why the media will never be unbiased

[Ryan]

I’m tired of people complaining about media bias. You have the right-wingers complaining about how the liberal media does this and that, and then you have the left-wingers complaining about how Matt Drudge is somehow responsible for all that is evil in the world.

I hate to break it to everyone, but the media IS biased. That can’t be contested (if you think I’m wrong, watch both Fox news and MSNBC cover the same story…you’ll see). The reality of it, though, is that the media will always be biased towards whatever they want to be biased towards.

It makes sense if you step back and think about it. Lets say that 70% of the population is liberal, and the other 30% is conservative (I’m making this unrealistic on purpose), you better bet that the media is going to report one what people want to see. I’d bet you could count on close to 70% of the media to be reporting from a liberal perspective.

The reason is twofold, in my opinion. First, the media is not non-profit. These people work for money. They make more money when more people purchase their services. They will report on whatever will make more people tune in if their primary motivation is money (and for many, it is). Second, many members of the media report on whatever THEY believe in. Since the media is a subset of the overall population, it should be expected that there will be a correlation between the percentage of the population that feels a certain way and the percentage of media sources that report with bias towards that view.

With that realized, I have never understood why liberals get outraged over things Rush Limbaugh says, or why conservatives think Keith Olbermann is the spawn of satan. People are going to disagree with you, and they have every right to have some extremist nutjob talking on television about things they already agree with.

The mere fact that the American government allows this sort of thing to happen is the fundamental root of democracy. Our nation was founded on the principles that each man had a right to speak his mind, and others have a right to both agree and disagree. Without welcomed opposition, democracy quickly turns into dictatorship with the minority oppressed.

The next time you see a ‘talking head’ on CNN or Fox News who stands for everything you disagree with, pause and remember that it is because of our freedoms and luxuries that we are able to see opposing views in the first place; and that alone is worth letting someone (whom you may consider an idiot) give their opinion.

[ravenshrike]

The issue isn't that they are biased. The issue is that they on the balance claim to be unbiased and/or to present both sides of the argument when in point of fact they do nothing of the sort. Moreover, they assert that they have some sort of moral authority as journalists because of this.

[Ryan]

Where do you get your news?

[fmb]

Good thread, Ryan. I've started to think beyond the reporting of an issue and am thinking if people are up in arms (think Oberlmann or Limbaugh), the focus is taken away from the true issue. It (the arguments and disagreements) clouds the waters and what SHOULD be discusssed kinda gets thrown by the wayside.

[ravenshrike]

Where do you get your news?

A large amalgamation of sources combined with healthy doses of cynicism and logic.

[shiiboi]

The issue isn't that they are biased. The issue is that they on the balance claim to be unbiased and/or to present both sides of the argument when in point of fact they do nothing of the sort. Moreover, they assert that they have some sort of moral authority as journalists because of this.

Sounds like Bill O'Reilly, Jack Cafferty, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann et al. all right.

The 'unbiased' reporting issue really goes back to broadcast news where, since the tv networks lease the public airwaves, they had an obligation to present all sides of the political spectrum during a political campaign, etc.

But cable tv and internet news services have no such obligation. Anyone who thinks that they are getting unfiltered, unbiased info from their favorite source is fooling themselves.

We only believe a news organization is unbiased when they mirror our own views (which, of course we believe are fair, balanced and unbiased, right?)

[Krasch]

Sounds like Bill O'Reilly, Jack Cafferty, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann et al. all right.

The 'unbiased' reporting issue really goes back to broadcast news where, since the tv networks lease the public airwaves, they had an obligation to present all sides of the political spectrum during a political campaign, etc.

But cable tv and internet news services have no such obligation. Anyone who thinks that they are getting unfiltered, unbiased info from their favorite source is fooling themselves.

We only believe a news organization is unbiased when they mirror our own views (which, of course we believe are fair, balanced and unbiased, right?)
True, but of course now the network newsies have followed suit and are just as biased as the cable and internet newsies...

[ravenshrike]

True, but of course now the network newsies have followed suit and are just as biased as the cable and internet newsies...

They were always that way. The difference was the lack of conflicting sources made them appear truthful.

[Ryan]

The issue isn't that they are biased. The issue is that they on the balance claim to be unbiased and/or to present both sides of the argument when in point of fact they do nothing of the sort. Moreover, they assert that they have some sort of moral authority as journalists because of this.

Fox news stands out to me as the gleaming example of what you're saying here. They say they're fair and balanced, and yet I can't imagine anyone denying they are definitely biased to the right.

MSNBC is definitely biased to the left. But they know it- they pulled Olbermann off of election coverage because of his inability to remain neutral. That in itself is an admission of bias.

CNN claims to be unbiased, but I think most would admit they lean slightly left. Not nearly as far as MSNBC, and nowhere near as far left as fox news is to the right.

I think Fox news is the biggest culprit of the "we're-not-biased" lie out there, with CNN being a distant second. MSNBC isn't guilty because they acknowledge it, in my opinion.

What do you think?

[ravenshrike]

Fox news stands out to me as the gleaming example of what you're saying here. They say they're fair and balanced, and yet I can't imagine anyone denying they are definitely biased to the right.

MSNBC is definitely biased to the left. But they know it- they pulled Olbermann off of election coverage because of his inability to remain neutral. That in itself is an admission of bias.

CNN claims to be unbiased, but I think most would admit they lean slightly left. Not nearly as far as MSNBC, and nowhere near as far left as fox news is to the right.

I think Fox news is the biggest culprit of the "we're-not-biased" lie out there, with CNN being a distant second. MSNBC isn't guilty because they acknowledge it, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Fox makes no claims of being unbiased. They used to, but the new(relatively) slogan of fair and balanced makes no claims to being unbiased. They are the only national network that's biased to the right, but their bias in their news coverage isn't much further right of center than that of CNN's is left to center. Now, their commentary programs are certainly biased to the right, but anybody who actually gets their NEWS from commentary programs and doesn't filter it is a gullible idiot, right or left. As for being the least biased, the lefty news orgs were so fucking in the tank for Obama this last election it was sick. When you've got SNL, a highly lefty biased group, commenting on the suck-up of a lefty candidate you KNOW it's a problem. The facade's beginning to crack because really, he's so fucking inept it can't do anything but.

[Ryan]

the new(relatively) slogan of fair and balanced makes no claims to being unbiased.

I respectfully bow out of any further conversation with you.

:facepalm: <-- why isn't this a smiley? ah well...

[kulotsalot]

Wait, balanced != unbiased? I'm confused.

[CD]

Fox makes no claims of being unbiased. They used to, but the new(relatively) slogan of fair and balanced makes no claims to being unbiased.
I respectfully bow out of any further conversation with you.

:facepalm: <-- why isn't this a smiley? ah well...
It's probably best that you do... I've argued people who reference Fox News, and it's a lesson in futility. It's quite possibly one of the funniest "News" sources of all time.

Example: 0K2pLo8JV5Y

It's all about presentation with that network. If they even have the other side on their show, they either cut them off (O'Reilly) or they attack the guest with side points that derail the entire conversation and take the focus off what their original response would have been. From what I've seen though, they prefer the derail followed by the cut off. It's a great tactic for them cause they bring up a good issue, and when it's talked about by the other side, they then bring up a whole lot of other crap and then cut them off from getting a word in edgewise.

I'd just appreciate it if all news organizations dropped all marketing lingo about being fair, balanced, unbiased, etc... Oh wait, only one network does that.

[Car Enthusiast]

watch the bbc

[Ryan]

I'd just appreciate it if all news organizations dropped all marketing lingo about being fair, balanced, unbiased, etc... Oh wait, only one network does that.

apparently saying that you're "fair and balanced" doesn't mean that you are fair and balanced- it means you lean heavily to the right

try to keep up

[Waldo]

all i know is some companies that claim to be fair and balanced
are making money and have the highest news ratings.

while the others have the lowest ratings and some "NY times" are going out of business ... who obama will end up I mean "ME" bailing out

[Ryan]

extremist and alarmist programming will always sell... lets face it- it's interesting!

howard stern got famous because people hated him, not because they loved him

do you think that if mccain had won the election, all of the newspapers and auto makers would have magically not needed bailouts?

[ravenshrike]

extremist and alarmist programming will always sell... lets face it- it's interesting!


You're right... Oh wait, no you're not. The Times is just as alarmist and extremist as Fox News is, yet somehow that's not saving their bacon. The only difference is that FN isn't fellating Obama as he embarks the federal government on running a car business. Of course, why anybody thinks the government will be able to run a car business when they couldn't even wring profit out of a whorehouse is beyond me.

[Ryan]

You're right... Oh wait, no you're not. The Times is just as alarmist and extremist as Fox News is, yet somehow that's not saving their bacon. The only difference is that FN isn't fellating Obama as he embarks the federal government on running a car business. Of course, why anybody thinks the government will be able to run a car business when they couldn't even wring profit out of a whorehouse is beyond me.

The Times is going under because print news as a medium is dead.

Stop trying to relate everything negative in the world to Obama- it just makes you look out of touch with reality. You know full well that The Times isn't going under because they are "fellating Obama".

Further, forgive me but I missed the big news article where the government was going to run a car business. I didn't realize government officials had taken over all managerial posts at any car maker. Asking a CEO to resign is not the same as running a company.

Your posts are full of speculative opinion that you state as fact. Do you realize how difficult it is to take you seriously when you make crazy statements like suggesting the government couldn't "wring profit out of a whorehouse"? That's just over exaggeration and speculation at it's worst.

[Krasch]

The Times is going under because print news as a medium is dead.

Stop trying to relate everything negative in the world to Obama- it just makes you look out of touch with reality. You know full well that The Times isn't going under because they are "fellating Obama".

Further, forgive me but I missed the big news article where the government was going to run a car business. I didn't realize government officials had taken over all managerial posts at any car maker. Asking a CEO to resign is not the same as running a company.

Your posts are full of speculative opinion that you state as fact. Do you realize how difficult it is to take you seriously when you make crazy statements like suggesting the government couldn't "wring profit out of a whorehouse"? That's just over exaggeration and speculation at it's worst.

While the statement is somewhat hyperbole, you have to admit the government doesn't have a great history of running much of anything with the greatest of efficiency and skill, except the military and maybe the post office.

Personally though, I'd say they could at least wring a profit from a whorehouse, mostly because ol' Ted Kennedy would be prety much 24/7.

[CD]

The Times is going under because print news as a medium is dead.
That might be a good thing. We as a planet cut down way too many trees as it is. Going "paperless" would help a lot in other ways too. I'm a big fan of the opinions section, and if I go to my local paper's online opinions section, they can monitor that view. Over time and with lots of people they can get a good idea of what sections do well, and could possibly tailor the site to reflect viewership.

Stop trying to relate everything negative in the world to Obama- it just makes you look out of touch with reality. You know full well that The Times isn't going under because they are "fellating Obama".
You know Fox News was only weeks away from running that story about how approving of Obama has been linked to brain cancer.

Further, forgive me but I missed the big news article where the government was going to run a car business. I didn't realize government officials had taken over all managerial posts at any car maker. Asking a CEO to resign is not the same as running a company.

Your posts are full of speculative opinion that you state as fact. Do you realize how difficult it is to take you seriously when you make crazy statements like suggesting the government couldn't "wring profit out of a whorehouse"? That's just over exaggeration and speculation at it's worst.
Yeah... although I don't like our government putting its fingers in more areas, I also laugh at how some people here argue their point by stating opinions as fact. Those fuckers needed someone to slap them upside the head. I was upset years ago when a fairly modest fuel increase standard was proposed and the US car industry got their panties in a bunch. They claimed that the increase was too much, too fast. And yet now, they are touting high MPG cars not because of the earlier government pressure, but because that is the only way they can get sales. They stonewalled with the it can't be done either cheaply or quickly, but once their sales tanked, they magically can get it done. Fuckers should have been allowed to fail...

[bobburgster]

[QUOTEYou're right... Oh wait, no you're not. The Times is just as alarmist and extremist as Fox News is, yet somehow that's not saving their bacon. The only difference is that FN isn't fellating Obama as he embarks the federal government on running a car business. Of course, why anybody thinks the government will be able to run a car business when they couldn't even wring profit out of a whorehouse is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Besides the fact print media as a whole is going out of business...you also have to understand that the NYTimes has to spend alot of money on investigative reporting while Fox just fabricates it.