Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-26-2007, 04:29 PM
 
1,011 posts, read 3,088,207 times
Reputation: 362

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Interesting. So there is research to demonstrate a bias to the left by neutral sources (If a UCLA professor is really neutral). You posted a couple of links to dispute the methodology of that study (I'm not able to question the conclusions of the links you provided but I'm sure some would.). This has been a topic for a long time and yet there is not one study that finds no bias and not one that suggests a bias to the right?!
A) I haven't disputed that "mainstream media" (whatever that means and however you define it) might lean left (again, however you define that).

B) I posted links calling your particular study in question. I also questioned the neutrality of that particular study's authors.

c) I responded to your demand that I show "research that demonstrates no lean to the left," to which I responded such a pursuit isn't the way you go about things - prove that X doesn't exist. Doesn't work that way.

That's all I've really said.

You still maintain the study is a) authored by a neutral source (it's not), b) you won't admit the problems with the methodology in the study, though you admit you can't refute the links I've provided.

I really don't know what else to say.

---------------------------------

By the way, some clever anonymous poster negatively rep'd me for my post in which I provide links that refute the study. I like whomever did that to at least show some balls and identify yourself, because that's a completely ridiculous use of that particular function. In fact, I think it's very much against the rules of the function, to negatively mark for simple disagreement.

Here's what the joker said: "Response was intended to mislead"

How was my post "intended to mislead?" Someone posts a link to a study, I post a link to a studies that refutes the link. I think you have a fundamental aversion to reason.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2007, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,191,241 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvana-Guy View Post
Heck yeah!! CNN airs stuff they get from MediaMatters, a left-wing hate site. CNN and NBC will air anything they see posted online w/o verifying, as long as it will hurt Bush.

CNN/NBC/MSNBC/ABC.. man these chanels are mostly propaganda. They are nothing about the news. They are part of the George Soros network of Information.

It works like this:

1. CNN/NBC/MSNBC/ABC go to hate websites like TheDailyKos, MediaMatters, or MoveOn and read some stuff.

2. They take whatever they learn on the hate sites and put into TV format without verifying any of it. A recent example of how it blew up was Nancy Grace on CNN saying the Duke Players were barbarians and racist, while the evidence showed they were NOT guilty. Another famous example was left-wing extremist Dan Rather come sout with a newscast about Bush going AWOL, when the documents were fake. Rather got his story from some loopy George Soros' run website.

3. They broadcast whatever they find on the propaganda sites as truth.

Conclusion: the US "mainstream media" really ain't mainstreat at all. It is very radicalized by far left elements.
Sad but true.

Another example of media bias (to the left) was the 1992 presidential election...

In the days and weeks before the election, 80% of the media coverage on the economy was negative; after Clinton won, but before he was sworn in, 80% of the media coverage on the economy was positive!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 04:34 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,159,747 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Are they "too liberal?" "Too conservative?" And even if the media is moderate or liberal by American standards, are they right wing by international standards?

Or is it just "the truth" that has a liberal/conservative bias and therefore makes it look like the news is politically biased?

Personally I think most of the news media is biased towards one factor and one alone --- MONEY, including Fox News, but they know they can make more money if they play to their audience, which translates into a percieved right wing bias.
Of course there is bias and thankfully so. I only wish places like Fox and CNN would wear their bias on their sleeve instead of pretending to be fair and balanced or even remotely objective. Why not have a Fox news that represents one view while another outlet favors a different view, there is room for all.

However the notion that media bias is simply towards money is something that I used to agree with but not so much anymore. If it were just money that the media played to, then during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq when there was 25% of the people opposed to it in some form or fashion, EVERY media outlet, even the more liberal leaning ones still pressed hard core towards an Iraq war. If it were purely being driven by profit, then it would stand to reason that at at least one media outlet would have taken the adversarial position and been the lone outlet that represented 20% of the media share. This did not happen and instead they ALL jostled for the same piece of tenderloin, while an entire feast went uneaten.

This happens daily although far more subtly. During a conversation with Professor Levinson, he mentioned that each media outlet has a wall of screens to watch in order to see what the competition will lead with and so thus follow in a similar manner. I disagreed with Mr. Levinson as someone has to be first with a story lead and again, if everyone plays the same story, there are stories not getting press that many people would like to hear about. Those stories are potential media share that are ignored, so thus they are profits ignored.

There is something more important to media that simply money, and I would suspect it to be power. The power to guide public opinion and socially engineer the collective to means not completely understood but definitely well documented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 04:35 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,552,905 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless View Post
B) I posted links calling your particular study in question. I also questioned the neutrality of that particular study's authors.
Did I not say "I'm sure the study has flaws?" I say I can't refute them because I'm not a researcher and am not going to take the time to really examine it. Research discussions go back and forth all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless View Post
c) I responded to your demand that I show "research that demonstrates no lean to the left," to which I responded such a pursuit isn't the way you go about things - prove that X doesn't exist. Doesn't work that way.
A more likely research scenario would be that the question being pursued would be the presence of bias. This would include to the left or right. That's what was examined in both the UCLA study and the Pew Research Group's study. If you looked at those, they both had a chance (by the research design) to come out with the opposite conclusion or with the conclusion of no bias. Neither one did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Journey's End
10,203 posts, read 27,071,394 times
Reputation: 3946
Media is neither liberal or conservative, but certain journalists display their personal views, with or without analysis; individual media outlets select what they want to promote or disparage, and each media network, or newsmedia outlet is also composed of both left-leaning and right-leaning journalists.

You can read the WP and see the various tones, intimations, direct attacks and POV daily.

You can call the NYT liberal or left leaning but they have supported many right-leaning positions.

There are exceptions, and those exceptions are fairly transparent: they say they are one or the other. Some, however, are disingenuous and deny their personal perspective interferes with their journalistic presentation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 08:15 PM
 
3,301 posts, read 6,313,311 times
Reputation: 810
Default The New York TIMES is a great example of political bias.

The New York TIMES is a great example of political bias. They did not do it for money. Not with the discount they gave MoveOn.

I'm going to post another good example of news media bias in this thread concerning a massacre in Vietnam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,264,523 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Of course there is bias and thankfully so. I only wish places like Fox and CNN would wear their bias on their sleeve instead of pretending to be fair and balanced or even remotely objective. Why not have a Fox news that represents one view while another outlet favors a different view, there is room for all.

However the notion that media bias is simply towards money is something that I used to agree with but not so much anymore. If it were just money that the media played to, then during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq when there was 25% of the people opposed to it in some form or fashion, EVERY media outlet, even the more liberal leaning ones still pressed hard core towards an Iraq war. If it were purely being driven by profit, then it would stand to reason that at at least one media outlet would have taken the adversarial position and been the lone outlet that represented 20% of the media share. This did not happen and instead they ALL jostled for the same piece of tenderloin, while an entire feast went uneaten.

This happens daily although far more subtly. During a conversation with Professor Levinson, he mentioned that each media outlet has a wall of screens to watch in order to see what the competition will lead with and so thus follow in a similar manner. I disagreed with Mr. Levinson as someone has to be first with a story lead and again, if everyone plays the same story, there are stories not getting press that many people would like to hear about. Those stories are potential media share that are ignored, so thus they are profits ignored.

There is something more important to media that simply money, and I would suspect it to be power. The power to guide public opinion and socially engineer the collective to means not completely understood but definitely well documented.
Agreed. And the mainstream media (except Fox) has been guiding public opinion steadily leftward.

That power seems to many otherwise astute people on this bbs to be benevolent. I fail to see how that can be so, unless one ascribes to the belief that the end justifies the means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 10:29 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,159,747 times
Reputation: 3696
Considering how many contribute to "mainstream media" since it finally started reaching out to online communities, if you are looking for objectivity, you need to look for it on a piece by piece basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 10:35 PM
 
1,011 posts, read 3,088,207 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Agreed. And the mainstream media (except Fox) has been guiding public opinion steadily leftward.
Link?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
That power seems to many otherwise astute people on this bbs to be benevolent. I fail to see how that can be so, unless one ascribes to the belief that the end justifies the means.
Considering many of our feelings towards Faux Noise, I hardly think we see coercion by/from the media (of any sort) benevolent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2007, 11:01 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,191,241 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless View Post
Considering many of our feelings towards Faux Noise, I hardly think we see coercion by/from the media (of any sort) benevolent.
Intelligent. Calling a network a name because it's not far left like you think it should be!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top