[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You call me naive, yet offer no counter. What's your theory, then, O Wise One? I tend to base mine on empiricism.

I'll cite several extreme examples of the media's role in society, and let you redraw a conclusion.

-China
-North Korea
-Cuba

Extreme examples indeed. But they illustrate my point, and can be scaled to any society. The media portrays what is most beneficial to those that control it, and can benefit by controlling it. This isn't limited to monetary gain but political capital and public-opinion capital as well. You got one thing right, in our society they will tell us what we'll pay to hear, but the rest of your conclusions based on that are logically, academically, and practically defficient.

The only thing that keeps them from outright lying in our society is the fact that if they are caught, they will lose influence and as a result suffer in viewership, thus losing monetary, political, and opinion-related capital. The idea in the media industry is to slant it enough to gain in those three categories, but not so much as to leave themselves open to clear and undeniable proof of bias by their opponents and their supporters.

This is all covered in socy 101 at your local community college. I'll reiterate my suggestion that if you care to delve into the empirical data behind that well-established theory, enroll in a class.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'll cite several extreme examples of the media's role in society, and let you redraw a conclusion.

-China
-North Korea
-Cuba

Extreme examples indeed. But they illustrate my point, and can be scaled to any society. The media portrays what is most beneficial to those that control it, and can benefit by controlling it. This isn't limited to monetary gain but political capital and public-opinion capital as well. You got one thing right, in our society they will tell us what we'll pay to hear, but the rest of your conclusions based on that are logically, academically, and practically defficient.

The only thing that keeps them from outright lying in our society is the fact that if they are caught, they will lose influence and as a result suffer in viewership, thus losing monetary, political, and opinion-related capital. The idea in the media industry is to slant it enough to gain in those three categories, but not so much as to leave themselves open to clear and undeniable proof of bias by their opponents and their supporters.

This is all covered in socy 101 at your local community college. I'll reiterate my suggestion that if you care to delve into the empirical data behind that well-established theory, enroll in a class.

I was talking about the media in the US, as was the OP. Based on that, we can make a few assumptions:

- Freedom of speech (you know, the Bill of Rights and all...)
- A high degree of competition in media (we have a lot of media outlets and new ones frequently pop up)
- Low barriers of entry for new media (see above)

In that environment, who 'controls' the media? Short answer: we do. Yes, we are the source of monetary, political, and public-opinion capital in the US. So you're right - the media portrays what is most beneficial to us (i.e. what we want and will pay to hear). Of course, they've found there's a lot of competition, so it's best to differentiate their product by focusing on specific markets, so we see slants in individual outlets to gain in their targeted markets. But taken as a whole, it's a reflection on us.

Now, in China, North Korea, and Cuba, the above assumptions don't apply, so of course there's a difference in who controls the media and how that manifests in its behavior. But this topic wasn't about China, North Korea, and Cuba.

So - want to blame someone for the state of the media in North Korea? Look at Kim Jong Il. Want to blame someone for the state of the media in the US? If you're American, look in the mirror.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

the third paragraph, well above "the very bottom of the story" reads:

"The audience for the speech appears to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole. Because of this, the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tune into the speech. The poll surveyed the opinions of people who watched Wednesday night's speech, and does not reflect the views of all Americans."

That's pretty sneaky! Inserting the damning information into the *content* of the article rather than in the title and the first 3 sentences!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I was talking about the media in the US, as was the OP. Based on that, we can make a few assumptions:

And there lies your problem.

- Freedom of speech (you know, the Bill of Rights and all...)

Gives them the right to say whatever they want without fear of legal consequences (with many exceptions of course). Ever read a tabloid? Believe it or not, thats media too!!

- A high degree of competition in media (we have a lot of media outlets and new ones frequently pop up)

A good indicator of why outright falsifying the news is not present in our society. See my previous post about "just enough."[/quote]

- Low barriers of entry for new media (see above)

The barriers for mainstream media are extremely high, and using this low entry point would require years of unbiased and firsthand reporting as well as the ability to repel all attacks by the competition, and thats even if you could manage to build an unbiased organization with 100% unbiased reporters and have the funding to overtake the established mainstream outlets.

I couldn't just go blogging my way into channel 7 by next friday.

In that environment, who 'controls' the media? Short answer: we do. Yes, we are the source of monetary, political, and public-opinion capital in the US. So you're right

Yes, if you're talking about your aunt's blog and all five of her followers. We are the source indeed but thats exactly why the bias exists in the first place...To convince us!

- the media portrays what is most beneficial to us (i.e. what we want and will pay to hear).

Again...academically, and practically speaking you are flat out wrong. Don't take my word for it! educate yourself! Sociology 101!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll also point out that many times what we want to hear is not whats beneficial to us. I want to hear that I'll have social security by the time i retire....but I don't think any media outlet could really say that without bias, or an alternative agenda.

Of course, they've found there's a lot of competition, so it's best to differentiate their product by focusing on specific markets, so we see slants in individual outlets to gain in their targeted markets. But taken as a whole, it's a reflection on us.

Thats exactly the bias I am talking about. You just conceded my whole point, which is contradictory to all of your assertions. The only difference your talking about is chicken-and-egg. How did we get biased? The media has no influence on our views? The bias perpetuates itself and spreads, as the people targeting specific markets would want. This gives them extreme amounts of monetary, political, and public opinion capital.

Now, in China, North Korea, and Cuba, the above assumptions don't apply, so of course there's a difference in who controls the media and how that manifests in its behavior. But this topic wasn't about China, North Korea, and Cuba.

You're right. The label of the powers that be is certainly different, but that doesn't mean they don't share similiar agendas, and it certainly doesn't mean they share those agendas on the same scale. Don't take my words the wrong way...I'm not saying CNN and Kim are on anywhere near the same level of bias or slant...but that doesn't take away from my point.

So - want to blame someone for the state of the media in North Korea? Look at Kim Jong Il. Want to blame someone for the state of the media in the US? If you're American, look in the mirror.

Unless I'm a journalist trying to get published, a media executive trying to get rich, or a politician trying to get elected I don't think that mirror is going to show me where the bias is being created, perpetuated and amplified.



Again man, I'm not arguing with you based on my opinion...I'm arguing with you based on well-established academic theory from a top 10 school of sociology.

I differ politically with many of the professors that I had in the past....opposite ends of the spectrum, but this is the basics when trying to study society today, and not one of them ever challenged the establish sociological theory of the media's impact on our society, and even taught it to me themselves.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's pretty sneaky! Inserting the damning information into the *content* of the article rather than in the title and the first 3 sentences!

Well, it kind of is. It's a well-known fact in journalism that most readers skim over the majority of the content. Most people who read at all will read the headline, some fraction of those will read the lede, some fraction of those will read the second paragraph, and so on.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, it kind of is. It's a well-known fact in journalism that most readers skim over the majority of the content. Most people who read at all will read the headline, some fraction of those will read the lede, some fraction of those will read the second paragraph, and so on.

I'm sorry, but the only person to blame there is the reader.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Gives them the right to say whatever they want without fear of legal consequences (with many exceptions of course). Ever read a tabloid? Believe it or not, thats media too!!

Exactly! The tabloid is giving its readers what they want to hear. Thanks for making my point!

A good indicator of why outright falsifying the news is not present in our society. See my previous post about "just enough."

Sounds to me like you went to the wrong classroom. Instead of Sociology 101, you went to Conspiracy Theory 101. Yes, media outlets compete and need to establish credibility in their markets in order to be viable. And they'll share the messages that their audience deems credible. Check out your reference to the tabloids above. People who read those get something out of it - and the tabloids are telling them what they want to hear. And yet, some of the information in there is outright false.

The barriers for mainstream media are extremely high, and using this low entry point would require years of unbiased and firsthand reporting as well as the ability to repel all attacks by the competition, and thats even if you could manage to build an unbiased organization with 100% unbiased reporters and have the funding to overtake the established mainstream outlets.

I couldn't just go blogging my way into channel 7 by next friday.

No, but Channel 7's viewers can tune out and start logging on to their favorite blog by next Friday. So you can bet that Channel 7 is paying attention to the competition. Not to mention cable news, a zillion websites, etc. Face it - there's more competition than there was just a few years ago, and it's increasing.

Yes, if you're talking about your aunt's blog and all five of her followers. We are the source indeed but thats exactly why the bias exists in the first place...To convince us!

Again, Conspiracy Theory 101. To convince us of WHAT, exactly?

Again...academically, and practically speaking you are flat out wrong. Don't take my word for it! educate yourself! Sociology 101!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe we should go together! You seem to be convinced there's some conspiracy trying to slip a singular secret message into the media, so I'll reiterate - you must have gone to the wrong classroom. I'm saying this - that 'secret message' is nothing more and nothing less than what we want and will pay to hear.

I'll also point out that many times what we want to hear is not whats beneficial to us. I want to hear that I'll have social security by the time i retire....but I don't think any media outlet could really say that without bias, or an alternative agenda.

Of course not! We LOVE to hear bad news! We eat it up! Especially when we can pin the blame on someone else. I never said 'what's beneficial' is always good news. It's the news we want and will pay to hear.

Thats exactly the bias I am talking about. You just conceded my whole point, which is contradictory to all of your assertions. The only difference your talking about is chicken-and-egg. How did we get biased? The media has no influence on our views? The bias perpetuates itself and spreads, as the people targeting specific markets would want. This gives them extreme amounts of monetary, political, and public opinion capital.

So what is your point, exactly? I'll try to make mine more concise for you: People are biased in different ways. Highly competitive media outlets segment markets and cater to different groups. Taken as a whole, that's a reflection on society. So the aggregate media is simply a reflection of society's 'bias' (if you can call the leanings of all society a 'bias').

You're right. The label of the powers that be is certainly different, but that doesn't mean they don't share similiar agendas, and it certainly doesn't mean they share those agendas on the same scale. Don't take my words the wrong way...I'm not saying CNN and Kim are on anywhere near the same level of bias or slant...but that doesn't take away from my point.

Again, what is your point? CNN portrays storys with a certain slant? Duh. CNN is selling advertising by giving its targeted audience the information it wants to hear. Just like Channel 7. Just like Fox. Just like Aunt Millie's blog (if she expects to make money doing it). Put those all together, and what do you have?

Let's paraphrase the title of this thread:

ZOMG!!!! The mediaz r biazed!!11111LOL!1111

not

ZOMG!!! CNN iz teh biazed!!!1111

If you want to talk about 'the media', I take that as the whole, which is a reflection on us. Individual outlets are a reflection of their specific target audiences.

Unless I'm a journalist trying to get published,

who will publish what his/her targeted audience wants and will pay to hear

a media executive trying to get rich,

who will publish what his/her targeted audience wants and will pay to hear

or a politician trying to get elected

who will publish what his/her targeted audience wants and will pay to hear

I don't think that mirror is going to show me where the bias is being created, perpetuated and amplified.

If you're in their target audience, it most certainly does. It not, you wouldn't want to and/or pay to hear their message. And they would either change their message or go silent.

Again man, I'm not arguing with you based on my opinion...I'm arguing with you based on well-established academic theory from a top 10 school of sociology.

I differ politically with many of the professors that I had in the past....opposite ends of the spectrum, but this is the basics when trying to study society today, and not one of them ever challenged the establish sociological theory of the media's impact on our society, and even taught it to me themselves.

You may have a lot of academic theory, but you don't have a point, or take the time to understand context. You're looking at it at a micro level, where I don't disagree with you. Can media at that level exacerbate 'biases'? Sure! Validation is a powerful thing - and probably part of the reason why we end up with so much 'your team-my team' bickering. But on a macro level across the whole market for media - it's a reflection on us.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm sorry, but the only person to blame there is the reader.

Yeah, curse those readers for not reading 100% of everything that's ever printed, despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for them to do so!

No, seriously, it's just human nature and the nature of the universe. Anybody who's ever been to journalism school knows about it and has been trained to work with it. If you bury important information, that's your fault, not the reader's. Would I like it if people always read every single word I wrote? Sure. But that's an unreasonable expectation.

[ironknee]

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, curse those readers for not reading 100% of everything that's ever printed, despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for them to do so!

No, seriously, it's just human nature and the nature of the universe. Anybody who's ever been to journalism school knows about it and has been trained to work with it. If you bury important information, that's your fault, not the reader's. Would I like it if people always read every single word I wrote? Sure. But that's an unreasonable expectation.

I used to work in a journalism school, and while ethics and investigative journalism were stressed really hard, I wonder how often young journalists have to sort of discard these sorts of ideals in favor of ratings and the whole money making machine. Who do you blame, the journalists, the companies controlling these outlets and demanding ad profits and ratings and such, or the public for lapping all of this up?

[hyteckit]

Here's an example of "sloppy journalism to base a whole article around one piece of poor-quality information"

Poll: Obama School Speech Effective


The one from CNN was quite useful, informative, and well documented compared to the one from FOX. Here's the detail poll numbers and methodology provided by CNN after the article.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im...9/09/top13.pdf

Chuckit is just too lazy to read the article and click on the link at the bottom of the article.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Exactly! The tabloid is giving its readers what they want to hear. Thanks for making my point!

And they reflect our bias how? You have the source and target mixed up.

Sounds to me like you went to the wrong classroom. Instead of Sociology 101, you went to Conspiracy Theory 101.

...

Yes, media outlets compete and need to establish credibility in their markets in order to be viable. And they'll share the messages that their audience deems credible.

Right, and they'll make them as slanted as possible while retaining credible to carry out their agenda as a company.

Check out your reference to the tabloids above. People who read those get something out of it - and the tabloids are telling them what they want to hear. And yet, some of the information in there is outright false.

They get a whole lot of biased and falsified information....which nullifies your point that the media is somehow a reflection of our own bias. The reflection of bias within us is a result of the media.

No, but Channel 7's viewers can tune out and start logging on to their favorite blog by next Friday.

And this plethora of long-standing and credible news sources comes from where? Do you even know what percentage of our country knows exactly what a blog is? and even less how to access a credible one? They rely on mainstream media for their news. Tv, newspapers, and talk radio....all with an agenda. And the bias comes from the listeners?

So you can bet that Channel 7 is paying attention to the competition. Not to mention cable news, a zillion websites, etc. Face it - there's more competition than there was just a few years ago, and it's increasing.

There is no competition to established mainstream media. Its not even in the same ballpark as far as exposure and accessibility goes...not to mention credibility.

Again, Conspiracy Theory 101. To convince us of WHAT, exactly?

Whatever the hell benefits them. If Joe Shmoe is a swell guy to the media execs, and he's running for office...they'll try to convince you that Joe Shmoe is exactly who you need in office! I'm not making this **** up man, this is established sociological discourse from a top 10 school of sociology from one of our nation's leading public universities.

Maybe we should go together! You seem to be convinced there's some conspiracy trying to slip a singular secret message into the media, so I'll reiterate - you must have gone to the wrong classroom. I'm saying this - that 'secret message' is nothing more and nothing less than what we want and will pay to hear.

There's no conspiracy. There's business. I'm not sure how you can view these companies as unbiased and simply a reflection of us. The networks aren't run by computers, they are run by people who have a job to make their company as profitable as possible, using whatever means are within the law. There is no law saying "media must be unbiased."

Of course not! We LOVE to hear bad news! We eat it up! Especially when we can pin the blame on someone else. I never said 'what's beneficial' is always good news. It's the news we want and will pay to hear.

Indeed, but you still haven't explained how that makes the news reflective of our collective bias. It seems to me that you have this idea in your head about how it could possibly work, and since it sounds good in theory is must be in reality.

So what is your point, exactly? I'll try to make mine more concise for you: People are biased in different ways. Highly competitive media outlets segment markets and cater to different groups. Taken as a whole, that's a reflection on society. So the aggregate media is simply a reflection of society's 'bias' (if you can call the leanings of all society a 'bias').

Okay, i see your point. Using that paradigm you are correct.


...That said....


It doesn't negate, and infact only reinforces my point that the media will slant its content to its own advantage, to further cater to their market and grow it. They don't just automagically realize what each of us wants. If I don't want it. They do everything they can to make me want it. Enter the bias, slant, sensationalism, exaggeration...you name it, there's an agenda behind it and it isn't limited to direct viewership.

Again, what is your point? CNN portrays storys with a certain slant? Duh. CNN is selling advertising by giving its targeted audience the information it wants to hear. Just like Channel 7. Just like Fox. Just like Aunt Millie's blog (if she expects to make money doing it). Put those all together, and what do you have?

You have several media outlets slanting their content to fulfill an agenda.

Let's paraphrase the title of this thread:

ZOMG!!!! The mediaz r biazed!!11111LOL!1111

not

ZOMG!!! CNN iz teh biazed!!!1111

If you want to talk about 'the media', I take that as the whole, which is a reflection on us. Individual outlets are a reflection of their specific target audiences.

Wait a minute,

now you're playing word games trying to backpedal out of this one?

Its obvious what the OP meant, because he cited a specific article from a specific source calling shenanigans, so you're either taking back what you originally meant OR you are so far out of context for this discussion that you really had nothing to offer in the first place, besides a statement of ambiguous opinion unfounded in anything but your own simple logic.

If you're in their target audience, it most certainly does. It not, you wouldn't want to and/or pay to hear their message. And they would either change their message or go silent.

Or slant it to make it look a helluva lot more appealing and/or interesting to you. Which one do you think works out to the favor of the media company producing the content.

You may have a lot of academic theory, but you don't have a point

I have made multiple key points that you have failed to address.

take the time to understand context. You're looking at it at a micro level, where I don't disagree with you. Can media at that level exacerbate 'biases'? Sure! Validation is a powerful thing - and probably part of the reason why we end up with so much 'your team-my team' bickering. But on a macro level across the whole market for media - it's a reflection on us.

Okay, enough with the backpedaling. The context of this post was extremely obvious. Your statements were in contradiction to the OP, and when confronted with the fallacy in your point you retreated to general terms and "media as a whole."

You were clearly saying in your original entry that any bias was a direct reflection of bias already present in our society, and strongly implying that the target audience is the cause of the bias within the media. The entire social science of sociology disagrees with you, and when presented with counter points to your assertions, you dismiss them and retreat to generality.

And by the way, in the general terms that you've retreated to, and from your own self created paradigm, your assertion is meaningless as it could be extended to every aspect of society.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, curse those readers for not reading 100% of everything that's ever printed, despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for them to do so!

No, seriously, it's just human nature and the nature of the universe. Anybody who's ever been to journalism school knows about it and has been trained to work with it. If you bury important information, that's your fault, not the reader's. Would I like it if people always read every single word I wrote? Sure. But that's an unreasonable expectation.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you fully support the Fox News style of journalism.

[Chuckit]

The Fox News style of journalism is defined by accessible writing and not burying important information?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Fox News style of journalism is defined by accessible writing and not burying important information?

Let me ask you the question in a different way.

In a capitalist society, who's responsibility is it to ensure that the product (in this case, information) is of good quality (in this case, accurate)?

[Chuckit]

The one who produces the product. He is responsible to the consumer for this in a capitalist society.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And they reflect our bias how? You have the source and target mixed up.

Ummmm, they reflect our bias by printing what their audience wants to read. Seems pretty clear to me....

Right, and they'll make them as slanted as possible while retaining credible to carry out their agenda as a company.

What exactly is their agenda? Let me clue you in - media have one agenda: MORE PROFITS. They will do what they need to do for that - which is to feed their audience what they want.

They get a whole lot of biased and falsified information....which nullifies your point that the media is somehow a reflection of our own bias. The reflection of bias within us is a result of the media.

Really? You mean they are FORCED to read the tabloids? Their bias comes from the fact that they choose to read it. It most certainly is a reflection on them.

And this plethora of long-standing and credible news sources comes from where? Do you even know what percentage of our country knows exactly what a blog is? and even less how to access a credible one? They rely on mainstream media for their news. Tv, newspapers, and talk radio....all with an agenda. And the bias comes from the listeners?

Yep. Media outlets, mainstream and otherwise, know it's awfully easy to change the channel. The listeners control that.

There is no competition to established mainstream media. Its not even in the same ballpark as far as exposure and accessibility goes...not to mention credibility.

Really? Then why do we have about 3x as many 'mainstream' media outlets established in the last couple decades? Why do we see more and more segmentation in the market?

Whatever the hell benefits them. If Joe Shmoe is a swell guy to the media execs, and he's running for office...they'll try to convince you that Joe Shmoe is exactly who you need in office! I'm not making this **** up man, this is established sociological discourse from a top 10 school of sociology from one of our nation's leading public universities.

No sh!t sherlock! If you need a top 10 school to figure that out, well, you have to be pretty thick. Let's review the agenda again: MORE PROFITS. Do you see every media outlet backing the same Joe Schmoe? I certainly don't. The people who want to hear about Joe Schmoe as a swell guy will listen to that, while others will change the channel. That's their conundrum - the margin between credibility/ratings and agenda building gets thinner as the level of competition goes up. We don't have perfect competition in media, but it's pretty damn close. The closer it gets to that, the more the message is a reflection of those consuming it.

There's no conspiracy. There's business. I'm not sure how you can view these companies as unbiased and simply a reflection of us. The networks aren't run by computers, they are run by people who have a job to make their company as profitable as possible, using whatever means are within the law. There is no law saying "media must be unbiased."

Ah, I see you've finally figured that out! And what does a person who has a job to make their company as profitable as possible do? They produce the product their consumers want and will pay for! In the case of providing information, that means providing the information their consumers want and will pay to hear.

Indeed, but you still haven't explained how that makes the news reflective of our collective bias. It seems to me that you have this idea in your head about how it could possibly work, and since it sounds good in theory is must be in reality.

I just explained it. It's really not rocket science, especially if you claim to get it out of a 101 class.

Okay, i see your point. Using that paradigm you are correct.

Thank you. I may be cynical, but I'm not naive.

...That said....

It doesn't negate, and infact only reinforces my point that the media will slant its content to its own advantage, to further cater to their market and grow it. They don't just automagically realize what each of us wants. If I don't want it. They do everything they can to make me want it. Enter the bias, slant, sensationalism, exaggeration...you name it, there's an agenda behind it and it isn't limited to direct viewership.

Correct. That's what ratings are for. The more ratings they get, the more money they make. Which feeds the agenda of MORE PROFITS. They don't automagically realize what we want, but they most certainly do measure it and adjust based on the feedback.

You have several media outlets slanting their content to fulfill an agenda.

Yes. That agenda is MORE PROFITS.

Wait a minute,

now you're playing word games trying to backpedal out of this one?

Its obvious what the OP meant, because he cited a specific article from a specific source calling shenanigans, so you're either taking back what you originally meant OR you are so far out of context for this discussion that you really had nothing to offer in the first place, besides a statement of ambiguous opinion unfounded in anything but your own simple logic.

What, you're going to fault me for not making something more complicated than it really is? Look at the title of the thread. I'm not backpedaling out of anything - I stand by what I said.

Or slant it to make it look a helluva lot more appealing and/or interesting to you. Which one do you think works out to the favor of the media company producing the content.

So in other words, they're going to adjust their message to what you want to hear? Exactly my point! How is that then not a reflection on you?

I have made multiple key points that you have failed to address.

I fail to see any point you've made that I haven't addressed. To be fair - I think we're often saying similar things, except that one of us is the chicken and one of us is the egg (yes, I know you said that before and don't disagree). I also think the chicken and egg can switch roles depending on the environment, and in the environment I described, I stand by my assertion.

Okay, enough with the backpedaling. The context of this post was extremely obvious. Your statements were in contradiction to the OP, and when confronted with the fallacy in your point you retreated to general terms and "media as a whole."

Nope. That's what I meant the whole time, and how the OP titled the thread. If the OP had been more specific, I probably wouldn't even have posted, because then it's just a bunch of partisan football.

You were clearly saying in your original entry that any bias was a direct reflection of bias already present in our society, and strongly implying that the target audience is the cause of the bias within the media. The entire social science of sociology disagrees with you, and when presented with counter points to your assertions, you dismiss them and retreat to generality.

The ENTIRE science of sociology? Wow. Well, all I can say is it didn't take long to prove that wrong.

BIASED PRESS OR BIASED PUBLIC? ATTITUDES TOWARD MEDIA COVERAGE OF SOCIAL GROUPS

Apparently there's some dissent in the science of sociology as well. Maybe you need to take Sociology 102.

And by the way, in the general terms that you've retreated to, and from your own self created paradigm, your assertion is meaningless as it could be extended to every aspect of society.

Where those assumptions apply, well, yes, that's probably true. It's no more meaningless than someone lamenting (yes, in general terms) that the media are biased, using one isolated incident to 'prove' that point.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The one who produces the product. He is responsible to the consumer for this in a capitalist society.

All I've got to say, then, is caveat emptor.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The media is a direct reflection of those who use it. It's nothing more, and nothing less, than a mirror of society. They tell us what we want (and will pay) to hear. So - if the media is biased, it's just reflecting the bias of society.

And those who use it are those in power within it. Moving media in this country tells us what those in power want us to hear, and often that's presented in a way we want to receive it. It hasn't been a mirror of society at any point in its history, unless "society" is relevant to some small group such as The Beltway. It looks unbiased occasionally because there are Democrats AND Republicans using the media against us at any point.

But it's biased toward big government, social (vs individual) solutions, and fewer freedoms rather than more. It's biased toward gun control rather than against it. It's biased toward illegal immigration rather than against it. Etc. It's not neutral, and I'm pretty sure it never was. For instance, I can't even remember NPR (or PRI for that matter) being unbiased. Ever. Which is a shame, b/c I've always liked the idea of public radio & TV -- but not when the agenda gets in the way.

Most folks may never pay attention enough to notice. But that's all part of "growing up." The fact that Hannity and Limbaugh have audiences and revenues is pretty good evidence that SOMEBODY's news need wasn't being met. It's hard to imagine that 20 million wackos listen to Rush each week to give him those ratings. A large majority of those folks are disenfranchised from mainstream (oligopoly) media and are grateful to find something else.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Are you under the impression that Fox, Hannity and Limbaugh are not "mainstream media?" What do you think they are? "Elite" media?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The one who produces the product. He is responsible to the consumer for this in a capitalist society.

huh ... and how do you propose that the producer of the product be *held* responsible?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by finboy 

And those who use it are those in power within it. Moving media in this country tells us what those in power want us to hear, and often that's presented in a way we want to receive it. It hasn't been a mirror of society at any point in its history, unless "society" is relevant to some small group such as The Beltway. It looks unbiased occasionally because there are Democrats AND Republicans using the media against us at any point.

But it's biased toward big government, social (vs individual) solutions, and fewer freedoms rather than more. It's biased toward gun control rather than against it. It's biased toward illegal immigration rather than against it. Etc. It's not neutral, and I'm pretty sure it never was. For instance, I can't even remember NPR (or PRI for that matter) being unbiased. Ever. Which is a shame, b/c I've always liked the idea of public radio & TV -- but not when the agenda gets in the way.

Waah waah waah. Playing the victim is really unbecoming.

Most folks may never pay attention enough to notice. But that's all part of "growing up." The fact that Hannity and Limbaugh have audiences and revenues is pretty good evidence that SOMEBODY's news need wasn't being met. It's hard to imagine that 20 million wackos listen to Rush each week to give him those ratings. A large majority of those folks are disenfranchised from mainstream (oligopoly) media and are grateful to find something else.

Are you somehow under the impression that these guys are not part of the mainstream media? Hate to break it to you, but they are playing to and reflecting the leanings/biases of their segment of the market. You're right - somebody's news need wasn't being met - and these guys stepped in, became part of the media, and met it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

huh ... and how do you propose that the producer of the product be *held* responsible?

Well, the responsibility is there whether or not anyone does. But consumers who care about it will hold the producer responsible.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of all this, though. Are you saying that calling them out isn't enough and we should boycott CNN because of this one story?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by finboy 

The fact that Hannity and Limbaugh have audiences and revenues is pretty good evidence that SOMEBODY's news need wasn't being met.

No it isn't. Limbaugh's product has more in common with a vibrator than with news.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, the responsibility is there whether or not anyone does. But consumers who care about it will hold the producer responsible.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of all this, though. Are you saying that calling them out isn't enough and we should boycott CNN because of this one story?

I stopped watching CNN after Eason Jordan admitted not reporting atrocities just to keep their Baghdad bureau open
The News We Kept to Ourselves - The New York Times

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I stopped watching CNN after Eason Jordan admitted not reporting atrocities just to keep their Baghdad bureau open
The News We Kept to Ourselves - The New York Times

Not to keep their Baghdad bureau open — to protect innocent people from getting killed. It's fine if you want to put your own life on the line for a story, but endangering other people would be really cold.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you saying that calling them out isn't enough and we should boycott CNN because of this one story?

I suppose it depends on how strongly you feel about the issue.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, curse those readers for not reading 100% of everything that's ever printed, despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for them to do so!

No, seriously, it's just human nature and the nature of the universe. Anybody who's ever been to journalism school knows about it and has been trained to work with it. If you bury important information, that's your fault, not the reader's. Would I like it if people always read every single word I wrote? Sure. But that's an unreasonable expectation.

Exactly. It's not a secret that a huge number of people in this hurried world only get time to read headlines and the first couple of paragraphs. You are taught in journalism school to get to the point quick because of this. After you establish what the "story" is, you then elaborate for those wanting more facts and details.

This report didn't do this. It gave a vague headline that made it appear that Obama got some kind of general poll bump because of his speech (he didn't, according to most polls taken after the speech), and didn't explain that it was a poll stacked with Democrats and those already likely to support Obama until after a normal "hurried" reader would probably stop reading.

The mainstream media doesn't have time to cover Van Jones or Acorn's assistance to prositution, but they do have time to CREATE news with sloppy and confusing pro-Obama reporting based on irrationally sampled polls

...and then they wonder why they don't have the ratings/viewers they used to?

[SpaceMonkey]

Again, the facts about the poll's sample size were conveyed before the jump which is reasonably high up in the story. If they had kept the information hidden after the jump, you might have a point (the analogy would be if a newspaper story was "continued on page X" and the newspaper buried a key fact on the back page). But now you are just making standards that are completely arbitrary to support your partisan position. What's too low in the story? The second paragraph? I also notice you haven't condemned the CBS report I pointed out that gave the exact same treatment to a Bush speech.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, the facts about the poll's sample size were conveyed before the jump which is reasonably high up in the story.

The facts about the poll's sample size didn't come until the last paragraph of the story. They did give some general information suggesting more Democrats before that, but you had to finish the story to find out that the poll was stacked with Democrats.

If they had kept the information hidden after the jump, you might have a point (the analogy would be if a newspaper story was "continued on page X" and the newspaper buried a key fact on the back page). But now you are just making standards that are completely arbitrary to support your partisan position. What's too low in the story? The second paragraph? I also notice you haven't condemned the CBS report I pointed out that gave the exact same treatment to a Bush speech.

If they did the same thing, they were just as wrong.

I did a quick Google search and here's the first link I got that was relevant regarding where "hurried" folks stop reading:

The New York Times posts - Digital Media - CNET News

Newspapers are about text, and there's only a moderate need for interactivity. For each story, the reader views the headline and perhaps skims the opening paragraph, and if it doesn't look interesting, moves on to the next story.

If I were to set out to create a false impression about what was happening, but wanted to not be able to be accused of leaving out the information necessary for people to figure things out for themselves, I'd do it exactly the way the writer of this CNN story did. Exactly. I'm not going to defend that kind of junk journalism no matter what "side" does it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The facts about the poll's sample size didn't come until the last paragraph of the story. They did give some general information suggesting more Democrats before that, but you had to finish the story to find out that the poll was stacked with Democrats.

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say the facts about how the sample was skewed Democrat, which is what is relevant to your argument, not the sample size.

If they did the same thing, they were just as wrong.
<snip>
I'm not going to defend that kind of junk journalism no matter what "side" does it.

Great. So please retract your accusation that the media is "biased," since based on your argument and the fact that the standards have been consistent in covering Republican and a Democratic politicians it's clear that the media is really just lazy and has a mistaken impression about what is being read in their articles.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If I were to set out to create a false impression about what was happening, but wanted to not be able to be accused of leaving out the information necessary for people to figure things out for themselves, I'd do it exactly the way the writer of this CNN story did. Exactly. I'm not going to defend that kind of junk journalism no matter what "side" does it.

I would be interested to see you re-write the story using the same information.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The facts about the poll's sample size didn't come until the last paragraph of the story. They did give some general information suggesting more Democrats before that, but you had to finish the story to find out that the poll was stacked with Democrats.

"Suggesting" more Democrats? In the fourth and fifth sentences the article clearly states "The audience for the speech appears to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole. Because of this, the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tune into the speech. The poll surveyed the opinions of people who watched Wednesday night's speech, and does not reflect the views of all Americans.". I suppose you think their should have opened with the poll demographics?

I think this is a clear example of the "truth" being dependent on one's political leaning.

[ebuddy]

Is there really some genuine question of whether or not the media is biased at this point? Really? Take the guy at the D.C. rally with the guns attached to his hip covered on several news outlets for example. The pictures showed him from the waist-down and the stories were framed as questioning "violence" and whether or not racism is prevalent in the teabaggers and protesters... 1. a slight pan upward shows a black man. 2. Not one arrest or act of violence through what is projected to be at least a million people. Why this angle? Was this the angle posed at the anti-Iraq rallies?

Egadz, why argue against folks who can't see it when evidence apparently has no bearing in their conclusion whatsoever.

[olePigeon]

What is News Corporations stake on marketshare for news media outlets? I failed at Googling. The best I could find was only for television, where FOX News has more viewers than the other three (ABC, NBC, CBS) combined.

[Chongo]

What's MSNBC's coverage of the G20 protests been like?