[Jawbone54]

I know the average MacNN user leans more to the left. With that in mind, I want to know how many of you believe that the media is (or is not) slanted.

Conservatives are welcome to vote, as well, but I'm more interested in our liberal friends' opinions.

[Dakar V]

I'll also add I don't think there's some big grand conspiracy. It does seem like Fox News is clumsily overt about their bias, though.

[hyteckit]

Where's the conservative media bias poll?

[SpaceMonkey]

I voted "generally balanced." Polls show that the average journalist is more likely to be liberal than the average American, but I believe that mainstream journalists do their jobs to the best of their ability.

[Paco500]

I slant well to the left. And I think the media is biased towards the left. So is higher education. And science.

The Church has the right.

Unfortunately, a awful lot of people put more stock in what they hear in church than what they hear/read in the media or learn in school.

So it kind of balances out.

[hyteckit]

I heard blogs have a liberal bias.

I heard wikipedia have a liberal bias.

I heard facts have a liberal bias.

I heard science have a liberal bias.

[BRussell]

There isn't one media. With cable news and the internet especially, people can find whatever they want that makes them comfortable. It's possible to completely surround oneself with far-right Nazi skinhead black helicopter stuff, or the opposite on the left if you want. The days of the one or two big national Cronkite-type media leaders are over.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Where's the conservative media bias poll?

In an alternate universe.

Very few people on this earth actually argue that media leans towards the right. People usually believe that it either leans left or is perfectly balanced.

I think you're looking for the last option in the poll. [EDIT] Actually, next to last. My mistake.
I included an option for the utterly delusional.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

There isn't one media. With cable news and the internet especially, people can find whatever they want that makes them comfortable. It's possible to completely surround oneself with far-right Nazi skinhead black helicopter stuff, or the opposite on the left if you want. The days of the one or two big national Cronkite-type media leaders are over.

True (thanks to the Internet).

But where does the average American get his/her media coverage? CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, NPR, PBS.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

In an alternate universe.

Very few people on this earth actually argue that media leans towards the right. People usually believe that it either leans left or is perfectly balanced.

I think this is your own bias showing through. Liberals are at least as adamant that the media tilts towards the right - especially on military action and economic issues - as conservatives are in saying it tilts left. Look how much liberals blame the media for parroting the Bush administration on the Iraq war, for example.

[Eug]

Hmmm... I could have sworn this was a public poll, but it no longer seems to be.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think this is your own bias showing through. Liberals are at least as adamant that the media tilts towards the right - especially on military action and economic issues - as conservatives are in saying it tilts left.

I would disagree with that. Even though I am a bit on the left, I would say that the mainstream non-Fox newsites often lean a bit to the left too.

EDIT:

Yep, Dakar you're right. It's still public. Stupid me.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... I could have sworn this was a public poll, but it no longer seems to be.

Still is over here.

[paul w]

I honestly don't know how to vote. There very well may be bias - a LOT of which is in the eye of the beholder. Someone on the right is sensitive to left-wing bias and less sensitive to right-wing bias and vice versa. But we mix in a lot here -editorial stuff, opinion columns and talk shows, supposed unbiased journalism. As long as we're not yet governed by robots there will always all kinds of opportunities for intentional and unintended bias. As we all have different tolerances and perspectives, learn to cope with this by either:

*Choosing a source of media that either feels "unbiased" or whose bias is not offensive to you. Or better still -

*Diversify as much as possible and try to glean facts from commentary.

But above all - stop whining everyone. We have so much choice in media here that this shouldn't even be an issue (even if most of it is crap).

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think this is your own bias showing through. Liberals are at least as adamant that the media tilts towards the right - especially on military action and economic issues - as conservatives are in saying it tilts left. Look how much liberals blame the media for parroting the Bush administration on the Iraq war, for example.

Seriously?

I don't remember it that way at all (except when watching FOX News).

I remember always feeling baffled when people would scream over FOX being pro-right wing; FOX was simply a little bit more obvious with their bias.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I would disagree with that. Even though I am a bit on the left, I would say that the mainstream non-Fox newsites often lean a bit to the left too.

You're certainly allowed to believe that, just as I'm sure many conservatives don't really believe in the liberal media (here Eric Alterman lists the many times prominent conservatives have admitted that talking about the liberal media is just a ploy).

But there are quite a number of liberal organizations who devote a lot of time to documenting what they see as conservative media bias. Mediamatters, for example.

Here's what I always wonder: Let's say there's an issue that divides the left and the right. Is it the media's job to always present that issue right down the middle? Creationism is associated with the right wing, for example. Is the media showing a liberal bias if they tilt against creationism in talking about that issue?

More generally, let's say that one ideology is just factually wrong more often than the other (hypothetically speaking, of course ). If the media is doing their job, shouldn't they be "biased" towards one ideology?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Seriously?

I don't remember it that way at all (except when watching FOX News).

I remember always feeling baffled when people would scream over FOX being pro-right wing; FOX was simply a little bit more obvious with their bias.

Absolutely. All the liberal blogs are constantly complaining about the media bias towards Republicans. Not just Fox news, which is more of joke among liberals, but just the mainstream media in general.

[Eug]

I don't read liberal political blogs.
I don't read conservative political blogs either for that matter.

Well, not usually anyway.

[design219]

Journalism is a very competitive business, and journalist are notoriously independent. If one of their own gets off balance, then the rest will eat them alive. The idea that there is any kind of "group think" across competing news media is lunacy.

[hyteckit]

The "liberal media" argument will never die. Even when conservatives take over radio, newspaper, magazine, and TV, they'll still use the "liberal media" argument. They'll just accuse FOX being too liberal or conservative talk radio as being to liberal. Conservatives will just attack other conservatives as being too liberal.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by design219 

Journalism is a very competitive business, and journalist are notoriously independent. If one of their own gets off balance, then the rest will eat them alive. The idea that there is any kind of "group think" across competing news media is lunacy.

I can only speak for myself, but I absolutely don't believe there is some sort of secret meeting set up where all the big wigs of the media agree to cover certain issues and set forth the agenda. I don't believe they speak at all. I do believe it's likely that they copy certain phrases from each other and then drive them into the ground. "Gravitas," anyone (2000 election)?

I just believe journalism is similar to Hollywood and the music industry in that it draws a certain type of person, many of whom have taken less of a detached view of the news and have abused the power they've been handed to advance certain perspectives.

I'm not one of the guys who will try to convince others that FOX News doesn't have a bias of its own. FOX News is clearly skewed to the right, but I believe it is simply a response to the leanings of other networks like CNN, CBS, etc.

It might've been strictly a business decision, catering towards right-wingers who are "fed up with the liberal media." If that was the case, then it was a brilliant move, financially speaking.

For news, I scan sites like the Drudge Report, FOX News, CNN, and BBC. I stay away from blogs.

[0157988944]

I think that I'm fairly non-partisan, though as of right now, there is little I agree with the right on. That said, I think that the media is generally unbiased.

In fact, I'd say Fox News has done their job of making other news channels scared of being called "leftist" and "liberal" and so they don't report as hard on some stories that cast Republicans in a bad light. Fox News, of course, is unabashedly conservative, and I don't know how they can live with their "fair and balanced" slogan.

As a whole, I think the media causes more trouble than it's worth, but as of now its the best way we have to get info.

[hyteckit]

Drudge Report is not a blog? They make up stories like Oprah refusing to interview Palin, when Palin never even asked to be on and it was never discussed.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

I think that I'm fairly non-partisan, though as of right now, there is little I agree with the right on. That said, I think that the media is generally unbiased.

In fact, I'd say Fox News has done their job of making other news channels scared of being called "leftist" and "liberal" and so they don't report as hard on some stories that cast Republicans in a bad light. Fox News, of course, is unabashedly conservative, and I don't know how they can live with their "fair and balanced" slogan.

What about Nightline's recent story casting McCain as a possible liar in reference to his torture at the Hanoi Hilton? They tracked down his interrogator, who denied ever torturing McCain. At least the BBC (when they ran the piece) stated that the man couldn't be entirely trusted due to possible government influence.

Seems pretty bold to me.

As a whole, I think the media causes more trouble than it's worth...

Definitely agreed. Whether it comes from FOX or CNN, they have an amazing ability to get me utterly depressed about the state of the world.

...but as of now its the best way we have to get info.

Maybe the question is, "Just how much news do we actually need in our lives?"

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Drudge Report is not a blog? They make up stories like Oprah refusing to interview Palin, when Palin never even asked to be on and it was never discussed.

The Drudge Report is primarily a news aggregator, not a blog. Are you vaguely familiar with the site?

Drudge has prominently displayed quite a few favorable articles about Obama in recent months.

Additionally, the problem with Oprah is that she all but endorsed Obama long ago, then decided that she wouldn't allow any candidates on the show for the remainder of the campaign. It was a cute little way of "staying out of it" after having already gushed over Barack.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The Drudge Report is primarily a news aggregator, not a blog. Are you vaguely familiar with the site?

Drudge has prominently displayed quite a few favorable articles about Obama in recent months.

Yeah, and my blog is a news aggregator too. Doesn't mean it's not a blog.

Blog:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3os.htm

[Jawbone54]

Scratch that. Not "all but endorsed Obama," but did endorse the man, and helped him campaign.

I thought my memory was a little fuzzy...

Most of the attention on the O2 effect -- Obama and Oprah -- has been focused on how much the daytime TV cult leader helped her home state senator by endorsing him and appearing at all those rallies in Iowa and South Carolina with Barack and Michelle.

The 54-year-old Chicago TV hostess certainly helped raise a hefty chunk of change by loaning out her estate for that Obama fundraiser last summer.

Around Thanksgiving she announced that not only was she supporting Obama, but she would campaign with him and we'd see if her political recommendation carried as much weight as her book recommendations. Oprah's political travels produced a media feeding frenzy and a publicity bonanza with women routinely fainting in the front row. The campaign said her rallies produced 10,000 new volunteers.

Winfrey campaigned for Obama in Iowa, which he won, in South Carolina, where he won, and in New Hampshire, where he lost. We haven't heard much about Winfrey since the voting started. Did she realize something we're just getting? (this is interesting also...) We heard only that she left the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ several years ago, reportedly over some of his more militant sermons that Obama says he never heard.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yeah, and my blog is a news aggregator too. Doesn't mean it's not a blog.

Blog:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3os.htm

It's funny that you would use that link...

OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

Too late, Oprah.

Additionally, that isn't really what the Drudge Report is 99% of the time. And that's not an opinion piece...it was reporting when there wasn't a particular article up yet that covered that news.

Not a blog.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Additionally, the problem with Oprah is that she all but endorsed Obama long ago, then decided that she wouldn't allow any candidates on the show for the remainder of the campaign. It was a cute little way of "staying out of it" after having already gushed over Barack.

The fact of the matter is that Oprah didn't "all but endorse Obama" .... she explicitly endorsed Obama in the fall of 2007. This was the first time that she has made a public endorsement as an individual for the presidency. Having said that, Oprah decided not to have any particular candidates ... including Obama .... on her show.

So the "remainder of the campaign" part is not quite accurate as well. Simply put, one is standing on shaky ground to even suggest that Oprah is using her show to influence the election. Clearly she is not. And the last time I checked, the fact that she is a public figure doesn't negate her right to endorse a candidate as a private citizen.

5 Myths About Oprah, Obama and You

OAW

[Doofy]

Of course the media's left biased.

If it wasn't left biased, all the journos would go get themselves jobs where they have to do something, rather than jobs where they write about other people doing something.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course the media's left biased.

If it wasn't left biased, all the journos would go get themselves jobs where they have to do something, rather than jobs where they write about other people doing something.

I'm starting to come around. I too am getting sick and tired of these soft, pansy leaches on society. Journalists, writers, actors, musicians- what do they actually contribute? It's time for the rest of us hard-working individuals to stand up to these leaches on society that don't actually produce anything beyond frivolous diversions.

[Jawbone54]

It is true that Oprah isn't a "journalist," so she should have whoever she wants on, and support whoever she likes as well. I think that's fine.

It just seems like a missed opportunity, honestly. She's generally supportive of significant events involving women; the first female Republican VP candidate seems like a big story...

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Not a blog.

I have to agree with you there. Even blogs that are primarily news aggregators provide at least a bit of commentary on the links. Aside from giving stories his own (mind you, often provocative and misleading) titles, he doesn't comment on them.

Can't agree with you on the Oprah thing. Can't stand her, but I think she is doing the principled thing by standing firm on her decision not to have the candidates on the show.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I have to agree with you there. Even blogs that are primarily news aggregators provide at least a bit of commentary on the links. Aside from giving stories his own (mind you, often provocative and misleading) titles, he doesn't comment on them.

I will agree that sometimes the titles shock me, and then I click on the link, read a few paragraphs of the article, and then slowly realize, "Waaaait a minute, that's not [really] what the headline made me think..." I wouldn't say he has ever lied; just exaggerated a bit.

I do love the diversity of news on the site; he somehow gets the biggest stories up before anyone else.

Can't agree with you on the Oprah thing. Can't stand her, but I think she is doing the principled thing by standing firm on her decision not to have the candidates on the show.

Yeah, she has the right to do what she wants. I just think it's bad for her show to not have some of these other people on. Like/support him or not, McCain has an incredible story. Palin is also a HUGE story, and a show involving her (especially about a month ago, when those of us on the right got caught in Palin-mania) would've been a ratings beast.

As the article I posted earlier stated, Oprah's popularity has gone down a bit since she stated her decision to not have anyone else on the show after endorsing Obama.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, she has the right to do what she wants. I just think it's bad for her show to not have some of these other people on.

Maybe it would push her ratings up a bit, but really, does she have to have all the money?

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Like/support him or not, McCain has an incredible story.

But it's been told to death. What could Oprah bring to the table on this?

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Palin is also a HUGE story, and a show involving her (especially about a month ago, when those of us on the right got caught in Palin-mania) would've been a ratings beast.

Two things. 1, as above, does Oprah really need more money? 2, was there ever ANY indication that Palin (and by Palin, I of course mean her assigned handlers) wanted to be on the show? She hasn't done ANY of the chick chat shows, and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the others have stated they don't want the candidates on. Even if she really wanted her as a guest- what leads you to believe she could have gotten the booking?

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

As the article I posted earlier stated, Oprah's popularity has gone down a bit since she stated her decision to not have anyone else on the show after endorsing Obama.

So now she only has more money than some of the minor gods?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I know the average MacNN user leans more to the left. With that in mind, I want to know how many of you believe that the media is (or is not) slanted.

Conservatives are welcome to vote, as well, but I'm more interested in our liberal friends' opinions.

what makes you think macnn are lefts? not arguing but with my experience here, the right wings claim that steve jobs wasn't a hippie and apple as a brand is not liberal ( I remember back in the 90s when "serious" computer people always choose "ibm" and that macs were for the freaks.

just wondering

if i lean to the right i might hit a liberal

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, she has the right to do what she wants. I just think it's bad for her show to not have some of these other people on.

OMG!

Oprah is a freaking billionaire! Her show rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year ..... cash money .... not paper gains. Somehow I don't think she's overly concerned.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

As the article I posted earlier stated, Oprah's popularity has gone down a bit since she stated her decision to not have anyone else on the show after endorsing Obama.

Indeed it has. Oprah's audience is primarily composed of white women. Many of whom thought she betrayed her gender by supporting Obama over Clinton. Over the 22 years that her show has been on the air, her popularity has gone up and it has gone down. Yet she's still managed to stack major chips. And her show is not tanking by a long shot. I daresay she will be OK.

OAW

[BRussell]

I think any international internet forum is going to lean to the left from an American perspective. There are plenty of people all over Europe and Canada and much of the rest of the world who are a lot like American liberals, whether they're on the left or right in their own countries. American conservatives, however, are kind of their own breed and much more rare in the world outside the US.

[Jawbone54]

After someone like Oprah develops that level of wealth, the only thing she has left to be concerned about is her influence. If she loses influence, I would imagine that her job (which I'm sure she's not ready to give up yet) will be less fulfilling.

That's all I'm saying. Someone as rich as her isn't concerned about less wealth. She could never spend all the money she's earned. It's all about influence.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

After someone like Oprah develops that level of wealth, the only thing she has left to be concerned about is her influence. If she loses influence, I would imagine that her job (which I'm sure she's not ready to give up yet) will be less fulfilling.

That's all I'm saying. Someone as rich as her isn't concerned about less wealth. She could never spend all the money she's earned. It's all about influence.

I feel you. However, Oprah can still feature an author on her show and that person's book becomes an instant best-seller. The movies she champions generally tank at the box office. That's the way it has been. That's the way it still is. Her political influence remains to be seen. Her overall influence remains about the same.

OAW

[Buckaroo]

The proof of liberal bias is in the proven every time they report on a corrupt Democrat you have to hunt for the politicians party. They make NO mention or very little mention of the corrupt politician if they are Democrat, but if the politician is a Republican and is slightly suspected of wrong doing they blast "Republican" in the headline and several times throughout the story. There have been times where I had to search on Google to find out the corrupt politician was Democrat. But there is NO doubt if the politician is Republican.

The media is corrupt.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The proof of liberal bias is in the proven every time they report on a corrupt Democrat you have to hunt for the politicians party. They make NO mention or very little mention of the corrupt politician if they are Democrat, but if the politician is a Republican and is slightly suspected of wrong doing they blast "Republican" in the headline and several times throughout the story. There have been times where I had to search on Google to find out the corrupt politician was Democrat. But there is NO doubt if the politician is Republican.

The media is corrupt.

Yeah, especially when they call Republican congressman and boy-lover Mark Foley a Democrat.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah, especially when they call Republican congressman and boy-lover Mark Foley a Democrat.

It took every bit of control I had not to spray my beer all over my laptop from laughing when I saw this post. Absolutely classic!

OAW

[Dork.]

The media is biased toward whatever will boost its ratings and bring in ad dollars.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The media is biased toward whatever will boost its ratings and bring in ad dollars.

Yeah, when are people going to get this through their heads. The media business has *always* been about the money and to think otherwise is highly naive.

Media companies put shows on the air that will attract the most viewers, because attracting the most viewers attracts the most advertising dollars. The "customer" for media companies is not the everyday media consumer, it is the corporation they are trying to get to advertise on their network. Viewers are merely the tool to facilitate bringing in advertising revenue from the corporation: The network promises viewer eyeballs in exchange for corporate dollars.

Why was Don Imus taken off the air for calling those black, female, basketball players "nappy-headed hos"? Because it was offensive and morally repugnant? NO! Because the broadcaster suddenly lost a lot of advertising revenue and was looking at a major FCC fine? YES! It only took, what was it, 7 or 8 months, before the public forgot about it and advertisers stopped being afraid to associate with his show. Then he was back on the air and back with most of his old advertisers.

[OSX Abuser]

I only watch Fox news and they are very balanced in reporting the news.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OSX Abuser 

I only watch Fox news and they are very balanced in reporting the news.

Because every other news source is so far left that the middle seems to be right!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Because every other news source is so far left that the middle seems to be right!

Only someone who is so far right would see it that way.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Only someone who is so far right would see it that way.

It's the line one of my old roommates would feed me when I'd question his watching Fox news.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I'll also add I don't think there's some big grand conspiracy. It does seem like Fox News is clumsily overt about their bias, though.

I don't think there's a morning meeting of minds, if that's what you mean. But there's certainly a grand conspiracy -- the "in" crowd is liberal, wink wink.

It's pretty bad when, for mere survival, a failed ideology requires the support of every ounce of popular culture propaganda a culture can muster (save talk radio). For all that, the race is a dead heat even now. Even with newsies and Hollywood and the political machine (including all those community organizers from coast to coast) AND academia, the Left's ideology is so frigging bankrupt that it can only muster a semi. Nice.

[Chongo]

from ABC.com

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE
Oct. 24, 2008
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.