OT: The media bias

[Dutch]

Example: anti-Bush bias.

War on Terror Like WWII Mission, Bush Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_nm/bush_dc_8

48 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By David Morgan

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday compared his war on terror to America's mission in World War II while calling for a new era of reform to avoid the emergence of "terrorist-controlled states" in the oil-rich Middle East.

Example: pro-Bush bias.
TBD

[EagleFan]

It seems that the media would rather us have this guy...
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738

[EagleFan]

Or...
http://365news.tripod.com/247/060204d113.html

[EagleFan]

double dola: Sorry, not wanting to thread-jack, just having a little fun with some of the stories that I found.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Example: anti-Bush bias.

War on Terror Like WWII Mission, Bush Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_nm/bush_dc_8

48 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By David Morgan

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday compared his war on terror to America's mission in World War II while calling for a new era of reform to avoid the emergence of "terrorist-controlled states" in the oil-rich Middle East.

Example: pro-Bush bias.
TBD

I get irked when I hear reporters/anchors say things like "the Administration's war in Iraq". I mean they should at least try to hide their bias a little. I also got a kick out of an AP story that was on Fox News a few days ago. The article was explaining Trent Lott's stance on the Prisoner Abuse Scandal...in a nutshell...what went on was over the line and far too widespread, but really some level of psychological manipulation is simply part of the interrogation process. That little bit isnt' why I am posting about it in this thread. The last line, it's own paragraph actually, read something like. paraphrase-->"Lott was formerly the Majority Leader of the Senate, and was forced to resign for making statements applauding the segregationalist run for president by Stromm Thurmond." Now that is certainly taking what Lott said in the least favorable light.

[Dutch]

Bush Skips Eisenhower 'Crusade' Reference
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...bush_crusade_1

2 hours, 10 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. - President Bush (news - web sites) deleted word "crusade" — considered an inflammatory reference by Muslims — on Wednesday as he recalled Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's message to allied troops before the D-Day invasion at Normandy, France, 60 years ago.

Here's another one. Perhaps Bush skipped the line mentioning the 'Great Crusade' because it is inflammatory. So, just to help "Bush's War on Terror", the media fills in the blanks so to be sure nobody misses what he was trying to avoid. Thanks a lot.

[BishopMVP]

Hey look, it's 4 gun battles, 2 mortar rounds and a car bombing across a country the size of California, or as CBS calls it - Violence Across Iraq. hxxp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

[Mac Howard]

The media's priorities are, in no particular order, sensation, bad news and political agenda. I make that accusation of both left and right. Balanced reporting (I just love Fox News' claim of "fair and balanced reporting" ) is way down the list.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The media's priorities are, in no particular order, sensation, bad news and political agenda. I make that accusation of both left and right. Balanced reporting (I just love Fox News' claim of "fair and balanced reporting" ) is way down the list.

You left out their number one priority, which is making money. Sensationalism and giving the bad news first ("if it bleeds, it leads") are a symptom of that first priority

[Dutch]

Funny how everybody mentions Fox News. Maybe we should do our own study. First we name as many media outlets that widely disseminate news.

I can think of AP, Reuters, AFP, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times.

Those are the big ones that I can think of. We love to bash Fox News for leaning right. Some argue that the Washington Post leans right. Where do the rest fall? I personally have complained about AP, Reuters, AFP, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, LA Times and New York Times. I don't listen or read enough about MSNBC and the Chicago Tribune.

[BishopMVP]

Some results from a recent survey of national journalists (hxxp://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey_prc2.asp) that are interesting - 8.5% think the news media has been too critical of Bush, 35% say it's been fair and 55% say it hasn't been critical enough. The Press "being too cynical as a valid criticism" has gone from 53-45% saying it was valid in 1999 to 37-63 in 2004. When asked whether they could think of a national news media organization that was especially conservative 82% said yes, with 69% naming FoxNews. When asked about any national news media being especially liberal, only 38% answered yes, with 20% answering the NYT and, surprisingly, the WaPo the only other one higher than 2%, with 4%.

And of course, while the public self-describes itself as 33% Conservative and 20% Liberal, National journalists self-describe themselves as 34% Liberal, 7% Conservative. What liberal media?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Some results from a recent survey of national journalists

...

What liberal media?

Good strategy asking the journalists if they are biased.

[MrBug708]

People take the LA Times seriously?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

People take the LA Times seriously?

People take the media seriously?

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Funny how everybody mentions Fox News.

I think this is because they try to make such a point of letting eveybody know how 'balanced' they are when this is clearly not the case. I think you would probably get the same kind of reaction if CNN were to do the same.

[wade moore]

I think that it is funny that to many the "biased media" merely means "liberally biased media". While I will grant that in my opinion there are more mainstream media outlets that bias towards liberal, but they are all terribly biased. As someone stated, the "fair and balanced" Fox News is just as biased, it is just biased right instead of left.

It's all biased, not just the leftists...

[Mac Howard]

The left wing media doesn't escape criticism. In fact the Director General of the BBC, the Chairman of the BBC (I think it was the chairman) and the editor of Britain's best selling left wing newspaper have all lost their jobs over misrepresentations of Iraqi stories from a "left wing" point of view

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ice4277

I think this is because they try to make such a point of letting eveybody know how 'balanced' they are when this is clearly not the case. I think you would probably get the same kind of reaction if CNN were to do the same.

I did not suggest that right-leaning press be censored in this thread. I encourage us all to throw examples out there from both sides.

This one might be considered "Right leaning" because it's got a positive headline that doesn't use the word "lackey" or "puppet" in it's headline describing the interim Iraqi government. However, the ENTIRE article has nothing to do with this top Iraqi cleric. The entire content of the article is about death and violence. So why did they name it like this? The overall mission remains the same, make the War on Terror look bad, hurt President Bush.

Cleric Endorses New Iraqi Government

40 minutes ago

By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer

NAJAF, Iraq - Fighting broke out Thursday in nearby Kufa between U.S. soldiers and Shiite militiamen — the eighth straight day of clashes since a deal last week to end the violence. The country's most influential Shiite cleric, meanwhile, tacitly endorsed Iraq (news - web sites)'s new interim government.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq&e=3&ncid=

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Dutch

...The overall mission remains the same, make the War on Terror look bad, hurt President Bush.

I agree with the first portion of your statement, in that the media prefers to publish the bad news on the war in Iraq. I also think 95% of the content would be the same even if say President Clinton were in office. Bad news is more sensational than good news, so it gets the coverage. It is the little jibes and sometimes not so hidden editorial comentary in the news that reveals a bias.

Regarding Fox News. I honestly think a good deal of their coverage is 'fair and balanced'. To me they present the same stories as CNN and MSNBC, and quite often they take the 'spin' out of the stories on the other sites. Then again there are times when I see their 'spin' applied to a story or headline, and wonder to myself "How in the Hell do they consider that balanced." If it means anything I think a some of CNN's coverage is balanced as well. It is just that little bit that taints so much of it. In short I think CNN's bias is more pervasive, but that Fox's tends to be more aggregious.

[Dutch]

I consider FoxNews the only one that puts a positive spin on things George Bush does. It's obviously a bias for the President. But what doesn't fly is that if sensationalizing bad news, ignoring good news, and fabricating "black helicopter" theories on everything is so successful, how is FoxNews grabbing all the increases in market shares by airing so much "good news"?

I think the myth is being tested by FoxNews as we speak. That's why I like watching them.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I consider FoxNews the only one that puts a positive spin on things George Bush does. It's obviously a bias for the President. But what doesn't fly is that if sensationalizing bad news, ignoring good news, and fabricating "black helicopter" theories on everything is so successful, how is FoxNews grabbing all the increases in market shares by airing so much "good news"?

I think the myth is being tested by FoxNews as we speak. That's why I like watching them.

also consider that, generally speaking, people will choose their news stations based on their ideologies. liberals have a plethora from which to choose, including CNN, the national networks, their local news, etc etc; conservatives, on the other hand, have but one source, FNC.

so it could be argued the liberal viewership is split amongst several channels, resulting in no one channel getting splendid ratings, and the conservative viewership pretty much all flock to FNC, resulting in the 'success' you see at Fox.

[sabotai]

Market share increases? That's a good way to show how people put spin on things, Dutch.

The big 3 news stations, FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC are all down in viewership (there was a spike for the war, so obviously it would go down). Both CNN and MSNBC have seen their audience cut in half, while FoxNews has dropped a third. It doesn't take a genius to see how FoxNews has lost viewership but still gained market share. The O'Reilly Factor is the top program of all three stations, and I'd hardly call his show objective or positive.

Source: hxxp://www.washtimes.com/national/20040331-105342-8640r.htm

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Also remember, those "great" ratings for the cable news networks at their best only add up to a 6.0 or so...still less than half of network television and even lower than wrestling was doing at its peak. :-)

So, the 24 hour news channels are a niche for news junkies or for channel surfers who flip on to get the news quick if they missed Dan Rather earlier in the night.
- Jesse

[Dutch]

Iraqis Paying 5 Cents a Gallon for Gas

Sat Jun 5,10:46 PM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!


By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While Americans are shelling out record prices for fuel, Iraqis pay only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline — a benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars subsidies bankrolled by American taxpayers.
...
Analysts say there never was a good case — either before the war or afterward — that a U.S. invasion would pay dividends in cheap oil.

"Some of the neo-conservatives might've been saying that, but no energy analysts were walking around saying that," Cordesman said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...aq_cheap_gas_4

FWIW: It was the opponents of President Bush that were saying the Iraq War was all about the stealing of middle eastern oil, It was the allied base that was saying the war was going to be long, hard work, and expensive.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Example: anti-Bush bias.

War on Terror Like WWII Mission, Bush Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_nm/bush_dc_8

48 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By David Morgan

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday compared his war on terror to America's mission in World War II while calling for a new era of reform to avoid the emergence of "terrorist-controlled states" in the oil-rich Middle East.

Example: pro-Bush bias.
TBD

Dutch, I'm not interested enough in this topic to bother, but frankly, it is the height of hilarity for Bush to even think there are similarities between our Splendid Little Preemptive War in Iraq and our participation in World War II. Unless, of course, Bush is assuming that we'll take the role of Nazi Germany in the Iraq war (premeditated attack based on a pretext).

[JPhillips]

Dutch: A number of admin officials said that reconstruction could be paid for through oil revenues.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: A number of admin officials said that reconstruction could be paid for through oil revenues.

Yes the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for by selling Iraqi oil on the open market. That is exactly what was said. That is NOT what the article claimed.


Wussgawd,

I do agree with you that it would be presumptuous for the President to compare the War in Iraq to World War Two. I don't think he did. I think he compared the soldiers fighting in the war on terror to the soldiers that served in WWII. In that regard, I agree wholeheartedly with his position. Those men and women are putting it all on the line, and I think it is in poor taste to denigrate what they are fighting for.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Dutch, I'm not interested enough in this topic to bother, but frankly, it is the height of hilarity for Bush to even think there are similarities between our Splendid Little Preemptive War in Iraq and our participation in World War II. Unless, of course, Bush is assuming that we'll take the role of Nazi Germany in the Iraq war (premeditated attack based on a pretext).

I would suggest that the big difference is that Bush/Bush Jr. intervened before Hussein had the ability to place himself in history with Hitler.

Thank God for that, at least.

The squabbling over pre-emptive vs. reaction is certainly eerily similar.

Still waiting for that pro-Bush article from a major media source that reaks of bias.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would suggest that the big difference is that Bush/Bush Jr. intervened before Hussein had the ability to place himself in history with Hitler.

Thank God for that, at least.

The squabbling over pre-emptive vs. reaction is certainly eerily similar.

Still waiting for that pro-Bush article from a major media source that reaks of bias.

Dial up Fox News or Rush. I'm sure you'll find one within 5 minutes...and don't deny that Fox News is a major media source at this point.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Hussein had NO ability to be Hitler. We tend to forget that Hitler had one of the most industrialized countries and one of the largest and most advanced armies in the world. If Hitler had Hussein's country and army their would have been no World War II.

[Dutch]

In the Nuclear Age, you don't need 50,000 Panzer Tanks to ravage an enemy's civilian population. You simply need Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear Weapons.

The UN stated that Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Program would have had a nuclear capable bomb by the year 1993 had the US and the coalition not gone in and fought Iraq in 1991.

Don't worry, it's easy to forget when the media forgets.

Here's another question.

We see Abu Graib prison plastered in every headline. But the only headlines involving the Army or the Marines involves their death. So.....

Should the media be telling us stories of military victories or positive things happening in Iraq. We call them brave. But why? Shouldn't the stories behind this bravery be getting any air time? Is nobody interested in the good things our soldiers are doing?

[ice4277]

Like people have mentioned earlier, part of the problem with this is the media mentality in general: "If it bleeds, it leads". The same reason murder gets so much coverage on the nightly news is a big part of the reason the bad stuff gets so much attention. Not to say that there is no bias, because there definitely is, but I think it is less of a conspiracy than you are making it out to be. Moreso, it is just the current journalistic mentality.

[Driftwood]

The media gives us what we want. Period.

Most of the people who listen to the radio to get their news are conservative.

Most of the people who watch Dateline are liberal.

Supply and demand. Period.

[Dutch]

We have also mentioned that of all the major news media outlets, FoxNews has been doing the best in the last 5 years or so.....by precicely NOT focusing on what has traditionally been the "money winner" in news. Usually, trends are followed, and mimicked, yet, we haven't seen anybody mimick Fox News yet. Not one channel. And the main reason that is most plausible to date is the media bias.

I'm still waiting for that news media slant that is in favor of the right from a major media source. I know there has got to be a least one story that has crossed our internet reading lately that is slanted right but attempted to be written as unbiased, centered news.

[sabotai]

FoxNews has been doing the best in the last 5 years or so.....

2 years, actually...

by precicely NOT focusing on what has traditionally been the "money winner" in news.

And yes they have.

[Dutch]

Sabotai,

Are you suggesting that FoxNews is not only positive but also negative? Next you are going to tell me they are Fair and Balanced?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sabotai,

Are you suggesting that FoxNews is not only positive but also negative?

They put a "positive" spin on the things they agree with, and a "negative" spin on the things they don't agree with. Just like CNN. They are the bizarro CNN.

I wouldn't say the reason CNN is #2 and FoxNes is #1 is because FoxNews puts a positive light on things and CNN is all negative as you suggest, but I will say I think the reason is because CNN is, simply put, BORING! Holy shit, I can not sit through 1 minute of their programming without wanting to jump on the floor and squirm like little kids do when they can't wait for their situation to change anymore.

And when the people on FoxNews start mudslinging at each other, at least they ATTEMPT to hide their total ad hom arguments and their retarded insults. I attempt to watch that show Crossfire, and all I hear is "You're pathetic. That's pathetic." "That's just stupid." OMG! Can you people have a debate without just throwing insults? What is this, the .400 forum! Come on!

I saw something other day where the one guy went on for a minute, and instead of the other guy even attempting to discuss and counter the things the first guy said, he just went into his "That's just whining. It's pathetic" rant. Ugh. HORRIBLE! (And Larry King's show is incredibly boring)

The reason FoxNews is on top is even though it's as negative as CNN, as bias as CNN and everything they say is just as pointless as CNN...they do it in an entertaining way. CNN does not.

Jon Stewert puts a huge liberal spin on the stuff he covers on the Daily Show, and his ratings beat the snot out of anyone on FoxNews.

[Dutch]

They put a "positive" spin on the things they agree with, and a "negative" spin on the things they don't agree with. Just like CNN. They are the bizarro CNN.

Think Fast! Name ONE thing CNN is positive about.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Driftwood

The media gives us what we want. Period.

Most of the people who listen to the radio to get their news are conservative.

Most of the people who watch Dateline are liberal.

Supply and demand. Period.

So true.

[Dutch]

Not really.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Think Fast! Name ONE thing CNN is positive about.

Okay, times up! Now your researching...not fair. (and yes, 6 minutes was plenty of time)

Anyway, where was the grossly pro-Bush article or pro-War article to show that the media bias was simply a farse?

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Let's give Hussein the benefit of being able to deliver a nuke. That's terrible, but the damage from one Hiroshima sized nuke pales in comparison to the damage reaped by Hitler's war machine. And Hussein would only get one chance. Our military could have easily deposed Saddam at any point over the past twenty years. Now I'm not arguing that Saddam was a nice guy or even that we shouldn't have gone to war, but spare me the WWII comparisons they have no basis in fact.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: I've seen any number of positive stories on CNN. They run them every day. Maybe its a new environmental program or a new school for women in Afghanistan or what have you. Your argument on that point is baseless.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Think Fast! Name ONE thing CNN is positive about.

...

Okay, times up! Now your researching...not fair. (and yes, 6 minutes was plenty of time)

Sorry Dutch, but I don't revolve my life around your thread and I just read both of these right now. Besides, I thought I just basically said I don't watch or read CNN, so how would I be able to just psychically answer this without going to CNN and looking for things?

You seem to have this idea that FoxNews is nothing but positive. Asking me to name one positive thing from FoxNews (which I said both CNN and FoxNews does) would offer me the same challenge. I don't read or watch either regularly enough to simply pull some recent thing out and say "This is positively spun". How oftan do you watch CNN?

Are you saying, then, that CNN does not spin things to put a positive light on liberals? All they do is put a negative spin on conservatives? No making liberals out to be good?

[Dutch]

The re-militarization of the Alsace-Lorraine wasn't the cause of 60 million dead. The illegal annexing of Austria did not in itself cause 60 million people to die, either. The invasion Poland did not lead to 60 million dead. I'd be willing to bet that one thing led to another and then 60 million people had to die because of it.

One nuclear bomb detonated in New York, then perhaps a week later in Los Angeles, then another in Chicago....what would you expect our government to do exactly with this happening?

What about a well placed nuke in Tel Aviv, then Jerusalem? What would you expect the Isreali's reaction would be?

I think the world gets off easy knowing Hussein is a two-bit punk rather than a two-bit punk that started world war III. Crazier, (and lesser) people have started world wars.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Sorry Dutch, but I don't revolve my life around your thread

Okay, but you had your chance....

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay, but you had your chance....

My chance to what? SHow you a positive story from CNN. Okay, let's see what the CNN website has to offer.

Well, here's the first story under "World": http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa....ap/index.html

Hey, renegades flee, the city is saved. That one looks like a positive one.

What's the first one under U.S.... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/0....ap/index.html

Hey look, our army is getting rid of dangerous, chemical weapons. The residents and groups are happy. Pretty positive there.

But I guess you'll find some way to just explain these as negative too...

[JPhillips]

Their reaction would be just what I said, they would invade and take out Saddam instantly. We toppled him quickly with a small force structure and limited invasion points. If Saddam nuked us we could count on help from NATO and no restrictions.

And actually, no lesser people have not started a World War. That demands an industrial and military base that Saddam didn't have. Our most extreme intelligence estimates didn't see Saddam as a threat even remotely comparable to Hitler. Saddam possibly could have killed a coule of hundred thousand people, maybe, but doubtfully, a million. That's it.

[Dutch]

The Iran-Iraq War in itself caused more than 1,000,000 casualties.

Also, the Archduke of Austria (Ferdinand) was assissinated by a Serbian which touched of the first world war.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sabotai

But I guess you'll find some way to just explain these as negative too...

I don't find any bias in either of those stories. So why not some about the troops on the frontlines of the war on terror?