[besson3c]

I hear people all the time say that the problem is that the news media is not unbiased and is lazy with their fact checking...

I disagree. This is a problem, but not the main problem.

The main problem is that most major outlets trade off in-depth analysis for sensationalism and profits, and appealing to our collective low attention spans. You simply cannot provide good news coverage this way no matter what your bias (or lack of one) is. Coverage that is built around providing infotainment will never amount to more than it is.

Many Republicans bitch and moan about how horrible and biased NPR is, but listen to it and contrast it to Fox/CNN/MSNBC... For starters, it is far more likely that they'll spend more than 10 seconds on stories complex enough to warrant this extra attention. They'll follow up a complicated story with an in depth side story explaining some of the concepts involved in some of the stories that are being discussed nationally (e.g. exactly how some of these mortgage scams worked), and they'll basically treat their listeners like they are smarter than a 12 year old.

This, is what we need all of our media to be like. We can talk all day about who is bias, how journalism is declining, etc. but nothing is going to change so long as we accept infotainment as a legitimate form of news. This includes reporters standing out in the rain showing you how hard it is raining, obsessing over stuff which is so utterly unimportant, reporting which simply does not have to be done (e.g. a tour through Michael Jackson's vacated house), and anything else that seems like it belongs on the script of Idiocracy (great movie/documentary!)

So, my advice: don't misdirect your energy hating a network because of what bias you think they have. Hate them because they treat us like we are 12.

[AKcrab]

Stop making sense.

This does not fodder the proper sort of "discussion" that rules here in the P/WL.

[BadKosh]

So, Who's at fault? GREEDY News editors, and the morons who instructed their staffs to dumb down and bling up the news for profit. No management integrity.

[stupendousman]

You have a point.

But that being said, it's in the best interest of companies who have to make a profit in order to stay in business to give consumers what they want, and that's what they do.

NPR doesn't have to make a profit. They don't have big audiences to keep the lights on. Taxpayers help pay for their operation whether they like it or not. Probably about half of the taxpayers are paying for reporting that is biased against their political views as well.

There's a reason why NPR has to be subsidized. It's because the way they do is NOT the way the majority of Americans like it. Me personally, if I want to know more about a subject, I don't sit in my car and listen to a headless voice for an extended period of time. I get a magazine, newspaper or book and get in-depth analaysis. I use broadcast news to give me as much information as they can as fast as possible, and if they can throw in some interesting and entertaining stories, more power to them. I'm guessing I'm not alone, as that is the way most broadcast media format their programming.

Don't blame the media outlets for providing services consumers want. Especially since there are other means to get the information.

[OldManMac]

Actually, NPR audiences are growing, as is the number of people who donate during pledge drives. Fortunately there are still some people who like accurate news that doesn't consist of gossiping about Michael Jackson's life.

[Dork.]

I only got about halfway through your post, besson3c, and then a shiny thing distracted me. Sorry!

[ebuddy]

In a story broadcast on Morning Edition on Jan. 22, 2002, National Public Radio said it had called the Traditional Values Coalition to ask if that group had been contacted by the FBI, investigating the mailing of anthrax to Senate offices. This report violated NPR editorial principles. No one had told our reporter that the Traditional Values Coalition was a suspect in the anthrax mailing. No facts were available then or since then to suggest that the group had any role in the anthrax mailing. NPR deeply regrets this mistake and apologizes for any false impression that the coalition was involved in this investigation.

The problem is not necessarily a blatant smear attempt such as the one above, it is the story one chooses to highlight and which "complex" facts they choose to address. There are a lot of Democrats bitching about the bias at Fox News, but contrast that with the wealth of news media outlets available to left-leaning sensitivities. Is Fox News bias because they feature a couple of prominent Conservatives? Can you have an objective news outlet without their contribution? Can you hide behind "artists" and "satirists" who rip into prominent Republicans and still try to maintain some air of fairness?

See, it is not just Republicans bitching any more. It is anyone concerned about an Administration that is repeatedly moving full-steam ahead on policies they understand little about, haven't read, and insist must be passed quickly. The complaint is the lacking of a strong voice of challenge from media, not so much that the media is biased mind you, but they are too quiet in general. Show me the hard-hitting, challenging questions to Obama. While our economy was being compared to the Great Depression and while in the throws of two wars Obama was being asked by NPR about whether he was pulling for the Lakers or the Celtics? C'mon. You don't think there's a bias? There are reporting agencies built on exposing media bias including the number of articles both favorable and critical of an official based on their political affiliation and the numbers are unmistakable. It would be worthless to cite all the anecdotal evidence of an apparent bias because I'm certain we're not interested in details, but suffice it to say bias does not have to come from the bleeding mouths of pseudo-intellectual Conservative opposition, it is disguised in headlines such as; Obama To Retake Reigns of Health Care Debate

Critical analysis and hard-hitting, challenging news coverage should not be reserved for those who oppose the Preferred Ideology™. The bias at NPR is unmistakable. Is it less reprehensible than say...CNN or Fox in its shamelessness? Perhaps, but this doesn't mean it's business model of usurping taxpayer funds for liberal propagandizing is one of media integrity.

So... the problem with news media in the US today? All of the above.

[ghporter]

I think besson is pretty close to precisely correct. He misses one point though: "news media" stopped being "news media" somewhere around 25 years ago, when the cable channels figured out that to have "24/7 news" they needed a lot of crap to fill time. So today's "news media" is "infotainment" at best.

I've missed Walter Cronkite for a long time. Between him, Huntly and Brinkley, and Howard K. Smith, they actually got the news and got it out to the public with a minimum of interpretation and spin. And since they had at most an hour a day, they could do a very good job of getting to the heart of what they were reporting without all the "breaking news" crap that we see today. If it was really "breaking news," they interrupted whatever else was being broadcast, otherwise it waited until the next news show.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Many Republicans bitch and moan about how horrible and biased NPR is, but listen to it and contrast it to Fox/CNN/MSNBC... For starters, it is far more likely that they'll spend more than 10 seconds on stories complex enough to warrant this extra attention. They'll follow up a complicated story with an in depth side story explaining some of the concepts involved in some of the stories that are being discussed nationally (e.g. exactly how some of these mortgage scams worked), and they'll basically treat their listeners like they are smarter than a 12 year old.

That sounds like it might require effort and thought on my part. I don't like it. I'd much rather be told what to think in less than 30 seconds.

[BadKosh]

When you are connected to a story NPR covers you'l notice the bias. The words and added opinions interjected into a story ISN'T NEEDED.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When you are connected to a story NPR covers you'l notice the bias. The words and added opinions interjected into a story ISN'T NEEDED.

I've found that people are notoriously bad at detecting bias in stories about themselves — they mistake "factual but unpleasant" for "biased against" — so I'm not sure this is true.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I think your post is misdirected. I'm not prepared to claim that NPR has no bias or is perfect, that was not my intent. My claim was that the basic format and presentation of their news coverage is far closer to what we need. Let's focus on format and presentation, not on a bias litmus test.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I think your post is misdirected. I'm not prepared to claim that NPR has no bias or is perfect, that was not my intent. My claim was that the basic format and presentation of their news coverage is far closer to what we need. Let's focus on format and presentation, not on a bias litmus test.

You had mentioned how Republicans are bitching and moaning about NPR, but to your earlier point this is no different than Democrats bitching and moaning about Fox. NPR is fundamentally different. You have a tendency of putting forth a lot of effort to appear neutral, but there's always that little obligatory dig. I guess maybe I found it ironic how we're talking about a preference for dry, neutral, fact-based discussion by using juicy, partisan, opinionated banter. I thought I'd contribute.

I may have gotten a bit off track because I wanted to make it clear how I felt about a news outlet that functions on the collective resource regardless of whether or not it is checking facts for accuracy. I can choose not to contribute to Fox News by changing the channel, but I will contribute to NPR whether I like it or not. News is business and business is ratings. NPR can get away with being dry because they are not as beholden to ratings.

Another problem is you're comparing radio news/talk to 24-7 television news coverage. They are two completely different animals and while I'll watch C-Span from time to time, I'm among the very few.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I only got about halfway through your post, besson3c, and then a shiny thing distracted me. Sorry!

-t

[Monique]

We do not have in North America news channels that are objective. Because Obama is Black he is perfect. It has become a show not just reporting facts and let us decide what we think about it.

CNN at the beginning was really good but now it is totally lousy. The only channel I watch is BBC they have not been poisoned by the biased bug.

Also, CNN talks about race all the time; this is how you divide a country to report that people are racist. The Americans are not more racist than anyone else, and the African American, the latino and the Asians are no longer victims.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Monique 

We do not have in North America news channels that are objective.

This is the most concise and honest thing anyone CAN say in this thread. NO news source in North America (and I believe anywhere) is even close to objective. The better ones are relatively objective, and have well understood biases, so you can get a good idea of "what really happened" by looking at their reports with those biases in mind. The worst though have a repertoire of different biases and points of view that change without notice, so their reports are much harder to decipher for the "truth" of whatever they're reporting.

[besson3c]

But again, objectivity is putting the cart before the horse. Objectivity is meaningless so long as the major sources of news are formatted to provide infotainment rather than substantive news.

[ghporter]

Agreed. If you want to inform people, you have to work at it. On the other hand, tabloid stuff is always a good seller, and why bother with objectivity and working at balance in coverage if you're basically the Weekly World News?