Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Liberal" Media
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 1 of 165 (553141)
04-01-2010 4:13 PM


Recently in the Marxist topic faith had made this statement
About media influence I see anti-rightist bias almost every story I read these days.
I would like a discussion on this and where exactly it is.
From what I see Democrats endure the same attacks as Republicans do in most media outlets. I'd like some examples anti-rightist bias .
I'd also would like to inquire about the logic of some conservatives (not necessarily faith) who claim liberals want to destroy big business and capitalism yet some how control the media that is paid for and owned by the large corporations.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 04-01-2010 4:31 PM DC85 has not replied
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 9:53 AM DC85 has replied
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-05-2010 8:59 AM DC85 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 2 of 165 (553146)
04-01-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
04-01-2010 4:13 PM


What I mostly see is a pro-entertainment bias in the media. That is, there is a tendency to emphasize events that are controversial and will thereby attract an audience for their advertisers.
I also tend to see a bias toward the corporate establishment. This is perhaps not surprising, since the mainstream media are part of that corporate establishment.
I do not see the "anti-rightist" bias that Faith complains about.
For as long as I have been paying attentention, the political right have been complaining about a left wing bias in the press and a left wing bias in the universities. In my experience, neither of these has ever been true.
There is a bias in the universities. It is a bias toward knowledge and away from ignorance. And that is hardly surprising, given their mission. I have not seen any evidence of a political bias, nor any evidence that political leanings are even considered in the hiring practices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 04-01-2010 4:13 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 04-01-2010 9:32 PM nwr has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 3 of 165 (553202)
04-01-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
04-01-2010 4:31 PM


I have not seen any evidence of a political bias, nor any evidence that political leanings are even considered in the hiring practices.
But does the fish see the water in which it swims?
One method of checking for potential bias is a simple poll to find out how many university professors are Republicans and how many are Democrats. You should be able to find the figures on the web.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 04-01-2010 4:31 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2010 9:38 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 04-01-2010 9:48 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 10:26 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 19 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2010 9:40 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4 of 165 (553203)
04-01-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
04-01-2010 9:32 PM


One method of checking for potential bias is a simple poll to find out how many university professors are Republicans and how many are Democrats. You should be able to find the figures on the web.
How does this show bias?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 04-01-2010 9:32 PM Coyote has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 165 (553205)
04-01-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
04-01-2010 9:32 PM


Coyote writes:
One method of checking for potential bias is a simple poll to find out how many university professors are Republicans and how many are Democrats.
That would show trends, but would not give evidence of whether there is a hiring bias involved.
In any case, my guess would be that many professors would say that they are independents.
The proportion of Republicans would be higher in the business school faculty than in the liberal arts and sciences faculty. The economic departments would probably have more libertarians than other departments. The sociology department might have more socialists than other departments.
If you were to poll the farmers, you would probably find far more Republicans than Democrats. But nobody is accusing the corn fields of being biased in how they select who is to farm them.
If there are less conservatives on the university faculty, then part of the reason is that most conservatives are not choosing that kind of occupation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 04-01-2010 9:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 04-01-2010 10:34 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 165 (553212)
04-01-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
04-01-2010 9:48 PM


The economic departments would probably have more libertarians than other departments. The sociology department might have more socialists than other departments.
The economics departments generally have a higher number of Marxists.
As for sociology? I avoided it totally during over 12 years of college.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 04-01-2010 9:48 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 165 (553246)
04-02-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
04-01-2010 4:13 PM


From what I see Democrats endure the same attacks as Republicans do in most media outlets. I'd like some examples anti-rightist bias.
There is bias from both sides. Dan Rather, Chris Matthews and Katie Couric, being some examples on the left, Charlie Rose, Gretchen Carlson, and Chris Wallace being more obvious examples on the right. Please note how I didn't include Keith Olbermann on the left and Sean Hannity on the right, as those are opinion columns, or parody skits like the Colbert Report.
Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will. ABC anchor Peter Jennings on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 04-01-2010 4:13 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DC85, posted 04-02-2010 4:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 17 by hooah212002, posted 04-02-2010 6:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 165 (553251)
04-02-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
04-01-2010 9:32 PM


But does the fish see the water in which it swims?
Great analogy.
"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’... New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column asking, Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
In other words, the columnist is wrestling with the notion that perhaps certain liberals tend to see liberal publications as being "normal reporting," and conservative publications as being conservative positions.
This, of course, goes both ways. O'Reilly presents the O'Reilly Factor as being "The No Spin Zone," and FNC in general as being "Fair and Balanced," even though the overwhelming majority of viewpoints are identifiably conservative in nature.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 04-01-2010 9:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 10:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 165 (553255)
04-02-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
04-02-2010 10:26 AM


...even though the overwhelming majority of viewpoints are identifiably conservative in nature.
As opposed to what?
Neutral? Or liberal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 10:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 11:29 AM Coyote has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 165 (553266)
04-02-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
04-02-2010 10:35 AM


As opposed to what?
Neutral? Or liberal?
It depends on the program. I believe that on things like the nightly news of the four major networks, should strive for neutrality. Neutrality in reporting means just presenting the facts without injecting a spin.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 10:35 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 12:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 165 (553272)
04-02-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hyroglyphx
04-02-2010 11:29 AM


I believe that on things like the nightly news of the four major networks, should strive for neutrality. Neutrality in reporting means just presenting the facts without injecting a spin.
A worthy goal. But the three major networks have abandoned that goal in favor of the liberal side of things.
Don't forget, in many polls about 50% of people questioned say they are conservative, while only about 30% say they are liberal.
Perhaps Fox just provides some necessary balance. Otherwise, all the networks would be the same and that's not very good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by onifre, posted 04-02-2010 1:36 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 2:13 PM Coyote has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 12 of 165 (553280)
04-02-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
04-02-2010 12:33 PM


Perhaps Fox just provides some necessary balance. Otherwise, all the networks would be the same and that's not very good.
It's all garbage from "both" sides. I put 'both' in quotes because ALL news networks are one entity jockeying for a particular market.
It's not so much about right leaning or left leaning, it's about demographic and what the networks feel the opinion of their viewers are. Commercials provide the perfect proof. Watch the commercial spots on MTV, Comedy Central then Fox News. Not only is the news they get catered specifically to their assumed view points, the commercials target their assumed interests.
Networks don't give a shit about right leaning and left leaning, they care about who's watching and try to guage what their opinions on issues may be. They then focus on bringing those stories to gain viewers.
The media isn't "left" or "right", it's just a business using the tools of marketing to gain a big enough viewing audience for advertisers.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 12:33 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2010 2:41 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 16 by Taq, posted 04-02-2010 5:49 PM onifre has replied
 Message 20 by mick, posted 04-04-2010 2:20 AM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 165 (553283)
04-02-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
04-02-2010 12:33 PM


A worthy goal. But the three major networks have abandoned that goal in favor of the liberal side of things.
I won't argue that point, whatsoever.
Don't forget, in many polls about 50% of people questioned say they are conservative, while only about 30% say they are liberal.
Or this point.
Perhaps Fox just provides some necessary balance. Otherwise, all the networks would be the same and that's not very good.
I just think it is in the best interest of all them to take a centrist view, except on opinion columns. But as Oni stated, and I don't disagree, the main focus is that they all are operating a business and the primary goal is to target as wide an audience as possible. The secondary goal, is to indoctrinate.
Case in point, FOX does not mind featuring the "Family Guy," a blatantly leftist show (hilarious, nonetheless) because it has fantastic ratings.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 12:33 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 14 of 165 (553288)
04-02-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by onifre
04-02-2010 1:36 PM


What Oni said. When a given news network seems "left" or "right," this is a function of two things:
1) your own leanings relative to the network itself. If you're relatively liberal, you'll notice conservative slants more easily, and vice versa.
2) the network's desire to fill a niche in the market. FOX has the hardcore right wing pretty well covered, so MSNBC gets Olberman to try to capture that segment.
The goal of the media is never to inform us objectively of the world around us. That's an incidental side effect. Their incentive is ratings and profit - which means they hype up emotionally reactive stories far beyond their significance, and generally do anything and everything to get you to watch their advertisers more than the other guys. If a story is interesting enough that it doesn't require any slanting to make it interesting and emotionally significant (natural disasters are a good example), you're likely to get at least some objective fact, but once the initial impact wears off and the 24-hour networks start inviting guests to offer up opinions, it's back to entertainment.
They'll outright lie. They'll cheat. They'll distort. They'll cry on camera, scream and yell and carry on, anything to keep you interested and watching, whether you're in full agreement or just because it's like a train wreck and you can't look away.
I tend to get my news from NPR, particularly the BBC broadcasts. It's relatively clear even in their reporting styles that they're at least trying to remain objective. But the big American networks collectively are about as effective as an objective news source as The Daily Show. Just less funny. And at least Jon Stewart never pretends that he's anything other than a comedian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by onifre, posted 04-02-2010 1:36 PM onifre has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 15 of 165 (553298)
04-02-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hyroglyphx
04-02-2010 9:53 AM


here is bias from both sides. Dan Rather, Chris Matthews and Katie Couric,
I must admit I don't see with these. Besides Chris Matthews is also an Opinion column and he often pisses liberals off in it. MSNBC in general isn't a news source they are a Entertainment network. "The Place for politics."
I would argue however they aren't pushing a Liberal Agenda either just an anti-republican one. MSNBC has distortion that is pushing an entertainment agenda for certain sponsors.
As for Katie Couric I still can't see the "bias" in her interviews she asks questions potentially hard ones and let's the responses happen that's what an interview is. Bill O'Riley and Ed Schultz on the other hand talk over and attempt sway the interview. It could just be me.
My conclusion
Fox is pushing a corporate agenda and MSNBC an Entertainment one for the sake of sponsors.
As for CNN well.... They just report whatever is popular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-02-2010 9:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024