June 28, 2005
The Media's True Bias
Media bias this, media bias that. With the Republican party, there seem to be no mistakes- only perception problems. Perception problems do exist, but they normally have little to do with politics, and everything to do with somebody’s prejudice of what will entertain and appeal to people. Efficiency, as I have asserted before, always concerns the goals one has in mind. Unfortunately, news isn’t entertaining the way a movie is. What’s more, it shouldn’t be. Good newsgathering can be compelling even if one forgoes the flashy graphics and overwrought sensationalism, because what makes news truly compelling is how it brings us insight.
Why does the negative get focused on in Iraq? There are two answers to that have nothing much to do with politics.
The first answer is legitimate: If our politician's plans aren't working, the American people need to know, in order to make their decisions on the correct basis of fact. The positive can be ignored if the positive does less to change the situation than the negative.
The president makes things worse by continuing to deny there is a problem. The people's insight on Iraq, is that despite protests that the worse is over, the same state of affairs continues. Bias or no bias, there should be some way of definitively answering that charge. Instead we are told flatly something that is not true, and General Abizaid, the man in charge there, is telling us it's not true. The insurgency continues.
The Second answer is not legitimate. It revolves around a plain fact: When things get better in a story, the story is over. Liberal or Republican, that is the case. Far be it from the modern media to leave us in peace. They have to intrude into our homes with crimes that rarely intrude into our lives, instead of matters that often do.
In the quest to make everything turn a profit, the modern conglomerates that own the newsmedia have made a critical error: They have assumed they know what sells. Instead of taking advantage of twenty-four hours of news coverage to relate international and domestic events of importance, they have decided that they've got to turn the news into melodrama.
Frankly, we don't need this crap. We don't need to hear about some kid killing his family in Minnesota unless there's something truly important there. Use that space to inform people of what's happening in Darfur, or Syria, or whatever. Maybe more people would watch the news, if watching meant learning something.
People are turning to us, bloggers that we are, because we bring to them insightful information on a regular basis They hear things here that they aren't told about elsewhere. Unfortunately, here, bias is not held back by some professional code of ethics, nor a mass audience that would not tolerate offensive propaganda. We have the capacity to create bubbles where partisan knowledge is kept, and all other view and understandings are denied.
Television news does not need to bring balance where it doesn't exist, or report favorably, when actions don't merit it, but it does need to give us better traction, better integration with the real world out there, instead of isolating us in a bubble of what's considered to be of entertainment value. I know that's business, but I again speak of efficiency following purpose. The truly compelling, truly important news out there doesn't need to be dressed up and made up like a cheap hooker to interest people. It is interesting in its own right because it adds perspective lost without it.
In my studies of cognitive science, perhaps the best definition of meaning given to me is this one, gleaned from a book called The User Illusion, by Tor Norretranders: meaning is logical depth.
This came from an IBM scientist, talking about bandwidth on our telecommunications lines. It is defined as the trouble a piece of information saves the one receiving it of having to work out a problem, mathematical or otherwise, themselves.
In reporting the news, what we need is an "Ah!" factor, an understanding given to the audience that legitimately simplifies an apparently complex issue, and carries to us a more meaningful picture of the world.
I know what some may say. "Stephen, the world out there is a haze to them. Don't confuse them with what doesn't interest them." Well, the world can be a haze to folks, when they aren't told about it, and having kept good track of the entertainment side of the media for some time, I have found that there is great unpredictability to what people find interesting, and often it is just a matter of trying to figure out what's interesting yourself, and doing your best to convey that to people. That is what makes Frontline and 60 Minutes when it's working well such great television. They aren't deciding what leads on what bleeds, they are bringing people the world as they've rarely seen it, and never known it and that in my experience of both fictional and non-fictional media is a valuable thing to give to people.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2005 05:24 PMI’m in your corner, Stephen. When I consider how much time was spent on the “runaway bride” or the unfortunate young lady missing in Aruba, just repeating the same information over and over, when a significant portion of that time could have been spent informing us about other issues in the world, I feel very cheated.
The “ah” factor is something that I would appreciate experiencing on a frequent basis.
That’s also why the Discovery, History and Learning Channels are so popular. It’s a proven ideal.
Now in the days when news channels actually bicker between themselves, we are being cheated even more.
Thank goodness for the fact that things evolve. Or devolve, as the case may be. Nevertheless, they change. Hopefully it will be for the better.
Jimmie-
so infact you think the average american cant come to a ration decission on any subject themselves without someone there to spoon feed it to them, and tell them what to think.
I think most of what we know is taught to us, or reported to us by others. If we only trust what we’ve personally experienced, our horizons shrink dramatically. I think you can’t tell people what to think, because they decide that themselves!.
I think you only get spoonfed if you settle just for what people already tell you, regardless of your curiosity on a subject. Most people who get spoonfed in this society carry their own responsibility for their situation. I just wish I didn’t have to spend a mind-numbing afternoon searching through material and primary sources to find the probable chain of events.
If you think discussion on the internet is a waste of time, then by all means improve the efficiency of your schedule. Otherwise, I enjoy it, and I think many others do as well.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2005 11:24 PMFor those of you who don’t know, the BBC makes excellent Investigative Reports on every subject. I suggest you watch the BBC for any good/competent news.
Posted by: Aldous at June 28, 2005 11:42 PMI agree with Stephen (and Cole) about the abysmal quality of most of the news media. But what is the alternative?
Your argument boils down to a complaint about news media as a source of sensationalistic entertainment (ie. the runaway bride story or Michael Jackson trial) and completely ignores this most salient fact: the multiplicity of sources of information is greater now than at any point in history, and no measures that would (or should) lead to a greater number of informed citizens can discount the absolute necessity for the citizens themselves to to become ACTIVE and discerning consumers of the media.
A discerning consumer of information enjoys far more advantages today than ever before. A person can read the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, Die Welt and the New York Times every morning. They can watch both Fox AND Al Jazeera. But the fact is that they’re probably watching ESPN and playing on their X-Box.
The problem is MUCH deeper than the media. It has to do with our fundamental values, our educational system, an entire zeitgeist that can not be laid at the feet of any one entity, individual or ideology.
As a Republican, I deplore this fact as much as you Democrats do—it leads to a situation in which we’re all looking to one-up each other with spin, manipulation of imagery and all sorts of jockeying for position which avoids a true confrontation of ideas on their actual merits.
Example: I am a hundredfold for the the war in Iraq, and I’ve questioned and examined my position from a thousand angles. But let me brutally honest: Considering the widespread debasement of intellectual debate in this country, I may be tempted to sway someone who hesitiates to agree with me by employing a crass appeal to their patriotism. “What, do you hate America? Support our troops!” Get the idea?
In the same manner, I’ve seen a number of my liberal friends who actually have very well-reasoned and thoughful objections to the war in Iraq embrace the distortions of Michael Moore. They know better—and will sometimes even admit as much—but support those distortions anyway because they see them as ultimately serving to sway people to what they believe is the correct opinion (though correct for reasons different than Moore offers).
We’re all in a very unfortunate situation—one thing, at least, that I can think we can all agree on.
jimmie-
I love debating, and research to a certain extent, but I don’t like having an important question still open after a couple hours of frustrated searching. That’s not being inconsistent, that’s being a person who has limits and isn’t paid to do this as a job.
You reverse yourself, however. This is what you said:
im sorry but the news is already doing that and as for the “true news bloggers” this is a total waste of time as i will not change your mind on any subject as you will never change my mind on a subject. im just glad i have a ton of time to waste making you so angry.aguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics… even if you win, your still retarded!
You did not say outright that what we do here is a waste of time, but your words drip heavily with that implication.
Do you remember that series of articles I did, Tumblers in the Lock of Time? The title takes its name from lock mechanisms. Normally, you can’t really force the lock to open up that easily. If you find the right key or pick, though, the lock becomes much easier to deal with, or even just a formality.
Even if I never convince the opponent, I can very well convince the moderates who get involved, or stand by the wayside. As for the moderate’s convictions and ideas, I think you confuse zealotry for thoroughness. Not everybody who believes strongly does so rightly or with an informed opinion.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2005 12:22 AMExcellent article Stephen.
i said neither side will change the others views.
No kidding. I gave up trying to change minds long ago. Now I merely try to inform - and debunk all the misinformation coming from the red side. :)
jimmie,
Why are you wasting your obvious talents here on this blog?
I am sure that there is a Neurosurgery department out there dying to have you lead it.
In reporting the news, what we need is an “Ah!” factor, an understanding given to the audience that legitimately simplifies an apparently complex issue, and carries to us a more meaningful picture of the world.
Stephen:
Bill Moyers made an interesting point the other day. There is this mistaken idea that balanced reporting means that you have to have a Rep and a Dem to give their talking points on news programs, supposedly to let everyone make up their own minds. Programs like “Now” and “News Hour” are balanced because they do what journalists are supposed to do: research and present all angles and draw the most logical conclusion, whether it be a proconservative or proliberal conclusion.
I think THAT is the “Ah” factor.
Posted by: Loren at June 29, 2005 07:13 AMBush gives a speech and the AP headline is “Bush critisized for linking 9/11 and Iraq”
Is there a Bias ?
Further in the story, Nancy Polosi states that Bush is exploiting scred ground on the 9/11 site.
Do any of you know about the “hate America” museum that liberals want to put on the 9/11 site? no? it’s not in the news much is it?
Is there a Bias ?
Gitmo was in the news for weeks/months. Sen Durbin’s words are still being blasted as a terrorist recruiting messege in the middle east.
Yesterday democrats who visited Gitmo, basically said the place is pretty good. (this story was buried on page 19 in the NY Times)
Is there a Bias ?
TRY THIS: listen to or read editorials that you agree with and then try to locate false logic or false reasonning in their arguments, then try to listen to editorials that you do not agree with and do the same.
As a conservative, I still try to read Ted Rall and Froma Harrop and a few others. You liberals should too. Take their comments and find where they spin. Then read Ann Coulter and a few from the right.
Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 08:32 AMDo any of you know about the “hate America” museum that liberals want to put on the 9/11 site? no? it’s not in the news much is it?
I, for one, haven’t heard of this. Please share your sources. If this is true as you say maybe I will begin to agree with your claims of liberal bias. But I’m betting your source is something like ‘I heard Ann Coulter say so’
Jimmie-
It takes work, but you can at least bring people to an understanding, and that’s a start.
James-
Bush’s speeches seem to be constructed from the same damn boilerplate points, as if he could browbeat his critics into agreement. This is news in the sense that Bush is giving a speech is news. He didn’t really change positions.
As for that being the AP headline, did you do a thorough search of the media in general before you assumed that Liberal Media Bias is run amok?
On CNN, the headline is Bush: Iraq ‘vital’ to U.S. security. On CBS News: Bush: Iraq Costs are ‘Worth It’. On MSNBC: ‘Clear Path Forward”, and on the Houston Chronicle headline: President Bush: ‘We will stay in the fight until the fight is won’
And what do the New York Times and Washington post have to say? Acknowledging Difficulties, Insisting on a Fight to the Finish, and Bush Urges Americans Not to Lose Heart, Nerve
BIIIIIIAAAAS! Oh, can’t you tell from the headlines how they’re savaging Bush?
As for the “Hate America” Museum, I would question you on two points: one, is this really a museum telling people its okay to hate America, or is this a museum relating the context of the attacks that you’re objecting to on the grounds that the attack should simply be presented as an irrational act? have you ascertained that the evil of the act is completely neglected? As for saying “that liberals want to put on the 9/11 sight” do you mean liberals in general, or in particular. I think you’d have the easier argument, despite your heated rhetoric, in arguing for particular individuals.
As for Nancy Pelosi’s comment, there is legitimate reason to believe out there that Bush used 9/11 as a spur to a war that has so far served to increase terrorism in the region, rather than reduce it. It’s a legitimate criticism.
As for Gitmo, I suggest you consider that Abu Ghraib has lent great credibility to those who claim we’re human rights abusers. The arguments from the right justifying torture lend even greater credibility to that. Durbin’s comments are probably the least offensive ones to reach the Arab media. Meanwhile, the war serves as a terrorist recruiting message. In the Arab countries, they don’t hide the brutality of this war from their people. They show them the blood and guts of it. The truth is, Bush’s damage control on this war isn’t working.
Especially not the visiting Democrats. If the charges are true, they would not be the first VIPs to be shown a cleaned up version of something much dirtier in reality. Like I told Jack, we need investigative methods that are not vulnerable to pretense and preparation. That’s why its buried. It’s only important to those who want a small propaganda victory. As a news item, it’s next to meaningless.
TRY THIS: Screw the editorials. They’re biased by nature. Read the actual news
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2005 09:37 AMI would agree that we need more news gathering and reporting about the situation in Iraq or, elsewhere in the International arena.
The only problem is that every TV, radio, newspaper and internet site puts it’s own slant on the event. Some of the media is considered to be Liberal, some Conservative, others are simply known as pro-Republican or pro-Democrat.
Those readers or listeners who comprise those political disciplines tend to believe the information coming from, “their” source. Hence begins “East is East, West is West and never the Twain shall meet” discussions and arguments.
If and when the news source we favor happens to report something that coincides with our own personal beliefs, it becomes undeniable fact without compromise.
I would like to see the “real news”, although I do not have a plan on how to get it. I am sick of interviews with retired Generals, Ambassadors, aides to so and so, professors at some University, etc.
I want the unadulterated facts.
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 10:20 AMSteve
Those of us who want the adulterated facts have to do our homework. Every news story usually draws some sort of conclusion. A good news story gives you the info the author used to draw his/her summary. I usually try to read the side story, like the actual text of the speech, or search for the data used. Most politicians rely on the unfortunate fact that most people don’t.
Posted by: Loren at June 29, 2005 10:53 AMTom G.
Here is what you asked for, the lib media has been trying to keep it under the radar. Here are 3 sources
9/11 victims’ families condemn museum plans
Some relatives fear politics, debate would infect sacred ground
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8297432/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20050622/lo_nypost/polbacks911kincalltohaltmuseum
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/12/220646.shtml
James, I read the first article, and it seems the only problem people seem to have with it is that it might not be allowed to become a Bush propaganda site, that it might be fair and balanced. Hardly sounds like a “Hate America Museum.”
Posted by: Loren at June 29, 2005 11:20 AMStephen,
I actually agree with “some” of the points you make about todays news.
I tire of the silly, endless crap, that passes for “news”. It should be a true update on an event, or move on to other really new events.
The Aruba case is a great example, its tragic, a young girl on a fieldtrip, got drunk and was likely raped and murdered, that about covers it untill something new happens that is meaningful.
I would love for the news to spend 10 min.’s on that sort of thing, and the rest of the hour debating and discussing issues like the USSC ruling giving citys the right to steal someones property for more tax gain.
Posted by: Beagle at June 29, 2005 11:28 AMThanks James.
Too bad we cant even build a Freedom Center without is getting political.
“Liberal Media Bias” is a myth perpetrated by the right in order to intimidate the mainstream news organizations from reporting anything that the right doesn’t want people to hear.
If you look at the studies of media bias, you find that there are as many accusing the media of a conservative bias as there are accusing it of a liberal bias. And when you’re getting an equal number of complainst from both extremes of the political spectrum, the odds are that you’re pretty much in the middle. Which is pretty much where the mainstream news media is.
What the right doesn’t say is that the news media is trained to be fair and impartial and tries to be fair and impartial. There are journalistic ethics that require good news reporters to strive for neutrality.
If the media was REALLY biased towards the left, you’d think they’d report more positive stories about their candidate and more negative stories about the other one, wouldn’t you? Well, it turns out that isn’t the case. Let’s take the 2000 election as an example. The Pew Charitable Trust Project for Excellence in Journalism (a highly respected non-partisan organization) studied over 1,000 news stories from that election, coming from 17 major news sources, looking for bias. They found out that the media was much harder on Al Gore than on George Bush. Out of the total stores about Gore, 13% were positive, 31% were neutral, and 56% were negative. For Bush, 24% were positive, 27% were neutral, and 49% were negative. This was on the Pew web site a while back. So much for the myth of “liberal media bias.”
The myth proves an important point: if enough people say the same thing and keep repeating it over and over, people will start believing it. Regardless of whether or not it’s true.
The hate-monger radio monolith has been pretty successful with this myth. They’ve intimidated the mainstream media into ignoring important news that the right doesn’t want the public to hear about (such as the Downing Street Memo), and covering stuff that really isn’t news (the runaway bride, the various stupid celebrity “news”, etc.).
The myth also raises an important question about the right: do they believe the myth themselves?
If they don’t believe it, then they must be very cynical liars. IMO, this is where the hate-monger radio folks and most of the Republican party leaders belong. Hate-monger radio constantly screams about bias in the mainstream news media, but they never complain about Faux News. Why? Because they don’t care if Faux News is biased - they WANT Faux news to be biased. But they also want all the other mainstrean news media to be biased the same way.
As for those people who really do believe that the mainstream news media is biased, I think they fall into one of two categories:
Oh, wait. The President himself made that last statement. Well, I guess we know what category he fits into.
Posted by: ElliottBay at June 29, 2005 12:00 PMHi All:
Just my two bits worth.
I am just about sure that we can all agree on this statement:
“One hellava lot of people died on September 11, 2001, but it palls in comparison to December 26, 2004. Both are Tragedies, I hope that we never see again. But have we failed to realize from the victims of both horrific events that the only way that we are going to get past these and other problems that plague our societies most is to work together voice our opinions, OPEN our EARS, & Listen, Really listen to what the other guys or gals are saying, come to concensus and implement the final plan…..AS AGREED UPON, JOINTLY!
Very nicely done, Stephen.
Have you heard about Google’s attempt to make a search engine that will block out anything that isn’t based on honest facts? That way when you search for info, you won’t have to wade through endless partisan websites or blogs to find the facts you’re looking for.
Sounded like a great idea, and then I thought to myself — but exactly who’ll be in charge of deciding what locations provide the most well grounded and factual truths? :^)
Aaaahhhh. Illusive truth. So many claim to want it, but when it appears, it becomes slander, pandering, and bias. It seems most people think the truth sits on a sliding scale. When it presents itself, however rare, it tends to be adjusted to the focus of the viewer. I’m just as guilty as anyone.
So, many of us depend on alternative sources. I like reading this blog because the writers tend to link to source material that I either am unaware of or do not have access to. I appreciate truth, as painfull as it might be.
When the truth begins to be bent into a partisan channel, as a former Republican and still a fiscal conservative, I shut it out. Nothing can be gained for me personally from the bickering of partisan rhetoric strewn with twisted or half truths.
I’m 43. I’m here to learn as much as contribute, and I learn more every day. Thank you to my fellow contributors of truth, and shame on those who smite it.
James, do you listen to talk radio? Watch Fox tv? CNN? MSNBC? The liberal media is a myth. A most effective form of propaganda is control of the media. True?
Posted by: magi at June 30, 2005 12:57 PM
