But there is NO liberal media bias...

But there is NO liberal media bias... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

CreativeDominant -> But there is NO liberal media bias... (5/8/2014 1:16:03 PM)
Interesting news the other day: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/06/study-just-seven-percent-of-journalists-now-identify-as-republicans/comment-page-1/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1141255/posts http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207 (From this source, which is relevant to...but came before...this news) Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies, but is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As media researchers Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: “[F]or every sin of commission…we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission – cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.”  (Bold and italics mine)  By no means is such activity the result of an organized campaign or conspiracy. Media expert Bernard Goldberg says: “No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.” Goldberg explains that "a lot of newspeople … got into journalism in the first place" so they could: (a) "change the world and make it a better place," and (b) use their positions as platforms from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.”   Expanding further upon this point, Goldberg quotes researcher Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, who said that journalists increasingly "see themselves as society’s designated saviors," striving to “awaken the national conscience and force public action.” Or as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted to the Boston Globe in July 2001: “Those of us who went into journalism in the ’50s or ’60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do: Save the world.” But there IS NO...repeat NO...media bias.

mnottertail -> RE: But there is NO liberal media bias... (5/8/2014 1:53:10 PM)
Thats good. Walter Cronkite is pretty much living in stiffyville, and not even cable is broadcasted there.

Musicmystery -> RE: But there is NO liberal media bias... (5/8/2014 2:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But there IS NO...repeat NO...media bias. Who the hell told you that? Ridiculous faux-rage, debunking something no one believes.

PeonForHer -> RE: But there is NO liberal media bias... (5/8/2014 2:25:18 PM)
It probably makes a teensy difference that the owners of the media are frequently not lefty-liberals. Need I say more than 'Rupert Murdoch'?

Zonie63 -> RE: But there is NO liberal media bias... (5/9/2014 7:38:05 AM)
quote: Goldberg explains that "a lot of newspeople … got into journalism in the first place" so they could: (a) "change the world and make it a better place," and (b) use their positions as platforms from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.”    I was just saying in another thread how media tend to want to evoke emotions from people, although that may or may not be the result of political bias. One might be able to see it in human interest stories or even something as mundane as a traffic accident. In fact, I often find myself frustrated with the local press when they cover a local accident or something similar. They seem more driven to get emotional-laden quotes from people to express just how horrible the accident was, but very little on details as to what actually caused the accident. It seems like the basics of "who/what/where/when/why/how" are being neglected in favor of anecdotes and extraneous emotion. I don't think it's liberalism as much as just pandering to a mostly gullible public. But the media are more than just reporters; there's also the entertainment and sports media. This is where I start to wonder about allegations of "media bias." After all, if one is given the impression that most of the reporters and media are biased towards liberalism, then why wouldn't the entire package be geared to push people in a certain direction of political activism? How does it explain all the entertainment "news" and celebrity gossip? It seems that they just want to dazzle and distract people with glitter and sleaze. It seems that all they want to do is keep people glued to their TV sets, watching endless piles of crap. News departments also have to get the ratings, so they have to spice it up a bit, too. Maybe back in the 1960s-era underground newspapers, they might have been liberals with a social conscience. But things have changed quite a bit since then, and the liberals and the media have changed as well. Even the survey linked above indicates that most reporters identify as either "independent" or "other."

MercTech -> RE: But there is NO liberal media bias... (5/9/2014 8:57:13 AM)
The purpose of journalism remains selling a product. As long as the slant sells; it won't change. I tired long ago of the abysmal ignorance of history and science in mainstream media. If I want news, I'd rather look to the wire services who have less agenda slant to their reporting.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125