was an honest complaint.
When a person reports a news story he uses terms and lingo to suit his style AND slant. This has always been true. But if media bias is so prevelant AND crucial to campaigns, why is Bush ahead in every poll at this point in the race? If what Limbaugh and his ilk are declaring is right, Kerry should be up by 20 or 30 points.
But Limbaugh and his cronies do not have to be responsible for what they claim. They can spout as many lies as their tongue can spew without recourse or responsibility. By mis-use of the 1st amendment they have a license to yell, "Fire" in a theatre and get away with it.
Media bias is a tactic used by the right to prove that the US is slanted in its look at the candidates. Wouldn't it be nice if any of these characters would run for public office? Oh well, I can dream.
t3gah
Well-Known Member
Bias is what it is. It's a term they that are them use to illustrate a point about someone elses viewpoint on something they that are them are familiar with. The sad tragedy of the situation is that those that are them, which are not they that are them, have a similar word and it's name is also Bias but since those that are them coined it, it doesn't mean the same thing as it does to they that are them. You see?
goodjewishboy
Shalom!
I think the whole left/right bias thing has been blown grossly out of proportion. Everyone in the media is just trying to cover their own collective asses by latching onto inane catchphrases and buzzwords. Mainstream newspeople don't demand critical answers from our administration because they are afraid of losing their jobs or supposed credibility. Instead they ramble on and on and repeat whatever is 'in' at any given moment. There is no critical discourse on CNN or Fox News and certainly not on network television.
Christopher Krajewski
Member
In a religious sense one could wonder if the court of law makes for the instrumental presence of the means of communication for real "FAME". But then with all the delusion for responsible wealth perhaps bias is a better form for medium representing the illusion of a good famous person.:tsk:.
At bottom we are realing the importance of fame for our beliefs. But what to believe in now becomes of utmost importance with all the rest going on in our worlds of after-all OBJECTIVE concern.
Conclusion is that the media, like this one here and now, may be definable in a more absolute sense. My opinion is that the absolute definition requires already to know what FAME is.:areyoucra
Practically it may be too much out of our control how fame in the west is accomplished. So if you feel liberal is biased and slanted, it's worse how we can't decide the famous in this Godly world
.
At bottom we are realing the importance of fame for our beliefs. But what to believe in now becomes of utmost importance with all the rest going on in our worlds of after-all OBJECTIVE concern.
Conclusion is that the media, like this one here and now, may be definable in a more absolute sense. My opinion is that the absolute definition requires already to know what FAME is.:areyoucra
Practically it may be too much out of our control how fame in the west is accomplished. So if you feel liberal is biased and slanted, it's worse how we can't decide the famous in this Godly world
.
No*s
Captain Obvious
Bias is inevitable. Most of the networks are biased liberally, because as Spinks has pointed out they are overwhelmingly liberal, and are further pressured by their owners as Pah pointed out. Fox is deliberately biased conservative. Viewers who feel one way or another will feel more comfortable with the channels that suit them, so there is a viewer bias as well.
It's just part of being human.
It's just part of being human
.