Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack,

If they are serving a “right-wing agenda” we would consider them biased towards the right. That said, it is quite easy to tell, person to person, which way people are biased. Add all the people up and you can tell which way the whole channel is biased. It is quite easy, for instance, to see that Fox News is biased to the right because the way they present things is always favorable to the right.

Now, saying if the MEDIA is biased is a whole different matter unto itself. I think when people say “the media is biased” they look at one or two particular outlets and extrapolate from there. To be quite honest, you can’t accurately measure how biased the MSM is as a whole.

Zeek

The made a comment even before I finished proofing.

I don’t think you have the right idea on bias. It doesn’t matter if they push the right wing agenda. The bias would be if they were not only wrong, but systematically wrong. So if when they systematically predicted Republican victories, Republicans lost, they would be biased. If they predicted Republican victories and they were right they would be accurate. If they predicted both Republican and Democratic victories and they were wrong in a non-systematic fashion, they would just be wrong, but not biased. The test of a theory is its predictive power. That is the result I would like to see posted.

…

So, Jack, what do you call it when a media outlet (let’s say, Fox), repeatedly spins the messages it gives to its audience in a way that obviously favors the right-wing?

Just spin. Or reporting with a point of view. I think this is the way of the future, btw. Actually our “fair and balanced” ideal is rare, both historically and geographically.

What I think will happen is that people will get the “facts” from the wires or portals. They will seek the “news” from outlets that report from their point of view.

I was thinking of the mental model. Some models are more useful for some situations, but a great variety can have their place. But consider the difference in even a neutral model.

Think how different it would be to look at a situation using a basketball (fluid, star player etc) model as opposed to a football (play-by-play, specialist players etc). No bias intended, but you would come up with really different conclusions.

And hires right wing hacks like Hannity and O’Rielly, to spew the “God’s honest truth”, and rip apart anyone that disagrees with them.

With no spin, I might add.

Rocky,

Your bias is showing…

Keep in mind I am not demonizing the word “biased.” I merely think it’s a crock when people who are obviously biased attempt to hide behind phrases like “fair and balanced.”

Right wing hacks? I find it odd that when a person can argue a point or position and succeed, they become a hack. With less spin I may add.

Lloyd, do you ever notice how they never seem to have intelligent opponents on their shows? JUST ONCE I would like to see Ed Schultz on the O’Reilly Factor (or possibly Hannity and Colmes).

Every now and then Fox screws up and they have an intelligent liberal on who can actually take on the spin doctors, and that is the last we ever see of them on Fox.

The Problem with the Republican notion of bias is that it is all too wrapped up in an attempt to preserve a worldview. Taken far enough, it preserves the worldview, at the expense of reliable knowledge of the world, as things deemed biased, that is offensive to political principles, are rejected regardless of real world veracity. The fear of bias becomes a self-imposed paranoid psychosis.

Great point. Maybe the spinners on all sides should take notice that if a person does not agree with them on a subject, this alone does not make them any less intelligent. A little less informed maybe but not a idiot.

“I find it odd that when a person can argue a point or position and succeed, they become a hack.”

Lloyd,

It’s one thing to be a good debater. That would almost make me want to admire Hannity or O’Reilly. However it is another thing entirely when the “guest”(read victim) isn’t allowed to get a word in edgewise.
What these guys do isn’t debating, it’s a measured eviseration without the benefit of a reply.

Yes, these guy’s are hacks. They surround themselves with sycophants, including their radio listeners, and hold court, without the possibility ever of being challenged.

Am I biased against these pretenders, these posers?
You bet.

Rocky, If you are looking for a good debate try ANYWHERE else. These are TV and radio talkshow host,not pretenders, not posers not gamblers. Sycophants?

Stephen, is there some pristine Democratic notion of bias which doesn’t involve a desire to preserve a worldview? Or are Democratic foibles (if you’ll even admit they have any) somehow on a loftier higher plane? By which I mean a higher plane which doesn’t involve your own biases and by extension worldview?

As a Republican, I have no use for O’Reilly. I actually think he’s a moron, but oh well. Hannity is a little better. Both, though, are plain aboveboard advocates of their causes and don’t hide behind any pretension of objectivity. That’s not a small point.

Contrast them to the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaws of this world (not to mention almost everybody on NPR), people who pretend to be objective the whole while they shamelessly shill for the Democrats. Unlike the partisan media on the left, O’Reilly’s opinions aren’t being dressed up as “the news.”

Rocky, maybe they sometimes don’t let their guests get in a word edgewise—and shame on them. But how is that different from left wing partisan hosts?
Chris Matthews, for example, who clearly loves above all the sound of his own voice? And can you remember Dan Rather, Brokaw or Jennings ever bringing on ANYONE to rebut those recitals of Democratic party talking points they dressed up each day as the “daily news”?

These guys are the spokesmen for the extreme right. They are the folks that are putting forth the policy that you and I have to live with, and they don’t answer to anyone.

“Chris Matthews, for example, who clearly loves above all the sound of his own voice? And can you remember Dan Rather, Brokaw or Jennings ever bringing on ANYONE to rebut those recitals of Democratic party talking points they dressed up each day as the “daily news”?”

Not one of the above, put forth as “Democratic spokesmen” called for the dissolution of the Republican party, that there should be only one party, never said that this was their goal.
Neither Brokaw, nor Rather , nor Jennings, said that one or two Republicans should be kept around as an exibit in a museum. Not one of these folks used the word Conservitive as an insult, or made it popular to call someone that held an opposing view traitorous.
Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, these guys are pimps.
They ARE what is wrong with the Republican far right.

Interesting article, Jack.

Zeek:
“Keep in mind I am not demonizing the word “biased.” I merely think it’s a crock when people who are obviously biased attempt to hide behind phrases like “fair and balanced.”“

Yes, indeed. The problem with Fox and many other networks in the mainstream media is not a mere bias (slant) toward the right, their problem is very often a very visible and tangible prejudice and prepossession against the left, and frequently against the facts — the very things that might bring us closer to a viewpoint based in truth.
This is why an intelligent person can’t call Fox (certainly) and other mainstream media channels (frequently) “The News”.
With pertinent facts so obviously being purged or cleverly twisted (because the majority of these entities count on their viewers not to be the kind of people who’ll factcheck their version of things), it cannot even rightly be called Opinion.
No, instead, what they’re selling has become something entirely scripted and crafted in order to obscure the truth and/or willfully deceive.
This is Propaganda.

Easily remedied by cross referencing, yes, but very few people actually do this — often because they simply haven’t the time, or the inclination to do so.

Zeek re: Fox
“do you ever notice how they never seem to have intelligent opponents on their shows? JUST ONCE I would like to see Ed Schultz on the O’Reilly Factor (or possibly Hannity and Colmes).”

That is because they run the risk of being totally unmasked by people coming on who not only know the facts cold, but who are completely unafraid to speak about them clearly, concisely and honestly (though of course, with a bit of their own bias being part of that mix).

“Every now and then Fox screws up and they have an intelligent liberal on who can actually take on the spin doctors, and that is the last we ever see of them on Fox.”

Right. It is also why they constantly interupt, shout and talk over many other people, or try to quickly change the subject when someone from the left actually manages to blurt out half a sentence. This is so shamefully obvious as to be quite hilarious!

In my sincere and honest opinion, only a complete moron could be taken in to the point where they’d actually consider Fox a “fair and balanced” version of the news. And even when it comes to their “pundit shows”, I’m not even convinced that they are really uniquely personal and individual opinions — I’ve often gotten the impression instead that much of what comes out of their mouths may be conforming to a loose script, intended to send the message the Right wanted them to hawk that day.

I don’t think you have the right idea on bias.

Haha! Jack, I remember four separate occasions where FOX announced that Saddam’s WMD had been found. That’s not spin, it’s a flat-out lie that obviously benefits the Bush administration. Is that the right idea on bias? :)

Fox also anounced that the girl missing in Aruba had been found dead, and then backtracked on that.

I will never forget the day O’Reilly interviewed Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter, despite his appearance, was very coherent and competent explaining why Iraq had no WMDs BEFORE OIF took place. O’Reilly insinuated that Scott Ritter was a traitor. Scott Ritter is an ex-Marine and a Veteran. Something O’Reilly was ignorant of.

I find it beyond insulting that Fox News always do this. The reasoning is that they are “Opinions”. Crap. Scott Ritter should have beaten the shit out of that Irishman.

Jack,

I agree on some points but not others.

You make a good point that, as the cliche goes, “hindsight is 20/20”. After the election, I read a lot of people here saying that the Democrats should have nominated someone other than John Kerry. (And, of course, the thought has crossed my mind, too…) But it is easy to say after the fact. If the Dems had nominated someone else, a lot of people would be wondering why they weren’t smart enough to nominate Kerry (“Dick Gephardt? Yuck!”).

The point is even stronger with Gore in 2000. If things had gone very slightly differently (or, frankly, the election hadn’t been stolen), everyone, including Republicans, would be wondering why they nominated that idiot Bush. (Of course he isn’t really an idiot, but he would look even more like one if he had lost.)

However, predictions are NOT a good model for media bias. The question is how you present the news, not who you think is going to win. I wrote here repeatedly that Bush had about a fifty/fifty chance of winning. So if you want to put me in charge of a “fair and balanced” news network, I’ll take the job. ;)

Your article Jack, appears to be saying that the unbiased truth is unknowable. If that was your intent, HOGWASH! It it wasn’t your intent, it sure came across that way.

I have my biases, true enough, as everyone does. But, that in no way implies that experts in their fields do not have an unbiased assessment of reality in their area of expertise to the furthest extent human knowledge will permit. Much in science is knowable without bias, purely from an empirical survey of witnesses to a cause and effect event relationship.

Models which are tested repeatedly against reality of cause and effect can be bias free in the empirical sense.

Now if you want to introduce the philosophical angle of whether the universe exists at all if a human mind is not there to create it in the first place, well, that is not productive debate for politics.

Is it perhaps, that the left’s arguments is beginning to make sense to the public as reflected in polls of late, that motivates you to dis all models and knowledge by humans as biased and therefore unreliable? Just curious.

PaulS-
You prove my point about bias pretty well. You look at these guys spouting off egregiously biased material, who many Republicans take their lead from, and then you say that because they are out in the open about their bias that this is somehow better.

It never occurs you that as much as those newscasters may have sympathies for us, they don’t express them because liberal culture prefers clean information. There are no liberal talking points running through the evening new. We’re not that organized, and many journalistic organizations don’t want that taint attached to their news. That’s why accusations of bias are so effective on your side as rhetorical weapons: They don’t want even the appearance of that impropriety.

You have no business complaining about almost nonexistent liberal bias if you aren’t willing to condemn outright and across the board all conservative skewing of the news. We do have our foibles, but we don’t wallow in them like the Republicans do.

Funny how a discussion on bias turns into a Fox News bash-a-thon…..

I think that bias can not be limited to the economic defintion that you presented here. Most people view bias as an influence in an unfair way, and to this extent I agree that Hannity is in no way biased. Also, I don’t think Fox News is biased by putting him on, simply because he is completely open about what he believes. Doesn’t mean I watch him, but it’s obvious many here tune in every night.

The Dateline NBC piece against GM, where they rigged the car to explode, was a clear case of bias. Bernie Goldberg’s book effectively exposed the bias of the nightly news shows. What makes everyone mad about Fox News is that the people who represent each side on what they say is overall “fair and balanced” do not hide their agendas and their positions. That’s why Alan Colmes doesn’t exist.

And AP, Fox News did blow the story on Saddam’s WMD but I fail to see how that benefited Bush for more that even a couple of days. And what about the NBC call for Gore prior to the close of polls in Florida? That might have actually benefited an agenda.

They all miss the mark on occasion, don’t they?

We all have our prejudices and saying that we see the world from our point of view is a tautology. The world is too complicated to understand without the use of mental models. The model determines which parts of reality we will emphasize and which we will ignore. Most models are unconscious, which is why we sometimes just can’t understand other points of view.

Your liberal college professors turned you into a relativist. Don’t all good conservatives believe in knowable absolute truth? ;)

I was making sort of technical point about bias and an argument about what we think we know and why we think we know it.

AP’s example of Fox reporting finding WMD several times looks like an example of bias. They are consistently making errors in a single direction. Similar bias could be found in consistently low predictions for turnout in the Iraqi elections among some pundits, although I admit that it is hard to find patterns unless you have many points of reference. One, or even several, election outcomes is not hard enough proof.

In general, however, I think we need to stick to the predictive value measure of bias. It is the only one that is itself fair and balanced. With that in mind, I tend to trust information more when I read it in business-oriented press such as the “Wall Street Journal” or the “Economist”. It is not because I think these guys are more honest. It is just that they know some of their readers will make decisions based on the information they publish and if they lose money they will remember and be disgruntled.

O’Reily is a different species of journalists all together. His goal is advocacy, as you can clearly understand when you see him start each show with talking points. He is less trying to report news than to create issues. The stealthier advocacy is someone like NPR’s Nina Totenburg or the now infamous Bill Moyers.

Advocacy is the future of what we call journalism. We can agree on what constitutes fair and balanced only when most of us share a worldview. This is not longer the case. Journalists can only describe a slice of reality. The slice they choose to portray depends on their own worldviews. At least if we know where they are coming from. And sometimes the stories and pictures are just wrong.

Let me share an interesting anecdote. It doesn’t show bias, but tells you why you should be cautious about “news”. During the attempted Soviet/Russian coup of 1991, CNN was reporting by taking pictures from the top of its building in Moscow. They didn’t get closer. Tanks were arrayed in front of the Russian parliament and dark smoke was ominously rising from the barricades. CNN reported that there was movement at the barricades and that black smoke was rising. This was true, but not the whole story. The movement they saw were some of the tank operators getting out of their vehicles and drinking vodka with some of the protestors. The ominous smoke came from some guys who made a fire to cook some greasy sausages. This attack was going nowhere. The only reason I could know this was that a Norwegian television correspondent was reporting from the barricades themselves, not some distance away. People watching in Norwegian got a much better report. I think of this every time I hear some ominous tones on television news. The rush to report makes journalists sloppy and “seeing the truth with your own eyes” on television is often misleading.

Woody

I believe there is a truth, but our models slice it in ways that we can understand. I don’t advocate getting rid of the models, but we have to recognize that our models are rough maps of the territory, not the territory. If we know that, we can make better decisions. If we think our models are comprehensive, we will make more mistakes.

Just so we have a frame of reference:

American Heritage Dictionary definition of bias:

“A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.”

IMO, it is important to distinguish between “news” and “editorial.” Editorial is inherently biased since it tends to favor or argue one side of the issue. Therefore, I do not consider Hannity and Colmes or Limbaugh to be “news”, rather, editorial (and poor editorial at that).

Also, keep in mind that part of the reason you do not see more lofty dems on these shows is that many of them refuse to take part (and I can’t blame them). It is not attractive, nor productive, to open yourself to the steamroller effect these guys use. As I have stated before, I believe both these guys started out as informative editorialists and became camera hounds. Their personalities became larger than the message. Couple that with pairing Hannity with a simp like Colmes, and the agenda became clear. I no longer watch either.

I tried to read Limbaugh’s first book and made it through the first three chapters. I tried to read Hannity’s first book and made it through the first two. I sold them both at a rummage sale for 50 cents each. I did read O’Reilly’s first book, and actually learned a few things. At least now I know what created him.

I do watch FOX’s “Special Report” with Brit Hume. They have their panel of pundits, and always actually include a lib reporter, typically from NPR or another lib source. I feel both sides are almost equally represented there.

Objectively, I don’t think there is any question that, overall, FOX as a network is biased. However, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I don’t think the “fair and balanced” tag applies, but I also don’t think most people who spend any amount of time objectively watching FOX believes it either.

This may sound esoteric, but I think bias is in the eye of the beholder. I realize and agree there are ways of empirically determining bias, but in the end, he who receives the message determines for himself the level of bias.

I think Chris Matthews is clearly biased, but, again, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I don’t think he bills himself as a “moderator” who is supposed to sit dead center on every fence. It’s a talk show discussing politics with a liberal host. Who can’t see that? Clearly, he is braver and more successful at landing more impressive opposition guests. But the shouting over and cut-offs are just as prevelent (save the nasty “Hannitized” remarks.)

Interesting discussion. I find it extremely ironic that right-wing personalities such as Limbaugh and Hannity are defined as “steamrollers” here. The fact is, right-wingers have been considered “unintelligent” and “uninformed” by the left-wingers for so long that it has long since ceased to be a laughable state of affairs. Right-wingers have been “shushed” by left-wing “journalists” for so many years that we rejoice to hear Limbaugh and Hannity turn the tables on liberals, who, since the advent of Fox News, have clearly shown that they can dish it out but can’t take it. And judging from the commentary above, you’ve proven my point extremely well.

Rocky~
That was a pretty funny bias you showed when you mentioned Hannity but not Colmes! Just an observation.

And AP, Fox News did blow the story on Saddam’s WMD but I fail to see how that benefited Bush for more that even a couple of days.

Oh c’mon, George. One third of FOX viewers still think we found ‘em.

And what about the NBC call for Gore prior to the close of polls in Florida? That might have actually benefited an agenda.

Actually, the polling group used by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and the AP called Florida for Gore. All those networks - including FOX - promply put Fla in the Gore box. Here’s the timeline. And it was Bush’s cousin over at FOX who called the race for Bush later that night that gave him the preceived lead that led to the Supreme Court stopping the statewide recount that showed Gore actually won.

Zeek~
You have obviously not watched these venues, for if you have you would hear them begging these people to come on their programs! Seeing as I don’t listen to Alan Colmes show, I won’t comment on it. And if I hear it once or twice I won’t judge him on the events of those two programs, and act as though I now know the whole forum.

As a career broadcaster, now retired, I can tell you, from first hand experience, that ALL reporters are biased. It is the human condition. We all have our likes, and we all have our dislikes. The tendency is to support that which you prefer, or like.

O’Reily, Limbaugh, Hannity, none of these men are newscasters. The listener/viewer is told, up front, what s/he is about to see or hear. Opinion. The opinion of a conservative commentator. That is as it should be.

However, when a newscaster tells you, ad nasuem, s/he is “unbiased” they have lied. Only a brain-dead person is unbiased. So, from the opening word of their newscast, the bias is interwoven into the very fabric of every story they broadcast. I can live with that, because I understand it as the human condition. But, the MSM, be it broadcast, print, or news services, should stop the protestatioins of innocence when they are charged with bias in their reporting. For they most certainly ARE biased.

After nearly 30 years in the broadcasting, and news reporting business, I can think of no way to remove bias from news reporting, short of removing the human element.

Longstreet

Nessa wrote:

“Interesting discussion. I find it extremely ironic that right-wing personalities such as Limbaugh and Hannity are defined as “steamrollers” here. The fact is, right-wingers have been considered “unintelligent” and “uninformed” by the left-wingers for so long that it has long since ceased to be a laughable state of affairs. Right-wingers have been “shushed” by left-wing “journalists” for so many years that we rejoice to hear Limbaugh and Hannity turn the tables on liberals, who, since the advent of Fox News, have clearly shown that they can dish it out but can’t take it. And judging from the commentary above, you’ve proven my point extremely well.”

I assume the reference to steamrollers was pointed at my post. YIKES! Hey David R. Remer, now I’m being labeled a liberal! Can you believe it?

My point, as a conservative, is that Hannity and Limbaugh may have started out with some value, but quickly degraded in value, in direct proportion to their ego growth, to almost no discernable value to the average Joe. Save for the pure entertainment of seeing two middle aged men foam at the mouth when presented with certain facts, and seeing them attempt to out shout a shouter, I see no more reason to watch them than “All in the Family” reruns.

In addition, I would quickly add that if conservatives wish to be taken seriously in the press, whether in an editorial sense or from a pure news perspective, they need to model themselves more closely with George Will than Hannity. Will quietly makes his intelligent point, then respectfully waits for his next opportunity to rebuff, and continues to make unarguably well thought out, intelligent arguements (without the foam). He ususally leaves that to Sam Donaldson on the other side of the desk.

IMO, it is important to distinguish between “news” and “editorial.”

Damned straight, Chi Chi. Like Sen. Moynihan once said, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

O.K. AP you are right:

Fox News purposefully reports mis-information knowing that their viewers are too stupid to know any better (because they are Republicans) and will believe it to the exclusion of all other sources forever….

That’s why I tune into Randi Rhodes everynight; I need to hear the truth.

Ahhh! The subject change. I love victory. :)

Traci,

You have obviously not watched these venues, for if you have you would hear them begging these people to come on their programs!

Talk is cheap. If ever I heard a pundit challenge someone he/she thought to be of equal (or possibly greater) debating skill, it was not followed through with an actual invitation, or at the very least the person never appeared on the show.

AP,

Ahhh! The subject change. I love victory. :)

LOL, you crack me up, AP :D

Talk is cheap.

Yep. I’ve offered to debate President Bush on the issues many times, but he’s never taken me up on it. Pussy.

Yep I’m going to get my Democratic Party card right now because I know they have a plan….

But how’s that a subject change? You take a result that 1/3 of the people believe something and you ascribe it to a bad story on Fox News. Then you exclude all reasons for the bad story except that Fox News puts out misinformation knowing that it will believed by its borg collective. I’ll even give you your facts if you show me the direct correlation of intent and result…

AP:
“Yep. I’ve offered to debate President Bush on the issues many times, but he’s never taken me up on it. Pussy.”

LOL!!! Perhaps he doesn’t return your calls because he likes to think of himself as a uniter not a divider!

AP:

“I’ve offered to debate President Bush on the issues many times, but he’s never taken me up on it. Pussy.”

Yep. I offered to debate Nader and Kerry on the issues many times. They took me up on it, but the audience was sound asleep by the time Nader finished his opening remarks. (snore)

Ahhhh, thou art too amusing for we mortals, AP :P

We are all biased in more ways than we will admit. I am biased when the subject of politics or materialism or spiritual matters or educational matters and on and on. The bias shown above shows thru a little more when the headliners of todays media are refered to as newscasters. One of the true media personalities of recent vintage was Paul Harvey. His program was called news and comentary. Therefore you expected his bias with his commentary. See-BS, ABC, NBC, and CNN among others should follow that approach. So that when one turned on the evening so called news program, it maybe should be See-BS evening news and commentary with Dan Rather. Bias is part of being a human being. And it can be good or bad.

Would I rather listen to George Will than Sean Hannity? Any day! My point, which seems to have been lost in a quest for intellectual superiority, is simply that after years of having only a liberal viewpoint expressed in media, most conservatives (be we intellectuals or “ignorant rednecks” as most liberals seem to view middle America) are simply thankful to have ANY conservative commentary on our television screens. Yes, I prefer an intelligent discussion of issues to a Limbaugh/Hannity style slugfest. For myself, I prefer to view the growth of conservative representation in the media to be in the adolescent stage of development.

Nessa:

“For myself, I prefer to view the growth of conservative representation in the media to be in the adolescent stage of development.”

I agree. However, you must agree that the Hannitys and Limbaughs are not exactly helping the cause with their style. Perhaps the next generation of conservative host will be better (I hope).

David

I don’t think it is possible not to judge the world with the use of a model or point of view. You can minimize bias, in the statistical sense, but you still have to decide what is worth attention and what is not.

Scientific methods can come to fairly concrete conclusions, but only about particular subject. And science can sometimes define out options and consequences, but it can’t decide which should be done. That is always a value judgment.

You studied psychology. Consider the history of that science. Even if we leave out the pack of weirdoes from the 19th Century, Freud’s theories led to the torture of people whose aliments were organically based. New neurological studies indicate that the behaviorists (like Watson and Skinner) were all wrong (or put scientifically, were wrong more often than simple random chance would indicate.) Sometimes their methods were correct, but they started off with the wrong paradigm. It may turn out that the latest knowledge about how the mind works is also wrong. We just don’t know yet. More likely, it will be incomplete because of the particular point of view.

In politics (and many societal subjects) we don’t really have anything BUT a point of view. That is what the whole argument is about. If the answer was clear, we wouldn’t argue about it. You don’t hear heated debates on TV about the temperature at which water boils or the relative strength of various types of steel. That’s why.

Red Column-
Precisely what is it about being open about one’s bias that ensures that one isn’t lying elsewhere? It’s a verbal misdirection. The truth is, a person who openly displays their bias does not by that become instantly honest about everything else.

We don’t need our journalists telling us what to think. We need them relating the facts and knowledge required to understand the situation for ourselves, and make our own decisions about things.

The right’s obsession with bias and its embrace of it with media outlets like Fox news have allowed the Republican party to become increasingly unaccountable to its constituents and the rest of the country. We do not need journalists in the mainstream press covering for or apologizing for the politicians they cover. We need to get these things straight so we have some means of bringing the spin and the lies to a grinding halt. We need a press that can reliably investigate the doings of the government, not one that bows down to its authority.

Nessa,
Seems you have bought hook, line and sinker into the Right-Wing Media fluffery (Rush, Limbaugh and Buchanan) that 1) liberals believe conservatives to be ignorant rednecks, and 2) MSM has been devoid of conservative viewpoints for years. I’m sorry that you’ve been suckered into that belief. As Alan Bennett said “Journalists say a thing that they know isn’t true, in the hope that if they keep on saying it long enough it will be true”.

I am a 38 year veteran of broadcasting, and everyone seems to be missing a few things.

Everybody here seems to be painting certain networks with very broad brushstrokes. “Fox is not fair and balanced”…”CBS is uber liberal”. Does everyone actually think EVERYONE at Fox is conservative? Is EVERYONE liberal at CBS? The answer is, of course, a resounding “NO”.

Does everybody here think that every network is perfect…that no one makes mistakes? (Screaming headlines proclaiming “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” come to mind.)

Yes…Fox screwed up when the announced that WMDs were found in Iraq.

CBS screwed up when the relied on obviously forged documents to rush a story to air.

NBC screwed up when they declared Florida for Gore.

Making mistakes is human. You screw up…you live with it. That’s not the point and never has been.

Opinion is not the point. Is Al Franken “fair and balanced”? Is Rush “fair and balanced”? No, both are screamers from the right and left. And in the middle is nothing but noise.

The point is minutia.

When you are listening to what is supposed to “hard news”, listen very carefully and ask yourself questions.

How was the question asked? What language was used when the question was asked? How did the reporter phrase the question? What language did the reporter use to end the report?

In psychological positioning in broadcasting, you learn that people only listen to the first and last things that you say. Why else do you think that radio stations say their call letters the first thing into a song and the first thing out of a song?

Watch commercials. What do they say in the first sentence of their commercial? In the last? Notice this.

So now listen to a reporter’s report. What did they say in their first sentence? What did they say in their last sentence? This will tell volumes about that reporter and their bias. Yes, Virginia, bias does exist…and it is ugly.

In argumentation and debate, you learn that the second negative is the power position. Whatever subject is debated, the view of the second negative is the one most remembered. That’s why you put your strongest debater in the second negative position (the order of debate is actually 1st affirmative, 1st negative, 2nd affirmative, 2nd negative).

Now, knowing this…what part of the story did the network show first? What was shown last? When, say, NBC or ABC ran a story on the presidential race…who did they show last? Bush…or Kerry? When they show news stories of conservative and liberal points of view on a subject…who do they show last? Conservative or liberal? Who gets the last word? What point of view are the viewers likely to see last? What point of view were the viewers left with when the story ends?

Watch these things. These are but just a couple of “back of the head” things that are dealt to you on a daily basis. Write it down. Keep track of these things. Not only will you find a pattern…but you’ll find what network is playing with your head the most.

Big Kahuna,

“As Alan Bennett said “Journalists say a thing that they know isn’t true, in the hope that if they keep on saying it long enough it will be true”.”

Kinda sounds like the way we went into Iraq.

Jim T,

Yes…Fox screwed up when the announced that WMDs were found in Iraq.

Yeah, but four times? You don’t even get that many strikes in baseball.

CBS screwed up when the relied on obviously forged documents to rush a story to air.

Lol, that doesn’t mean the story itself doesn’t have validity. But to be quite honest, I don’t really care about Bush’s service. It has no meaning in today’s issues and I didn’t vote for Bush because of his “moral fiber.”

But back to bias, I really think that if you just listen to a channel/person long enough you will just naturally know what their “bias” is. If they seem to the left, they are to the left; if they seem to the right, they are to the right. If they seem to be exactly in the middle, you know they are biased to the exact same degree that you are. Simple really. Interesting points about debate and commercials though :)

I think Jim T’s response is good, but I think patterns of presentation are not so important as patterns of fact. We can focus on what position the networks might be taking, but that’s such a subjective thing it’s almost a waste of time. We need to build a theory of the world out there that is independent of partisan impulses, a world were each bit of evidence has meaning and implications, and where what people say is not so important as what they are saying things about.

An example a while back was the DOD’s reaction to the armor crisis. They immediately responded by putting out a press release saying that the unit of the man who raised that question had been fully armored as of that date.

What he neglect to say was that over half of the armor in question was the same kind the officer was complaining about. Much of the debate centered around the ethics of reporter who prompted that question.

The real story there was how the DOD was trying to give people the impression that a problem was solved, when in fact it still existed.

If we are to hold our elected officials accountable, we must know enough facts to be able to judge the rightness or wrongness of the interpretations offered.

Zeek,

“Yeah, but four times? You don’t even get that many strikes in baseball.”

No…but 19 times in the American League and 28 times in the National League, pitchers have recorded 4 stikeouts in an inning. LOL

Jim,
No…but 19 times in the American League and 28 times in the National League, pitchers have recorded 4 stikeouts in an inning.

Had to look that one up! Interesting stuff.

Traveler…

Ain’t the internet great!

Jim T,

My problem with the “percieved” bias at Fox is not the conservative slant. Anyone that has watched Fox News once or twice knows that going in. My problem is with the statement that they are “Fair and Balanced”, and yet go out of their way to show their bias.

Traci,

“Rocky~
That was a pretty funny bias you showed when you mentioned Hannity but not Colmes! Just an observation”

Colmes is a wiennie that is only on the show to be a punching bag for Hannity. He rarely says anything of substance without being interupted, or cut off for a commercial.

Jim & Traveler,

Wow… that’s… fantabulous…

No individual can be unbiased no matter how hard he tries. Only those who recognize some of the bias have a chance to be fair and balanced.

Jim makes a very good point that works in PR and persuasion. It is not always the facts that are important; it is how they are deployed. I would also add that the setting of the agenda is the key of success or failure.

What prompted me to write this initially was the discussion about NPR on the other side. Reed gave an example of NPR’s coverage of the Bataan Death march. I found it completely biased. Reed disagreed. Since I respect his opinion and trust he was being honest, I figured it must be that our points of view were just very different.

Expanding on Jim’s points, think of how you can manipulate (consciously or unconsciously) raw data. Does an operation have an excellent a 95% success ratio, or do 5% of all the people who try this risky procedure die? Many journalists have a story in mind before they start to write. The facts seem to confirm their preconceived notion.

One of the sneaky ways media biases good news is to concentrate on the losers. “Unemployment may be dropping all over the country, but Mr. Jones still hasn’t found work.” Half of the people will always fall below the median. So we come up with the frightening statistic that half of all Americans earn below the median wage. Of course, it only sounds ominous.

I saw a good example of this sort of manipulation in a site from NRDC that pointed out that pollution levels from some power plants had not gone down and some even went up after the cap and trade program went into effect. Of course they did. The average is lower, but if you only look at those above the average, they are higher. This could be used very deceptively in a TV article, especially if the reporter was standing in front of one of the dirtier plants.

Thanks Jim.

My question is does the bias of one particular channel of information have an effect? Some here believe that it does, and even suggest that it rises to propaganda. To make this leap you must accept that there is only source of information, that source is deliberately manipulated for a particular objective, and the outcome is the result of the manipulation. Even given media consolidation, are we anywhere close to this type of scenario?

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that FOX News is objective. FOX has a right wing agenda that can not be ignored.

Rocky…

My problem is with the statement that they are “Fair and Balanced”, and yet go out of their way to show their bias.

…and exactly HOW did CBS portray Dan Rather…and how did he go out of his way to…?

Rocky, that’s exactly why these blogs exist. For every point there is a counterpoint, and I won’t get dragged into a partisan left/right, red state/blue state, liberal/conservative blather.

I only submit that if you stop and realize how you are being manipulated, you’ll be more outraged than the 11 ‘o clock news.

BTW…and this is kind of off subject…have you noticed the difference between east coast news and west coast news? I am lucky enough to have a dish that picks up Channel 2 in New York (New Jersey) and also picks up a channel in LA. It’s laughable!

New York: IF YOU AREN’T ALREADY DEAD…WE HAVE A LIST OF A MILLION THINGS THAT WILL KILL YOU INSTANTLY! TONIGHT! RIGHT NOW!

LA: So…surf is up tomorrow. 3 feet at Black’s Beach, 4 feet in San Diego. And film at 11 of really new ergonomically correct sandals.

Any of you who have this access…you know what I’m talking about. It’s great.

My favorite bumper sticker:

I don’t need an airbag - I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh

Are reporters biased? Yep. Are reporters generally more liberal than the rest of the population? Yep. Does that give the news a liberal bias? Not necessarily - reporters aren’t the ones who decide what reports make it into print or onto the air. Furthermore, reporters generally don’t have final say in the format of their report. That is the function of the editors and publishers. And editors and publishers are generally more conservative than the rest of the population. So the political leanings of reporters doesn’t necessarily prove anything.

Any discussion of “bias” must distinguish between news reporting and editorials. I have no problem with biased editorials - after all, editorials are an expression of opinion, and are supposed to be biased. But if you’re getting all your news from a talk show host like Limbaugh or Franken, you need to seek out other sources, because Limbaugh and Franken are only going to report “news” that supports their opinions.

The real complaint from the right isn’t “media bias” - it’s “liberal news bias”, which is entirely different. For one thing, it makes it obvious that the right isn’t complaining that the news media are biased in general. If so, you’d be hearing complaints about Faux news from conservatives. But you don’t hear that. So I’ve concluded that the right likes biased news; they want biased news. What the right wants is news that’s slanted in their favor. And to the extent that the news media are neutral, they aren’t biased to the right’s favor.

So why assume that the news media is baiased against conservatives? IMO, it’s because most ideologues of the right (OR of the left, for that matter) are paranoid, and believe that everyone who isn’t with you must therefore be against you. To them, since the news media isn’t biased in their favor, it must be bbiased against them.

This makes the right sound an awful lot like the paranoid leftists of the 60’s, who said that “if you aren’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.” Ideologues of the right are now saying the exactly same thing: “if the news media aren’t biased in our favor, then they must be biased against us.”

George,

With the propagation of “network” news, I really don’t think it’s any one network’s ability of having a profound effect on the nation as a whole.

Sure, one network can raise the ire of different people (see “cdp” above), but will it change the minds of people. Doubtful.

News is tailored to the available audience. In my post above, you’ll see that there is a noticable difference in East Coast and West Coast news styles. They tailor their casts to their audiences.

Now, where are the major news networks located? Where is the heaviest concentration of media (all types)?

New York.

That’s where the heaviest Neilson ratings are done. In the heaviest population center in the US.

Now, New York is a Blue State. That is a given. BTW…that’s not a bad thing, so smooth those hackles down. People tend to view (and listen to) things that they agree with. That’s another given…and also not a bad thing. But for so very long (before propagation) there was only one point of view…that of ABC, NBC and CBS. And all were competing for the East Coast advertising dollars. So their news (and their slant on the news) was essentially the same. A slant specifically designed and crafted to maximize East Coast viewers and ingratiate themselves to the East Coast viewer’s point of view.

Suddenly…out of nowhere…comes Fox News (several others in between…but I digress). Where is Fox News’ corporate headquarters? You guessed it. New York.

Here’s a news entity that East Coast viewers don’t like and doesn’t pander to the political philosophy of the East Coast viewer. Can you blame people for being outraged? That’s like putting Conway Twitty on stage in front of an audience of Hatebreed fans.

You see, the outrage stems from the fact that America’s viewers have been told since 1952 that what they’re watching is “fair and balanced”.

Now here’s a network has said “fair and balanced”…and they don’t agree with the presentation…then it must NOT be “fair and balanced”.

So what is “fair and balanced”?

It’s what the individual viewer considers “fair and balanced”.

And, you have to admit, Fox has carved out a niche of viewers. A niche that wasn’t heretofore exploited. A niche that considers anything BUT the “traditional” networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) as “fair and balanced”.

IMO…if you really want “fair and balanced”, then watch Peter Jennings (ABC) and Fox at the same time. Somewhere in between is “fair and balanced”.

Rocky,

Actually…the quote for the run-up to the Iraqi war could best be summed up by the notorious Adolf Hitler: “The broad mass of a nation…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”.

That explains why a lot of conservatives STILL believe Saddam was behind 9/11, when all but two of the perpetrators were Saudi nationals!

Very interesting discussion.

First, we’re confusing 2 kinds of bias. When you make predictions, a bias may cause you to make wrong predictions. This you, Mattel, are confusing with the bias that colors our view.

Most of us are talking about the latter. Such bias prevents us from being objective. We may only talk of such bias if it reduces our objectivity. In other words, our bias demonstrates how far we are straying from the facts.

Since Fox and the other programs mentioned deal with opinion, we can’t call them biased. We can say, though, that Fox is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

Saying that the print media is liberal (or conservative) is too wild a generalization. It shows bias on the part of the one who says it.

It annoys me when people say “everyone is biased.” It may even be true. But we are not talking of slight bias. Most of the time when we speak of bias we mean bias in a big way.

The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief(Saddam and 9/11), experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence.
-Washington Post

or it could be Fox News’ fault.

Jim T,

The “outrage” that you describe didn’t really start until Spirochete Agnew and the right started their “liberal bias” mantra. The widespread belief that the news media has a liberal bias proves the point that if you repeat the same mantra often enough, people will start believing it, regardless of whether or not it’s true.

Where’s the evidence? What I want to see is real, documented evidence of “liberal bias” by the MSM, not just a repeat of the mantra.

By George in SC!

Sorry about that…I couldn’t resist.

How could we mistrust Saddam when we have all those pictures of Rummie shaking his hand and telling him what a good guy he was (in comparison to those mean, old Iranis) during the Reagan and Bush I administrations?

How could we mistrust him when Rummie and his buddies virtually gave him his WMD’s (including toxins and gases) and encouraged him in his war against Iran?

Paul-

Somewhere above I mentioned it as Jack’s economic bias (a measure systematically over or underestimates actual results) verses value bias (influence in an unfair way). Since what is unfair is a normative question you get answers that can’t be subjected to economic theory.

Two completely different definitions.

Jim T,

There was a time that the news wasn’t done for ratings. Opinion was labled as such (Cronkite and Brinkley among others).

The downfall of the “news”, biased or otherwise, is that it is producer driven, ie. the product is more important than the news itself.

Fox News features news programs and commentaries. The News programs are good. The evening news with Brit Hume and Fox Sunday are excellent and they are fair and balanced as compared with similar programs such as other network news or programs such as This Week or Chris Matthews. I watch all the Sunday programs and feel that I can make a good comparison. But all shows have their points of view.

I will be thankful to Fox for some things. For example, Fox News Sunday interviewed a representative from Amnesty who compared the U.S. to Gulags. Chris Wallace wouldn’t let the guy just read his talking points and asked for specifics. This guy finally admitted that there were no specific similarities and – poof – there goes his whole argument. Other MSM accepted Amnesty’s spurious comparison with less questioning.

Most liberal journalists have a bias to accept Amnesty International as a credible source - and it can be – but it also has a political agenda that can’t be overlooked. Their bias, I believe, is what prevented them from questioning something that was absurd on the surface. It took an outsider group to make the point that now most others have accepted.

This is a link - not from a conservative - that details the problem with the amnesty attack.
here

Jack,

1. “This week” and Chris Matthews are not news shows - they’re talk shows.

2. The fact that Amnesty made the Gulag comparison is news. The fact that the comparison was disputed is also news. Both facts were reported by almost every news source that I saw.

3. The importance given to the Amnesty statement was not in the hands of reporters. As I said before, that kind of decision is in the hands of the editors and publishers of the world, who tend to be conservative.

I’ll repeat my question. Where is the real evidence of a liberal bias in the news media?

The problem is, Jack, that news doesn’t doesn’t always break evenly as to who it benefits. When Reporters told the public about Clinton holding up an airport to get a 200 dollar haircut on the runway, one could say that such reporting was biased towards the Right-wing, but in the end, there are negative ways to look at what Clinton did that take neither a right-wing, nor a left-wing view of things, but instead deal with how politicians use and abuse their power. If what folks were saying was true, then reporting such an abuse of power, however motivated nonetheless tells people something important.

It’s what gets left out, or said without any further investigation that marks bias. Even then, though, there are good reasons to emphasize negative things, if their impact is more profound than the positive. A rash of suicide bombings merits more coverage than school opening and other minor events, because those pose a serious challenge to our mission in that country, while a school opening has minor effect. After all, it might be the school that gets blown up next, or the kids might be kept home from school by anxious parents.

This is the basis for the highly skeptical view of Bush’s occupation of Iraq in the media. Bush modelled this occupation in the public’s mind based on the postwar occupations and rehabilitations of Japan and Germany. Unfortunately for him, he failed to smoothly pass authority on to another leader, and also failed to pacify the nation upon our arrival. These are both true statements, regardless of what may motivate them: truth and bias are not necessarily separate.

But bias can separate from reality. If a liberal reporter doesn’t give adequate coverage to the successful relationships the military builds, that would be problematic. Additionally, when conservative reporters fail to report on or gloss over reports of the failure to find WMDs, or the scandals involving manipulation of intelligence, they too are letting their biases get the best of them.

Sometimes that’ inevitable, and even beneficial. We human beings are limited in the scope of our attention, so with all the facts and leads possible out there, a differing political inclination and mindset might lead one to more comprehensively report a certain kind of story than others might. The audience can then gather stories from journalists of all inclination, and work out the big picture between them.

However, there must be a dedication to reporting well, truly, and in the most complete detail possible what it is one has found out. One must be willing to set aside the inclinations of one’s bias when the knowledge one gains for the readers and viewers is unfavorable to one’s side.

Journalism should not advocate. It is not there to tell people what to think about the news, but to provide them with the stories that allow them to formulate that for themselves. That discipline was born of a time when newspapers were losing credibility because of their advocacy. It can happen again, and will happen again when folks cross the line from reporting on the issues we debate, to trying to shape the debate themselves.

I say, you’ll never get the complete story from one source. So spread out, diversify, listen to more folks rather than fewer.

George,

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Once, a newscast was a news cast. You got news, views and opinions and were labeled as such. News organizations labeled fluff as exactly that…fluff.

These days, check out the evening news. 15 (and I’m being generous here) minutes of news (whatever slant or bias) and 15 minutes of fluff.

They call it different things, of course. “Eye On America”…”Medical Watch”…whatever. It’s certainly NOT news…it’s fluff. And it’s designed to entertain the audience, not present events or facts.

Once again, the media comes closer and closer to realizing the crass info-tainment (and ratings driven reality) of “Network”.

BTW…congratulations to the Big Kahuna! He was actually able to say “Adolph Hitler” and “conservatives” in the same breath!

Once the Dems dump Dean…there’s a job waiting for you!!!

Lol!

Reporters are mostly liberals. Editors are also mostly liberals. Owners may or may not be, but most owners don’t interfere much with their paper’s news policies.

Conservative journalists such as Brit Hume moved to Fox because they felt unwelcome. There are whole books written on it. Something like 80%+ of journalists voted for Kerry. Let’s assume they are all honest guys who try to do what is right. What made them vote for Kerry? Again, assuming they are honest and thoughtful, they voted for Kerry because they thought it was the right thing to do. In this they disagreed with most American voters. Wouldn’t be possible that the same mindset that made them vote Kerry would also influence their choice of stories?

Many liberals still believe that Ronald Reagan’s policies failed. I was listening to a lecture about Reagan today. The lecturer mentioned that when Reagan died last year, ABC’s Peter Jennings said that his policies didn’t work and CBS Morley Schaffer said that history has no reason to be kind to Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, I disagree, as so do most Americans. Their bias came through in their reporting even when they were reporting on a funeral. You might not call this bias. That shows our differing biases.

Liberal bias is evident constantly. You ask for evidence. This is the kind of thing that can be argued. I can give anecdotes. If you google the subject you find studies that prove and disprove. I could ask for evidence of conservative bias on Fox. I am sure you can see it because it is on the other side. If you take Americans as a whole, I expect that CNN is about as far left as Fox is to the right and more Americans trust Fox than CNN, if you look at their numbers.

Jack-
I worry more about factuality than I do bias. Why? Because I can write my own story in my head, after reviewing what the other news sources say on a subject.

I find that there is often a dearth of information concerning what I want to know. I often find that journalists aren’t asking the tough questions. But I don’t take it passively, I look for sources that can fill in those gaps, and try to find the best ones possible, because I’d just as soon not be so quick to accept stories and explanations simply because they flatter my politics. I don’t like to be arguing on a subject and have somebody trip me up like a addlebrained schoolboy because I got my facts wrong. I want to be standing on solid ground, when I compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Don’t you? The problem with bias-oriented media philsophy is that encourages one to vulnerable to ideological flattery. I’d just as soon be disappointed on the facts than uplifted by somebody’s lies or mistakes.

Stephen

It seems to me that the “facts” are available for those who want to find them.

The problem is the agenda setting. That is where the bias comes in most strongly. Take a current hot topic – Iraq and terrorism. If you check around for facts, you find that mass graves and murdered civilians are turning up all around Iraq. We read about them on the back pages of the papers or on Internet sites. These are terrible examples of cruelty, but not considered big news. On the other hand, we hear about the Koran abuse all the time. These things are considered news. Why is that? Are the deaths of scores of civilians really less important than somebody dropping a Koran?

You don’t have to lie about the facts to mislead people.

This is a much bigger (and less ideological) discussion than we have time for here. I think the basic idea is that information is now essentially free. We all have access to mountains of information previously available only to people with massive resources. In fact, at my computer I can access in a few minutes more information than a U.S. president could get from his intelligence services a generation ago. What is important now is not information, but the packaging. That is what people are looking for at Fox or CNN. They want their information packaged. And many people are willing to do it for them.

Jack,

Speaking of bias. This is a quote from Michael Kinsley’s story on the “Downing Street Memo”, this past Sunday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001705.html

No Smoking Gun

“Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes a certain amount of ideological self-confidence.”

The context doesn’t matter, truer words have never been spoken.

Stephen, your posts are saying what I was trying to convey in my earlier comments, but in much greater detail (and no doubt more eloquently).

Some choice comments:
‘It’s what gets left out, or said without any further investigation that marks bias.”
And:
“However, there must be a dedication to reporting well, truly, and in the most complete detail possible what it is one has found out. One must be willing to set aside the inclinations of one’s bias when the knowledge one gains for the readers and viewers is unfavorable to one’s side.”
And:
“I find that there is often a dearth of information concerning what I want to know. I often find that journalists aren’t asking the tough questions. But I don’t take it passively, I look for sources that can fill in those gaps, and try to find the best ones possible, because I’d just as soon not be so quick to accept stories and explanations simply because they flatter my politics.”

Absolutely.
And the fact that this is the reality is exactly why I also feel forced to go to alternative sources of news on the internet, or surf quite a few newspaper websites (slanting left, right, center) to get at the entirety of a story, and to factcheck thoroughly.
With certain world events, I’ll feel the need to go to foreign news sources when there is little or no discussion by American media of certain stories (for instance, and as I’m sure you’re all aware, our war coverage really sucks). This is now the only way I can feel I’m actually keeping up with current events.
Occasionally, sources will vary so widely, that I feel I’m left in the dark with no way of gaining a true understanding of an event, but thankfully, this doesn’t happen all that often.

JimT:
“I am lucky enough to have a dish that picks up Channel 2 in New York (New Jersey) and also picks up a channel in LA. It’s laughable!”

I think there is less of a contrast between New York and San Francisco television news — it’s a lot less lightweight than LA’s.
And to anyone from LA — that isn’t intended as an insult to your fair city, but it is my honest opinion from my own comparison.

Elliotbay:
“IMO, it’s because most ideologues of the right (OR of the left, for that matter) are paranoid, and believe that everyone who isn’t with you must therefore be against you. To them, since the news media isn’t biased in their favor, it must be bbiased against them.”

I think this holds basically true for all the major news outfits — with the exception of Fox. To say that anyone on the left is being paranoid to unequivocally state that Fox as an entity stands completely against the Left, I feel would be quite incorrect.
Everything they do, from the way they leave out pertinent facts from stories, skip over those that are unflattering to the president, and and basically spin all the news to the right, to the totally rude and utterly disrespectful way they treat anyone from the left who appears on their line-up of shows is blatant and obvious. As I said previously, so shamefully obvious is their bias, that it’s become a hilarious joke among the people on the left.

WHew - you people really need to get a life.

Here are only a couple examples of why many people can’t take Fox News seriously. These videos don’t suprise me anymore or even make me angry. It is just plain sad.

Fox News shows Sean Hannity coaching his guests

Bill O’Reilly blatantly misrepresenting facts on “The Factor.”

We have a whole generation (since Watergate) that believes the MSM with it’s bias is how news is supposed to be reported. When an organization like FOX comes along that tries to show both sides it is perceived as bias because we don’t know any better.

Something like 80%+ of journalists voted for Kerry. Let?s assume they are all honest guys who try to do what is right. What made them vote for Kerry?

In this they disagreed with most American voters. Wouldn?t be possible that the same mindset that made them vote Kerry would also influence their choice of stories?

Maybe it was the news that they were reporting that made them vote for Kerry, rather than the fact that they wanted to vote for Kerry that made them choose the news they reported.

Also, if the media holds all this power and are so biased towards liberals, how could the majority of Americans disagree with them? How do they even know there’s another side?

The problem is the agenda setting. That is where the bias comes in most strongly. Take a current hot topic ? Iraq and terrorism. If you check around for facts, you find that mass graves and murdered civilians are turning up all around Iraq. We read about them on the back pages of the papers or on Internet sites. These are terrible examples of cruelty, but not considered big news. On the other hand, we hear about the Koran abuse all the time. These things are considered news. Why is that? Are the deaths of scores of civilians really less important than somebody dropping a Koran?

The fact that Saddam did bad things is not really news. Everyone knows he gassed the Kurds, everyone knows about the rape rooms. Further evidence that Saddam is a bad guy is kind of insignificant, isn’t it? Most Americans don’t care one way or the other about the Koran, but anti-American riots are news.

Brian

Don’t overestimate what “everyone knows”. Somepeople enjoy “Gone with the Wind” more than others, because of the suspense of not knowing who is going to win the war.

Mike,

When an organization like FOX comes along that tries to show both sides it is perceived as bias because we don’t know any better.

The operative word there is “tries.” The reason Fox is percieved as having a bias by so many people (mostly liberals) is because they fail so horribly at their attempt to keep things “Fair and Balanced.” Actually, I have little problem with biases; afterall, I expect them. However, it’s a bit condescending to think you can cover up your lack of neutrality with the slogan “Fair and Balanced,” isn’t it?

Interesting discussion about fair and balanced. Perhaps most of you are not old enough to remember, but once upon a time, there was something called the NEWS. It came on TV, and the NEWS anchor either delivered the NEWS, or introduced a reporter who delivered the NEWS about something or other. These were half hour programs, and at about the 25 minute mark, there was something called COMMENTARY, where an OPINION piece was given on some subject. The point being, you could tell the difference between actual NEWS and COMMENTARY. Nowadays, sadly, there does not appear to be anything even remotely resembling NEWS on TV.

Mike:
“WHew - you people really need to get a life.”

What a witty rejoinder! I guess you really told those… people?

“When an organization like FOX comes along that tries to show both sides it is perceived as bias because we don’t know any better.”

Hilarious!
Ah, but now I think I understand the other comment.
Certain people seem to have struck a vulnerable nerve…

Hey now Jack-

Down here we know who won that war!

If we could just get all of these POW’s re-patriated to their home yankee states.

Mike

I do this quickly and between other things, as you might tell sometimes by my spelling and grammar errors. I enjoy it and find that it actually helps me in some other parts of my life. Sometimes I like to test out a phrase of argument to see what kind of reaction I get. It keeps my ideas a little more grounded in reality when I can use what amounts to a focus group to lop of the more insane edges.

Besides, it is interesting to be part of a virtual community. Some people you like; others you just tolerate. I wonder sometimes what people look like. I am sure my mental images are not close to reality.

Jack~
“Besides, it is interesting to be part of a virtual community. Some people you like; others you just tolerate. I wonder sometimes what people look like. I am sure my mental images are not close to reality.”

That is so funny! I have actually done this myself! (I was very kind w/ your image!) :)

Ah…the quest for intellectual superiority continues! NEVER assume that your opponent in a debate is simply “buying into Limbaugh theology” without thinking for themselves. That way of thinking only reinforces, not negates, the argument that many liberals perceive conservatives as “ignorant rednecks”. When I made that statement, I was simply stating my own personal observations based on many years of experience.

In resonse to those who would like to see evidence or proof that the MSM has a liberal bias lets look for something that is an absolute truth.How about money,money doesnt lie.Money buys the same gallon of milk for a conservative as for a liberal.Now lets follow the money(money flows where the people goes)corporations buy advertising where they can reach the greatest market.The fastest growing audience is in the conservative or right wing slanted talk shows and news.Why are these areas growing so fast?The MSM has been left wing dominated for so long that people are begging for something other than a steady diet of socialist propaganda.The american people are waking up.The pendulum had swung as far left as possible and is now starting to swing to the right,and when the conservatives in society start demanding proof that the media is right wing dominated the pendulum will change course and begin it’s travels to the left.Bias is nothing more than your personal opinion.Remember,opinions are like assholes,everyone has one and they all stink except your own.

Paul-
If you read The Republican Noise Machine by Steve Brock, you will learn that much of the Conservative media is run at a loss, and that there are a number of Liberal pundits who enjoyed quite good ratings before they were yanked in favor of the more conservative folks who were supposed to be the wave of the future.

The Liberals out there are not quite as defeated and propped up as you might think.

You know, i have been watching all the 24 hour news channels for awhile and I still don’t get why fox news is any different from any of the others,except they have some talk shows that have slightly conservative views I guess.I sort of like Bill o’Reilly even tho he had the phone sex thing,because he always tells people like it is,such as when he was drilling some whitehouse officials(forgot who they were) about the faulty intelligence they relied on to go into Iraq.

And he was interviewing Sharon Osborne about why she let her children drink alchohol.She said in Europe the drinking age is younger like 18.And you can pretty much guess what he said to her.

I watched the 24 hr newschannels all during the Tsunami thing and as far as news,since that was a pretty non-political subject,they were all the same.So what’s the difference.

Now, these political blogs,I would have to say some of them are really biased.

Jim T said:

Opinion is not the point. Is Al Franken “fair and balanced”? Is Rush “fair and balanced”? No, both are screamers from the right and left. And in the middle is nothing but noise.

The point is minutia.

The main point these days, in my humble opinion, is NOT minutia…it is THE LIES THAT ARE PERMITTED TO PASS FOR *NEWS*!

Two examples: **Terri Shiavo…the just released autopsy report proves that Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and the other so-called “journalists” for the right were TOTALLY WRONG! This autopsy news will now be “spinned” to cover for all the LIES they told. **WMD’s…33% of FOX viewers think they’ve been found, while 17% of NPR/PBS viewers think so.

I often see that many on the “right” consider ANY reporting of the screw-ups and misdeeds of Bush and/or ANY Republicans as “BIASED”, when it is nothing more than the TRUTH! (FOX—“Faux”—News just omits it from their newscasts…like the Downing Street Memo. Their one brief article online doesn’t even mention that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”…typical! For you FOX viewers, read it here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

Comparing Rush Limbaugh to Al Franken is like comparing Richard Nixon to Jimmy Carter. While they both are definitely “biased”…

The former is intentionally deceptive, while espousing hatred of all things “liberal”—absolutely NO guests or others who may have an opposing view are allowed—while covering a very limited array of subjects. It is merely HIS opinion—mixed in with a myriad of assumptions, ommissions, distortions, and outright LIES—being sold to the public as TRUTH!

The latter strives to be honest and fair-minded…by presenting researched FACTS and interviews covering a wide range of subject matter—with an occasional guest from the “opposing side”, including a frequent “dittohead”—then letting one decide for oneself.

I have listened to both…I listened to Rush for years until I got exasperated with the constant ranting about democrats, ad nauseum! Rush stopped being *relevant* a long time ago—talk about “dumbing down”! He has much to do with my switching from Republican to Independent.

Now back to the original post by Mr. Matel:

It is hard to say if Fox News, CNN, NPR or other networks are biased, since they don’t usually make predictions that we can check on later.

WHAT!!?? What does “bias” have to do with making predictions?? My dictionary defines “bias” as: A preference or inclination that inhibits impartiality; prejudice”

“Bias” is almost always referring to using personal preferences and belief systems to report the news to the general public. Since you mentioned some networks, one would have to assume you are talking about the bias in news reporting. And if you cannot see that Fox News (their term for what they produce…I call it “Spews”) is the epitome of *bias* and imbalance, then read further…

One’s personal bias has more to do with their level of consciousness. The first level of consciousness—the “mythic” level—does not permit one to believe in tolerance or diversity…it limits one to “one true religion/political party”, “my country right or wrong”…they believe it important to convert the whole world to their way of thinking, and make sure that governments enact laws that agree with their laws and morals. They see the “others” as evil, and think it alright to impose their belief system on them. They do not think “globally”, and do not care about matters such as the environment, health, war in other countries, or other “worries”. Most Christian adults’ consciousness are usually stuck at this level, or re-emerges in times of crisis. They have incomplete and distorted versions of the truths one can see at higher levels of spiritual growth. Religious fundamentalism is chiefly characterized by its holding on to the “mythic” worldview.

The next level of consciousness—the “rational” level—enables one to think abstractly, understand general statements and principles, e.g. “all human beings are created equal”; and to use the rules of logic. They operate on a level of the truly universal, a global perspective not limited by membership in any particular race, religion, country, of mythic belief system (any “-ism”). “Rational” thinkers who believe in God leave the magical “Sky” God behind for the much more magnificent God who lives deep within themselves. The United States was the first nation ever founded upon “rational” principles…”deism”, not Christianity. It took centuries for the human race to achieve this level of awareness—it is the dominant consciousness of the present age in contemporary society. (from “Putting on the Mind of Christ” by Jim Marion. EXCELLENT READING for anyone concerned about their own spiritual consciousness development.)

One’s present consciousness level has more influence on *bias* than any other factor. As you can observe, religious fundamentalism, so-called “family values”, and “conservativism” are NOT what this country was founded on, and is EXACTLY what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wanted to avoid! What we are observing in our country today is the regression of this magnificent achievement.

Carri, it looks like you’ve bought into public school revisionist history. John Adams said, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington said, “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Patrick Henry said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”

Nessa: Sorry, you’re SO wrong. As I mentioned—and you seemed to miss—what I wrote about consciousness came from a book, NOT public schools (as conservatives like to blame most everything they disagree with on “public schools”. It took me 25 years after leaving public schools to start thinking at a higher level, with less bias and “me first” thinking skills!) You quote only 2 people…if you read your *unbiased* history books, you will find literally hundreds of quotes from, not Christians, but Deists (FYI—deists believe in a Creator, but not in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world…some believed in him as a great philosopher). Ever hear of Thomas Paine? Thomas Jefferson brought him to the colonies from France (where they had imprisoned him for his ideas), to give Paine a chance to publish his writings and help establish this nation on sounder principles (ever hear of “The Age of Enlightenment”?) than strictly biblical ones (that’s been done before). His book, “The Age of Reason” has more to do with the thinking being espoused by MOST of our founding fathers at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Go read it…you might learn something. And read my post again—without bias.

Carri:

“I have listened to both…I listened to Rush for years until I got exasperated with the constant ranting about democrats, ad nauseum! Rush stopped being *relevant* a long time ago—talk about “dumbing down”! He has much to do with my switching from Republican to Independent.”

Welcome to the Independent Majority! I had the same experience. While I am still fiscally conservative, I started choking on the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.

Carri

The test of a theory is its predictive value. Bias and prejudice are about things that are not true. If I say that you can’t trust the judgment of all two year olds, it is not a biased or prejudiced statement, because it is true. And it has predictive power. If a reporter consistently predicts that republicans will win elections, and they do, he not biased. He is just making accurate predictions.

We sometimes don’t like the truth and we call it bias. I found this interesting quote in today’s WP re Larry Summer’s statement. It sums up the false use of the bias term.

“This is what happened with Summers. He was shouted down not because he was wrong, but because he ought to be wrong; not because he might not be right, but because he should not be right. It did not matter to many of his critics that at least since the 1980s, researchers have found boys doing better at math than girls — not all boy and all girls, mind you, just those at the highest ranges of achievement.”

Jack, I still think you are just nitpicking at the words to make it seem as though certain media outlets are not helping certain political groups when they most obviously are.

But that’s just me :)