[BlackGriffen]

Oh, in case you wanted to read all those words around the picture, there ya go.

There's the data, what do you make of it?

Is it genuine bias? Or is the the symptom of marketing/viewership driven 'news' programs?

Also, where's the 'liberal' media, hmm? If there is a "media conspiracy" the majority of it looks conservative/Republican to me. But, then I don't buy that theory, I go for number two of the flaws presented above.

BlackGriffen

[Nicko]

well NPR/PBS is publicly funded no? They don't need to care about ratings ect, so they can concentrate on the truth. Makes perfect sense.

[macvillage.net]

I'm sure Fox's Legal department will be looking for a legal loophole to get that removed.

Someone posted a similar piece not to long ago from another paper (here or another forum)... which did remove it after a few networks threatened legal action.


I'm personally not to suprised. I've said all along that Fox News is a pretty bias network. It distorts the news quite a bit. If you don't change the station frequently enough, you would easily think that every Black person is out to kill you, all Muslim's are terrorists, Asians are commiting economic terrorism by taking our jobs overseas... bla bla bla.

They intentionally let headlines go for hours after the story is resolved.

The night before the war in Iraq kicked off, they said for hours that Bush and Blair were going to speak. That speach was canceled, or mis-announced. They kept the annoucement up as "Bush to speak soon", for the ongest time. Other networks, changed the notice quickly. Several times Fox News said SCUDS were fired out of Iraq, and it was false.

To many mistakes for them to be "accidental". They are just playing the ratings game a bit to much.

If there are seriously this many mistakes... they have serious staffing problems, and need to get better people working the newsrooms. For some reason, I think the employees are more than capable of doing the job.


I'm suprised to see CNN that low though. They did the complete opposite. Rather than report a rumor or intial report as "confirmed"... they ignored stuff until they had everything... leaving people in the dark for some time. While other networks were developing the story, CNN didn't say anything. IMHO that's also bad. It's like showing the weather forcast 3 days after it was made... not to helpful when getting dressed in the morning.


I would think Print Media would be the least bias... since that includes multiple sources, different slants, etc. Not one organization.


I'm guessing NPR is based on the 7 people that listen to it.


NPR does need public approval... since they need public money. When the public doesn't like what they see.. they don't pay.

That's why PBS has been very conservative in programming over the years. That's where the most cash is.

[Glennfield]

Here's the source of the study if you want to read the original report. I'm no statistician, but the report looks pretty damning.

[osiris]

The Fox propaganda network:

Fair and balanced = conservative AND republican sides of the story.

shame shame shame for those with no brain.

[zigzag]

There might be a chicken-egg thing going on there. People gravitate towards media outlets that already reflect their values. People who support the administration are (a) more likely to accept its rhetoric at face value and (b) watch Fox. So it's unclear whether they have those misperceptions because they're predisposed to believe the administration or because they watch Fox. Probably some of each.

One could probably quibble with the phrasing of the questions as well.

Bernard Lewis, the conservative Middle East scholar, was asked last year about media coverage of the Middle East in the U.S. He said that NPR had the only worthwhile and balanced coverage.

[spacefreak]

K0nally posted by zigzag:
There might be a chicken-egg thing going on there. People gravitate towards media outlets that already reflect their values. People who support the administration are (a) more likely to accept its rhetoric at face value and (b) watch Fox. So it's unclear whether they have those misperceptions because they're predisposed to believe the administration or because they watch Fox. Probably some of each.[/QUOTE]Good analysis. Throw in a bit of "think WMD will be found" too.

It would be interesting to see how far off from the pack Fox would be if the Iraq-al Qaeda question was removed. If I would raise an issue, it would be with the survey questions associated with this.

One could probably quibble with the phrasing of the questions as well.

"Please just indicate your impression, whether or not you feel confident that it is correct."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Also, where's the 'liberal' media, hmm? If there is a "media conspiracy" the majority of it looks conservative/Republican to me. But, then I don't buy that theory, I go for number two of the flaws presented above.

BlackGriffen

I don't think Fox is claiming that we've found WMD, or that Saddam supported the 9/11 attacks, or that the people of the world were behind the US. I'll occasionally watch Fox news (w/Shep Smith), and I've never gotten any of those impressions, or heard anything of the sort.

I did read some the Kay report, however, and its undeniable that a WMD program existed, and that Iraq was hiding it. It's a shame that no one in the press is talking about that.

If you want to read abour the perceptions of liberal media bias, Gallup just released a new poll...It's interesting if you enjoy analyzing this stuff.

Gallup Poll: Are the News Media Too Liberal? 45% of Americans say yes

[icruise]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If you want to read abour the perceptions of liberal media bias, Gallup just released a new poll...It's interesting if you enjoy analyzing this stuff.

Gallup Poll: Are the News Media Too Liberal? 45% of Americans say yes

I think you would have a VERY hard time actually proving that there is any kind of liberal bias in the media at large. However, the perception of bias seems to exist in the minds of many Republicans/conservatives, fueled largely by people like Rush "if you say it enough times, it becomes true" Limbaugh. I really believe that the biggest bias that exists in most new organizations is the desire to print sensational stories. When these happen to be about Republicans, suddenly it's evidence of a "liberal bias."

[Nicko]

Since when is it bad to be a liberal?

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think you would have a VERY hard time actually proving that there is any kind of liberal bias in the media at large. However, the perception of bias seems to exist in the minds of many Republicans/conservatives, fueled largely by people like Rush "if you say it enough times, it becomes true" Limbaugh. I really believe that the biggest bias that exists in most new organizations is the desire to print sensational stories. When these happen to be about Republicans, suddenly it's evidence of a "liberal bias."

Well, we just saw it on Thursday with the L.A. Time's, whose own managing editor sent an internal memo some time back urging staffers to be careful as it was being percieved as too liberal. it's also come out that the davis camp knew about the story and that it was possibly even held until thursday. just another example, one in a long line.

four in ten identify themselves as conservative, another four as moderate, and 2 in 10 as liberal. sadly, (and i say this as a journalist) most staffers at media outlets do not mirror this trend .


oh, and this whole graph is hogwash. i agree with zigzag's post.

[lemondrop]

Originally posted by Nicko:
well NPR/PBS is publicly funded no? They don't need to care about ratings ect, so they can concentrate on the truth. Makes perfect sense.

The News Hour is heavily funded by ADM. In How to Overthrow the Government, Arianna gives specifics about The NewsHour ignoring a story since ADM was involved. If you watch the show 7 PM PST on PBS you see a few ADM ads. I looked through the book but can't find the page. 317 pages..
But::

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=289:
HUFFINGTON: I am very troubled by that because it not just what is covered, but what is not covered that is problematic. I know, for example, although this does not involve media ownership, that when Archer Daniels Midland had some of their executives convicted of price fixing in Chicago, it was very hard to get this covered on any of the political news shows, because ADM supports so many of them, including National Public Radio. I wrote a column about it at the time. So, I think the connection between ownership and money going to certain shows is very complex. And it's not just ownership. Influence can also be exerted through advertising or through sponsorship.

Also in Portland OPB Makes tons of money for capturing shows for the major networks on one inch tape.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Nicko:
well NPR/PBS is publicly funded no? They don't need to care about ratings ect, so they can concentrate on the truth. Makes perfect sense.

There is no truth in media. All of it -even the publicly-funded stuff- is biased one way or another; the only difference is in direction. This is nothing more than a natural consequence of the fact that reporters are human; as non-omniscient beings, we're limited to only being able to speak from our own points of view. We can sometimes pretend to hold a different viewpoint, but really all we're doing is casting a different color onto ourselves and hoping that it's a semi-plausible approximation.

This poll is, however, quite interesting. The article lists the three misperceptions which they were looking for, and yet none of these media outlets -not even FOX News- ever actually said any of this. It leads one to wonder, whence do these misperceptions come?

[lemondrop]

Page 120
Please forgive errors. It's bedtime. Doing this by hand.

AF in HTOTG:
And by allocating so many of their resources to covering the scandal du jour, the press is in danger of asphyxiating any story that didn't have it's start in an after-hours office hallway or cheap motel room. For instance, while obbesivly covering every lucid detail of the Lewinsky affair, reporters all but overlooked the 1998 conviction of three executives of ADM-Incliding Micheal Andreas, the son of ADM chairman and political kingmaker Dwayne Andreas. The verdictmarked the end of a three-year FBI government investigationb into AMD's global price-fixing schemes.

What made this story particulary important is the fact that Dwayne Andreas is a master manipulator of our political system. When he's not busy feeding the world, Andreas keeps the campaign finance trough brimming for any peckish poliyician who cares to stop by.

ADM had "no comment" on the verdict, but that was hardly surprising. What was surprising, and dispiriting, was the media had almost no comment either. An analysis of media coverage since the end of the trial reveals only brief mentions of the case by Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer-whose show has recieved more than 30 million from ADM.

Even PBS Is bought. It is still my favorite channel. I watch the NewsHour nightly.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by zigzag:
There might be a chicken-egg thing going on there. People gravitate towards media outlets that already reflect their values. People who support the administration are (a) more likely to accept its rhetoric at face value and (b) watch Fox. So it's unclear whether they have those misperceptions because they're predisposed to believe the administration or because they watch Fox. Probably some of each.

But then it would also show that FoxNews did nothing to change these misconceptions, meaning they probably did not try to inform and educate. But that would not be a surprise to anybody really...

villa

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by zigzag:
There might be a chicken-egg thing going on there. People gravitate towards media outlets that already reflect their values. People who support the administration are (a) more likely to accept its rhetoric at face value and (b) watch Fox. So it's unclear whether they have those misperceptions because they're predisposed to believe the administration or because they watch Fox. Probably some of each.

One could probably quibble with the phrasing of the questions as well.

Bernard Lewis, the conservative Middle East scholar, was asked last year about media coverage of the Middle East in the U.S. He said that NPR had the only worthwhile and balanced coverage.

Most (not all) people watch the news station that shows what they want to see.

That's why some networks do what they do... because it gets ratings.

Fox has been accused by the industry since the beginning of taking this far (dethroning CNN, the previous record holder, and still contender).

They do what sells ads.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
There might be a chicken-egg thing going on there. People gravitate towards media outlets that already reflect their values. People who support the administration are (a) more likely to accept its rhetoric at face value and (b) watch Fox. So it's unclear whether they have those misperceptions because they're predisposed to believe the administration or because they watch Fox. Probably some of each.

One could probably quibble with the phrasing of the questions as well.

Bernard Lewis, the conservative Middle East scholar, was asked last year about media coverage of the Middle East in the U.S. He said that NPR had the only worthwhile and balanced coverage.

yep. excellent point.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by villalobos:
But then it would also show that FoxNews did nothing to change these misconceptions, meaning they probably did not try to inform and educate. But that would not be a surprise to anybody really...

What's NPR doing to change the misperceptions of 25% of their listeners? CBS and the 70% of their viewers? CNN and 55% of their viewers?

I find it ironic that with all of these outlets having a sizable audience with misperceptions (again - I challenge the Iraq-Al Qaeda part), you only direct your attack at FoxNews.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There is no truth in media. All of it -even the publicly-funded stuff- is biased one way or another; the only difference is in direction. This is nothing more than a natural consequence of the fact that reporters are human; as non-omniscient beings, we're limited to only being able to speak from our own points of view. We can sometimes pretend to hold a different viewpoint, but really all we're doing is casting a different color onto ourselves and hoping that it's a semi-plausible approximation.

This poll is, however, quite interesting. The article lists the three misperceptions which they were looking for, and yet none of these media outlets -not even FOX News- ever actually said any of this. It leads one to wonder, whence do these misperceptions come?

You are right ofcourse

Who to believe? A company that reports the news for the purpose of entertainment and ratings? Or a company who reports the news with the goal to keep people as accurately informed as possible?

Its a question of motivation. Do they want accuracy? or thrills and ratings?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by villalobos:
But then it would also show that FoxNews did nothing to change these misconceptions, meaning they probably did not try to inform and educate. But that would not be a surprise to anybody really...

villa

I agree - I didn't mean to defend Fox, I just wanted to identify other variables that might be at work. Fox tends to reinforce the administration's point of view, but it's possible that Fox viewers would be biased in favor of the administration whether they watched Fox or not. If you got Fox viewers to watch PBS, I'm not sure it would change their views - most likely they would just throw stuff at the TV and yell "Those biased liberal bastards!" I've seen it happen.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What's NPR doing to change the misperceptions of 25% of their listeners? CBS and the 70% of their viewers? CNN and 55% of their viewers?

I find it ironic that with all of these outlets having a sizable audience with misperceptions (again - I challenge the Iraq-Al Qaeda part), you only direct your attack at FoxNews.

If school A has an 80% failure rate and school B a 23% failure rate, I'd certainly focus more attention on school A. But I agree that one should also wonder what's going on at, say, CBS.

That's one reason I posed the question: are the media outlets causing the misperceptions, or is it the pre-existing biases of the viewers? Probably some of each. I should read the whole study before saying any more about it.

[clarkgoble]

I think the problem is that Fox has few news shows. Almost their entire line up is "analysis" framed in a debate style. Further most of the "analysis" was guesses about the future rather than a real analysis of the past.

They use this to cop out of the bias charges. They point out that they are analysis and not simply news reports and that there news reports aren't biased. The problem is that their news reports are short and superficial and focus only on breaking news. Further they don't have news shows during the peak hours when people watch after work!

[Nicko]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:

They use this to cop out of the bias charges. They point out that they are analysis and not simply news reports and that there news reports aren't biased. The problem is that their news reports are short and superficial and focus only on breaking news. Further they don't have news shows during the peak hours when people watch after work!

Yea they say.... "Its just our opinion!'.... so is that really news?