An interesting point at the end of the article is even if the members of the press at times (or most times: Fox News) show bias, does it really matter in the end? Despite constantly pointing out all of Bush’s flaws, he was reelected by a public who didn’t listen.
The pols and the people invest the press with great power. Conspiracies abound. Right-wing talk-show hosts love to go on about the liberal media establishment. Lefty commentators accuse the press of rolling over for George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq. Politicians of all stripes accuse the press of being unfair, even cruel. Sometimes we are. On the day Vice President George H.W. Bush announced for the presidency in October 1987, he watched as his 28-year-old daughter, Doro, wept when she picked up NEWSWEEK’s cover story that week, picturing Bush driving his speedboat under the cover line FIGHTING THE ‘WIMP FACTOR.’
[…]
Certainly, there are editors and publishers who would like to be kingmakers, or just kings. From William Randolph Hearst to Henry Luce to Rupert Murdoch, press barons have sought to leave their personal stamp, if not change the course of history. But for the vast majority of media, the reality is much more mundane; the press’s impact on elections, as well as most other human events, is murky.
An interesting point at the end of the article is even if the members of the press at times (or most times: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) show bias, does it really matter in the end?
Of course it matters.
Freedom of the Press does not mean the news reporters can lie to suit their agendas. Fortunately there are many people who can see through the biased reporting and that is why the MSM has a hard time swaying the voters’ decisions. But it still does not justify the continual lies and distortions done by the media.
CBS seems to be the worst, even after Dan Rather has left. The solution, they should do what ABC did and hire Karl Rove to be their Washington director.
I don’t care that the media is biased. If there is an opposing bias. What sucks, is “local” newspapers…one in each town of rural america (think Heartland)…that has a bias and no contradiction!!! There is no “market place of ideas” in small town America; but rather a rehash of biased reporting. If “blank” reported it, then I should re-run it as the truth in the evening edition. Where are the investigative reporters? Less than $30K a year gets you a glorified typist, not Geraldo Riveria.
#4,
When Government and business have merged the way they have in the US, what exactly is the difference between a government run media and a business run media?
#3 Why would anyone want Geraldo Rivera?
#6 I’m thinking of Rivera of old. The investigative reporter of the “70’s” mental institutions. Your right, I should have used somebody better…but I can’t think of a modern version.
The media can and does provide free advertising for whosoever they prefer. Others cannot afford the cost to compete on the medias personal play field paying the media for the same amount of air time the talking heads give to their own choices. The population votes for the persons who they see most often.
Problem is the media chooses our political candidates, not on their ability to perform for the people, but on their ability to draw viewers eyeballs to the media, so to sell a little soap. If the media was required to provide the same amount of free TV time to all, we would have decidedly more qualified candidates in the elective process this year.
Thank God for bloggers! They may be biased, and just plain wrong. But they can keep the media honest.
The bigger myth, if myth there be, is that there is a “the” media.
There is no “the” media-rather there is a large and varied mix of media and information sources all interacting with a myriad of other factors.
One could even say it (the media) is working best when most would say its not working at all-just as you have done. What else should one think/feel/see if the media is providing a multiple of viewpoints regarding a limited set of facts?
The first set in analysis is to identify an issue. Before one gets finished, a complete analysis will provide suggested/possible remedies. Rarely do we ever see in media any complete analysis–only rants/whining/propaganda.
“Despite constantly pointing out all of Bush’s flaws, he was reelected by a public who didn’t listen.”
??
when 17% of the people in the USA voted him into OFFICE?
When the WHOLE election had >100,000,000 voters, or >1/3 of us VOTED, because we DIDNT LIKE EITHER candidate??
When BOTH sides are saying the SAME thing “I didnt do it”, WHO do we blame.
We have the selection of candidates by celebrity, the terms of political debate by talk show hosts, the outcome of an election by TV producers. We only need a franchise and this could go global.
“The Media” is in it for the ratings, pure and simple. The more eyeballs that are on their station, the more money they make. There used to be a time when the News Departments were thought of as the loss leaders, making it financially ruinous to have “too much news” and not enough “Days of Our Lives”. In those times, it didn’t matter if they were catering to the masses or not, they knew from the get-go that they were going to lose money on this part of the product. Then came the wonderful world of Ratings News, where News Departments were expected to not just break even, but add to the Station’s bottom line at the end of the quarter. Suddenly Britney Spears and Paris Hilton became phenomenons. News got sexier and fluffier, and began catering more to niche markets to make money than worrying about such things as “objectivity” and “honor”.
Now when people turn to the news, they turn to the cable channel that goes well with their coffee and eggs and political viewpoint. While there never was “objective” news to begin with, it’s only recently that news organizations have lifted the veil of BS and come out and catered to it, flaunting it like a badge of pride rather than attempting to hide it behind some veneer of “objectivity”.
Why would Democrats want to watch Fox News if they know that all they’re going to get is Right-Wing Propaganda? And why on earth would a Republican dare to check out MSNBC if they know that Liberal Bias abounds on that channel.
We live in a world of the niche market, and that goes for the news itself. No longer is there a point-counterpoint. In fact, when was the last time you turned on the news and saw the word “Editorial” on the screen to announce “This is our opinion, whether you agree with it or not”? Now, every story, every second of the day comes pre-Editorialized, so there’s no need to give the counter-point, that’s not what their audience wants to hear, anyway.
#11–ECA==excellent point. Uncle Dave appears to have a bias that the media should be able to reach a very certain result. When it doesn’t, then he thinks the media doesn’t matter==whereas it certainly does matter, but to a different outcome. Good Post!!!
Why should we expect unbiased reporting when humans are NEVER unbiased.
Everyone HAS an agenda. I do, you do, Dvorak does, Bush does, the Good Humour Man does, if you can find of the smeggers!
NO one is unbiased. They cannot be. Everyone is looking to get someon eon their side. Anyone that says I have NOTHING to gain is most likely the one who will gain the most.
Even the guy that does things out of the kindness of his heart expects to get a good feeling from doing something. So he does it FOR the profit of feeling good.
Everyone wants something. So to expect unbiased anything is at the least naive. At the most moronic.
Cursor_
#15: Not at all. I have no problem with members of the media being biased. In fact, I want to hear biased reports. But I want to know what that bias is and I also want to hear both sides — a debate if you will — so that everything can eventually come out. Don’t let anyone hide behind their press spinners. Only hearing from one side you can’t accurately judge where the truth lies.
What unfortunately has happened to people in our country is one of the following:
1) They latch on to one MSM source they agree with and never hear counter arguments that might change their minds. They they are essentially propaganda consumers.
2) They abandon the MSM for the web where all sides are present laced with a ton of crap. These folks are willing to take the time to work at it and not accept what one side says.
3) They don’t want to have to do the work of thinking and opt out, only occasionally learning what’s going on in the world by accident. Unless it’s about Britney, Oprah, etc.
There’s a larger issue as well of what history will be learned by future generations. All history is biased, no facts stand by themselves without the context of their times and that context is what is often biased.
Yeah, no news is unbiased. About a year ago, people who had some skepticism about global warming theories were labeled “climate change deniers”.
I personally find Fox News rather biased and feel that CNN tries to be more objective (usually), but does anyone remember the absurd biases of CNN before Fox News gave them competition?
Really, an “This is an editorial” label on the screen would be refreshing during comment segments, like someone mentioned above.
What people find out from the media is important, but charisma is more important. Look at the results of US presidential elections since 1960. Even Nixon was a bit of a mesmerist–he played his dark brooding countenance as a virtue.
North of the border, we have Canada’s love affairs with Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. Jean Chretien was no matinee idol, had an obvious facial deformity, and spoke both official languages less than perfectly (so his charisma index wasn’t very high) but when he spoke you could see that there was a real person inside, so his charisma was better than that of his opponents. The current prime minister, the stolid Stephen Harper, appeared at an opportune moment when the electorate wanted to be assured that envelopes containing $25,000 in taxpayer cash would no longer change hands underneath the tables of executive lunches. In that case, they elected the guy with the straight necktie over the guy who should have known about the baksheesh.
Let’s not forget that Canadians voted against the Charlottetown Accord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottetown_Accord
even though the media, the provincial governments, and all the major political parties supported it! Maybe Presidential elections should have a box for None.
For better or worse, personal magnetism is worth more than a thousand editorials.
I have been reading all of the stories this past week of the passing of a great man. This media bias thing actually fits into what he stood for when he had a t.v. program. William F. Buckley was one of the finest intellects of the last century. He represented a time when people with opposing views actually debated the pro’s and con’s of any issue, not just politics.
His show, Firing Line was the longest running show with the same host in the history of television.
He had guests on there each week from all walks of life and all points of view and it was for show or one upmanship, but to present the public with arguments of both sides of the issue. From religion to sailing, to politics and ideology, it was discussed by the finest and most eloquent minds of the day, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Anarchist, Flat Earthers to Scientists. They all appeared on the program and honestly engaged one another, not in a shouting match (a la Crossfire), but in serious debate.
No one does this anymore, not even PBS, where Mr. Buckley sat for 35 years. Now it’s all about selling your products and making the new corporate masters happy. In politics, policy or daily events, the old saying **if it bleeds, it leads** is the rule. Under normal political coverage, Obama would be getting savaged by the media, but this year they are taking particular glee in bringing down Mrs. Clinton, because that’s what they want to see happen, but also because it’s the story that a lot of Americans are riveted on. Obama is getting a basically free ride, because the yokels want to see the once powerful Clintons eat dirt(and many in the media see their chance to get payback for being led down the garden path by Bill Clinton).
Media is a business first, a news provider fifth and an entertainer 2ed., 3rd, and 4th.
It’s not going to change. Thank God we do have blogs, and cable news, now everyone can go to many places and reinforce their already held views or flesh out the pablum most media hands out. What we have, for better or worse is probably the best we will ever have.
For the most part, there is objectivity in most news reporting. The error so many make is when commentary is packaged as news or taken as news.
Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olberman do not report news. They comment and look in-depth with “experts” to parse and analyze current events. When Fox’s morning show discusses the current events as news though, there is too obvious a blurring of the line.
NBC and CBS are not liberal biased. They report the news as it occurs. I love it when nimrods complain about Dan Rather. How they ignore the truth in what he reported. BUSH WAS AWOL !!! FOX has been over the line too often to have any objectivity. CNN and MSNBC are also fairly neutral in reporting.
Objectivity and a non bias do not automatically imply a neutral reporting. As with any endeavor, the major outlets can/will only report what they have discovered and have some degree of verification. Not every story will be perfect and a lot will be bungled. Add to that the bias of the audience. All the right wing nuts will never believe Bush was AWOL so any reporting is automatically biased against the Commander in Chief.
Investigative reporters? While there are many, Seymor Hirch at the New Yorker Magazine is one of the best. Also there are Michael Bilton of the (UK) Sunday Times, Marina Walker Guevara, an independent writer, Bill Alpert, from Barrons Magazine, and Professor Richard Gordon of North Western University.
Geraldo Rivera was never an investigative reporter.
And by the way………..I noticed that this blog has noted the passing of many a fine and grand Liberal, but when the Father of modern conservative thought dies, not a damn word.
This man took a dead movement, tossed out the anti-semites, the John Birchers and the fruit loops and almost singlehandedly created the modern conservative movement. Not neo-cons, or religious rightists, but real, honest to God conservatism. On top of that he was a towering intellect, a prodigious thinker, writer and columnist, a sportsman, a t.v. host and so many other things to numerous to mention.
He has had a profound effect on the US for over 40 years, through his thoughts and words. But he was apparently a nothing to Dvorak Uncensored.
I thought better of you John and I’m really disappointed in a few others of your editors that even though they may not have agreed with William Buckley’s viewpoint would have mentioned him because of his place in our post war history.
Shame on you Mr. Dvorak!!! (to paraphrase Hillary Clinton)
#21…Mr. Catshit…..your post on objectivity is all BS. Why??? Because you show YOUR biases by only pointing out the bias of a single media outlet…. Fox News. The real truth is they ALL are biased, every single one, but the good news is, enough of us know that to not allow it to affect how we look at many issues.
Your just another Liberal/Lefty with that post Catshit…..other’s above you at least understand the truth of the media.
Have a nice day!! 🙂
In post #22…I wrote this…..
>>>And by the way………..I noticed that this blog has noted the passing of many a fine and grand Liberal, but when the Father of modern conservative thought dies, not a damn word.<<<<
It should have been….** I noticed that this blog HASN’T noted the passing……..
Sorry.
Well, it’s the media biases that allow certain stories to make the news instead of others. The degree of factchecking on the Bush AWOL story was so low that if it had been against a Democrat, they would never have run it. Some people would have been suspicious, and done some more work on the story, plus there would have been no motive to knock out a candidate.
Same with the Siegelman/Rove story. Even Siegelman denies the story from their main source.
#17–Uncle Dave==we have two issues we aren’t connecting on. Your posted article is about media objectivity which is what you talk about but my comment was in response to your header lead-in which was to the point that “it didn’t matter.”
My comment on the impact of media stands untouched, and on review, I think ECA made a telling counterpoint.
Now, to your posted article and #17 comment:
Lead-in Para –gee, if you want to hear what the bias is == just listen to what is said? How big a spoon do you wish to be fed with? Think that one thru again.
Numbered paragraphs– well, what you describe happens to some number of people but certainly most people have a variety of sources whether intentional or not? Co workers, friends, family, church, stickers on Nascar, blips watched in error while channel surfing etc. To simple, and wrong, to find a box or two and think people sort themselves out that way.
Regarding History– yes, its written by the winners and that is the biggest context.
BTW——— where is your lead-in statement about what YOUR bias is? Normally when one recommends a certain position, one evidences it ones self? So, YOU have been caught blogging rather mindlessly instead of fully thinking thru your position.
Now, I do what I think most of us do most of the time. I find multiple sources that over time I find acceptable. I listen to what is said for the “objective facts” eg, Obama is leading Clinton, and then I sort thru all the opinion (biased or variously incompetent) and match it to my own bias and in most cases arrive at this conclusion: “who knows?”
You sound a bit like you want something “to believe in” and you are dissatisfied. Its an existential universe, the bad part of which is that there is no meaning. The good part is that you can make it mean whatever you want, within your personally boundaries of bias.
Para 2–
Fox News isn’t really more bias than other news sources, they are just more obvious about it. I think of the old addage:
“Better the devil you know, than the one you don’t…”
I’m a bit of a news-junkie, I watch several different channels, read couple of different news papers, and check the blogs. It’s quite evident, when you do this, that bias is rampant in the media and neither the left nor the right are more guilty than the other.
This is where being a well informed citizen comes into play. Most people are lazy when it comes to the news, they listen to one station and/or read one paper (funny enough, typically ones that have similar political and social agendas) and don’t question the accuracy.
The news media is not as it once was (truthfully, I don’t believe it ever was the way it was…)
Nothing wrong with bias. Example Kieth Olbermann.
Want an example of what is not bias but lies? Look at FOX(faux). I’ll tell a lie, you tell a lie. Then a third person says he heard some people saying it so he reports it as true. Or it was something he read on the internet. Just bad journalism is all.
#29, pharoh,
Nothing wrong with bias. Example Kieth Olbermann.
Only Olberman can back up his comments with fact. When he is wrong, he admits it and apologizes. BUT, don’t forget, Olberman is not a newscaster or reporter. He is a commentator.
#23, joshua,
I guess you forgot so I’ll ask again. I think this is the fourth time I’ve asked you to back up your statement.
YOU claimed Nancy Pelossi was being paid off by the trial lawyers to keep the telecom immunity out of the Wiretap Bill. As of now, I have still not seen your citation. You did emphatically state they were paying her, so where is the proof?
…your post on objectivity is all BS. Why??? Because you show YOUR bias’es by only pointing out the bia of a single media outlet….Fox News. The real truth is they ALL are biased, every single one, but the good news is, enough of us know that to not allow it to affect how we look at many issues.
So let me see. I point out an obvious and you cry. I could also have mentioned the Washington Times. But even the NY Post and Wall Street Journal have some journalistic standards.
But you declared BS. Ok, so where am I wrong? Or do you consider blanket statements ok.
Is Fox fair and balanced? Name a few stories that CBS and NBC slanted because of their bias. Go ahead, convince me that Bush wasn’t AWOL. Show me all the paperwork that Bush completed his assigned duty. You called BS, back it up.
In case your home schooling somehow impeded you comprehension, I’ll repeat it.
Objectivity and a non bias do not automatically imply a neutral reporting. As with any endeavor, the major outlets can/will only report what they have discovered and have some degree of verification. Not every story will be perfect and a lot will be bungled.
Read that. I know you couldn’t understand common sense the first time. This does not mean that any story will be biased. The reporter could be in possession of some exculpatory evidence but because it is unsubstantiated, it can’t be used. Or the reporter can only get information on one side of an issue, despite trying. For an example look at the story about Clinton threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party. That was very bad reporting as the reporter stressed unnamed sources that totally disagreed with the Clinton statement. Then the reporter turned around and used words the unnamed sources and Clinton staff never used.
When a news organization runs a story that does not reflect well on your beloved leader, don’t get upset at the truth. That is the conservative wing nut way. The FOX Spews method. Just face it, Bush is a screw-up.
Now, opinions by their nature can’t be bullcrap. They might be based upon crap, but they are still opinions. You stated Pelossi taking orders from the trial lawyers is a fact. Your view on her effectiveness as the Speaker is an opinion.
And Buckley was just an arrogant asshole. I can’t read more than 250 words of anything he ever wrote without falling asleep. Listening would put me into a coma with even fewer words. If you worship him that only shows your bias.
#27
I disagree that it is predominantly laziness. Most people lead busy lives. Doing research to fish through the baloney is time consuming. It is time most people would rather spend with their families or relaxing. Only a small segment of us find it sufficiently fascinating enough to spend their relax time doing it. ;->
#32
> Listening would put me
> into a coma with even fewer words.
Note to self: Send to Mr. Catshit as much Buckley material as we can find…