|
Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/7/2009 10:12:42 AM)
|
Wow, talk about spin...
I was thinking of bringing this up myself--the lead NY Times stories are:
Afghans opposing troop increases,
abortion slowing the health care debate, and
unemployment far higher than official reports.
Does that seem like they're pushing Obama's agenda? You're gonna have to explain that one to me--this hardly smacks of the work of "liberal" journalists:
Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: November 6, 2009
"For all the pain caused by the Great Recession, the job market still was not in as bad shape as it had been during the depths of the early 1980s recession — until now.
"With the release of the jobs report on Friday, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment tracked by the Labor Department has reached its highest level in decades. If statistics went back so far, the measure would almost certainly be at its highest level since the Great Depression.
"In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.
"This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time."
[link to the rest of the article]
Does that read like "liberal bias"?
Look, Rich...
You and I disagree, but you do usually debate matters using reason, and listen to same. This, however, seems to touch some huge reservoir of deeply ingrained but unsupported beliefs. You point to studies and polls that don't measure what they claim or point to what they conclude. You can't demonstrate this bias with a simple story to story comparison, opting instead to claim that's not a valid test, without providing any cogent argument for why not. Usually, you'd be among the people pointing out the flaws and providing better evidence and arguments. Here, you're apparently clinging to a cherished but unsupportable belief.
If it helps...I have no problem acknowledging some sources have an unabashed liberal bias, just as others have an unabashed conservative bias. For what it's worth, I don't go to either for my news. Take the economy--I don't need my views reflected back to me. I have decisions to make, long term and day to day, that depend in part on the state and direction of the economy. I don't want to hear that information slanted the way I'd like--I want that coverage to report reality. In fact, I need it to reflect reality, so that I can make good decisions. The quality of my life depends it.
The same applies to politics. Sure, I have views--from fiscally conservative ones to socially progressive ones to moderate foreign policy and monetary views and all sorts of other views. But I don't want the news to be a mirror to my opinions--I want to know just what's going on, both when I'm right, when I'm wrong, and also when I'm partly correct and when the issue is just bigger and broader and more complicated than I first imagined. If the people I supported mess up, I want to know that too. But I want to start with the actual news, not the spins.
I listen to a lot of NPR primarily because I'm in the car a lot. I like the breadth of coverage, if critical of the depth at times (a professional criticism, not a bias issue, as it spans subject matter). As to bias, I actually think they go to sometimes silly lengths to ensure balanced coverage. Hardly biased.
I also like the breadth of the NY Times coverage, along with their generally more comprehensive investigation. Yes, they screw up at times--everyone does. But they're usually careful before reporting. They were NOT among the quick ones to report the Fort Hood gunman was dead and motivated by religion, for example, letting others get the story first in favor of getting the facts right. They are also generally pretty good about avoiding interpreting those facts--for example, when reporting the Republican candidate in the 23rd received 5.1% of the vote, they also clarified it wasn't clear whether these were protest votes or people who didn't know she had withdrawn.
No, I wouldn't make it (or anything else) my sole source, but I can tell you that the bias people continually drum on about just isn't there--at least not in the news.
Among the problems, I think, is that long ago newscasters turned to personalities, making the news about them and their views. From there, entertainment and news combining, leaving several programs of all types that look like news sources but are really compilations of news, commentary, opinion and entertainment. Further, while Americans like to point to the media for a number of problems, from anorexia to standards of women's beauty, for example, these (1) aren't news matters and (2) many Americans pay no attention to the news, so how does it influence them? More people watch Jon Stewart. Ask them the headlines--they don't know. They aren't influenced--just ignorant, especially of the news. They take what media they do consume, and blend it together with "news." Look at how many people here post youtube links to support their views.
This "liberal bias" chant is folklore. When you look at serious news organizations, it just isn't there. And when I ask you to support the claim, the evidence just isn't there.
Now...if you'd like to claim that the entertainment industry has a liberal slant--you may have a point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, you actually said:
quote:
Mainstream news folk tend to have a liberal outlook on the world, and how things ought to be, and those assumptions are reflected in the coverage they produce
So how people think things ought to be isn't shaped by their outlook on the world, Tim? It isn't reflected in what they think is important?
I'm asking you to support that to the extent of claiming consistent liberal bias.
If your assumption is true, the link you provided should establish that most coverage is in the center. Why doesn't it? It's where the majority of journalists identified.
And if that bias is there, in the coverage, it should be easy to demonstrate.
Perhaps we've merely demonstrated the the media has bias toward center.
But it's hard to see how a center position would be criticized as "bias" -- and certainly not "liberal bias," except by those far to the right who consider anyone who disagrees, including moderates, as "liberals" (e.g., "rhinos").
|
|
|
|
