Is the mainstream news media a disgrace? In the tank for Hillary?

[GhostlyJoe]

I'm no fan of Infowars, but the following video is the most comprehensive smackdown of the mainstream news media I've seen in quite a while. It is definitely worth taking the time to watch...

Language warning

This video is junk.

First, the media are not a monolithic entity. Media are made up of thousands of outlets and millions of individual journalists. Some outlets, like Fox, clearly favor a particular brand of politics or set of policies. Many journalists lean one way or another. Many are fairly neutral. All have unique biases and individual passions. Impartiality is an ideal and, really, a process in journalism. Impartiality is an approach, not an inherent quality of media. This video lacks any nuanced understanding of media and fails to make a coherent case. It's just a shotgun blast of moments of perceived bias without context or deeper exploration. It's naked propaganda, attempting to draw a connection between people and incidents that are distinct. There is no media hive-mind.

Second, politics are not monolithic. Partisans often make the mistake of assuming everyone else is just as partisan as they are. Sure, there are only two major parties, but there are thousands of political issues that draw varying levels of interest and passion from any individual, journalist or otherwise. A journalist may have implicit bias on one issue and not on another. A journalist may even dislike a particular candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with partisanship. To show that a mainstream media outlet is "biased," you'll have to show top-down control over what's covered and how. Such things certainly can and do exist. I've personally been privy to organizational bias, and it roiled me. But even that bias was situational and incoherent. It's almost always about the personal interests of ownership being enforced by management, not about electing Democrats or Republicans as an overarching goal. (And personally every instance I've seen of forced messaging favored conservative issues ... lol. For example, I worked in a newsroom where the cartoonist was forbidden from drawing caricatures of George W. Bush because the owner was a fan and it rankled him. But even that newspaper was frequently accused of liberal bias.)

Third, that guy in the video is annoying. I wanted to smack him. Unwatchable.

 

[Mycroft]

Infowars is a conspiracy website that plants misinformation, false flags, distortions about national tragedies in the media.....and profits from the suffering and misery of victims and their families. It's not a credible source, Grim.

LOL!!

Anyone who trots out those "traditional" complaints about non-msm sources haven't been watching msm sources lately. (at least, not without their biased blinders in place)

Nowadays, every one of those "traditional" complaints can be applied to msm. They, by devolving to that deplorable level that is usually reserved for the likes of InfoWars, have effectively raised the relevance of non-msm sources while simultaneously reducing their own relevance.

 

[eohrnberger]

LOL!!

Anyone who trots out those "traditional" complaints about non-msm sources haven't been watching msm sources lately. (at least, not without their biased blinders in place)

Nowadays, every one of those "traditional" complaints can be applied to msm. They, by devolving to that deplorable level that is usually reserved for the likes of InfoWars, have effectively raised the relevance of non-msm sources while simultaneously reducing their own relevance.

Yeah, that's quite true. The Clinton campaign and the mainstream media are now indistinguishable, there is no difference anymore. They are one and the same entity now, operating to achieve the same goal, get Hillary elected POTUS regardless of which rules, ethics, morals, or laws are broken.

Why else so many media personalities leaked normally held confidential information to the Hillary campaign?

 

[ocean515]

This video is junk.

First, the media are not a monolithic entity. Media are made up of thousands of outlets and millions of individual journalists. Some outlets, like Fox, clearly favor a particular brand of politics or set of policies. Many journalists lean one way or another. Many are fairly neutral. All have unique biases and individual passions. Impartiality is an ideal and, really, a process in journalism. Impartiality is an approach, not an inherent quality of media. This video lacks any nuanced understanding of media and fails to make a coherent case. It's just a shotgun blast of moments of perceived bias without context or deeper exploration. It's naked propaganda, attempting to draw a connection between people and incidents that are distinct. There is no media hive-mind.

Second, politics are not monolithic. Partisans often make the mistake of assuming everyone else is just as partisan as they are. Sure, there are only two major parties, but there are thousands of political issues that draw varying levels of interest and passion from any individual, journalist or otherwise. A journalist may have implicit bias on one issue and not on another. A journalist may even dislike a particular candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with partisanship. To show that a mainstream media outlet is "biased," you'll have to show top-down control over what's covered and how. Such things certainly can and do exist. I've personally been privy to organizational bias, and it roiled me. But even that bias was situational and incoherent. It's almost always about the personal interests of ownership being enforced by management, not about electing Democrats or Republicans as an overarching goal. (And personally every instance I've seen of forced messaging favored conservative issues ... lol. For example, I worked in a newsroom where the cartoonist was forbidden from drawing caricatures of George W. Bush because the owner was a fan and it rankled him. But even that newspaper was frequently accused of liberal bias.)

Third, that guy in the video is annoying. I wanted to smack him. Unwatchable.

That is a rather complete, but remarkable, effort to excuse the actions of the MSM which has admitted to it's efforts in Op-Eds, or been taken to task by fellow journalists shocked at the actions.

This bias is not exposed in opinion pieces, where subjective prose is to be expected. This bias is manifested in demonstrable deceit, outright fraud, and confirmed collusion.

Certainly it is the prerogative of media ownership to steer their ship as they see fit, but it's not a ship that is being discussed. What is being discussed is a fleet that dominates the airwaves and the internet.

I recognize people can be overly sensitive when "their" candidate is perceived to be treated unfairly, but all the evidence, including those exposed and cataloged, reveals a coordinated effort to manipulate and deceive in order to boost the prospects of victory for a single candidate.

All voters should be extremely concerned over this transformation of the sources they count on for accurate and unfiltered information.

History details the course of Nations led by governments who controlled the media. The United States was founded to escape such tyranny. It's people should not tolerate efforts to return to that norm.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

That is a rather complete, but remarkable, effort to excuse the actions of the MSM which has admitted to it's efforts in Op-Eds, or been taken to task by fellow journalists shocked at the actions.

This bias is not exposed in opinion pieces, where subjective prose is to be expected. This bias is manifested in demonstrable deceit, outright fraud, and confirmed collusion.

Certainly it is the prerogative of media ownership to steer their ship as they see fit, but it's not a ship that is being discussed. What is being discussed is a fleet that dominates the airwaves and the internet.

I recognize people can be overly sensitive when "their" candidate is perceived to be treated unfairly, but all the evidence, including those exposed and cataloged, reveals a coordinated effort to manipulate and deceive in order to boost the prospects of victory for a single candidate.

All voters should be extremely concerned over this transformation of the sources they count on for accurate and unfiltered information.

History details the course of Nations led by governments who controlled the media. The United States was founded to escape such tyranny. It's people should not tolerate efforts to return to that norm.

Your post just further demonstrates the OP's misunderstanding of modern media and how they operate. You make a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated charges and conflate disparate examples of perceived bias with "coordination." You also allege "government" control without clear definition or evidence. A vague perception of unfairness is proof of nothing.

Start by defining what you're actually talking about. Who are the MSM? Which specific media outlets are being accused here? MSNBC? Fox? Washingon Post? These are not one entity but separate organizations. Which one are part of this "collusion?" Who are the "government?" Congress? Obama? Hillary's campaign (lol)? Trump's?

 

[ocean515]

Your post just further demonstrates the OP's misunderstanding of modern media and how they operate. You make a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated charges and conflate disparate examples of perceived bias with "coordination." You also allege "government" control without clear definition or evidence. A vague perception of unfairness is proof of nothing.

Please don't hold me responsible for your lack of knowledge on the subject. The facts are in evidence, the admissions in writing, the effort cataloged.

Perhaps you should rethink who is offering vague perceptions.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Please don't hold me responsible for your lack of knowledge on the subject. The facts are in evidence, the admissions in writing, the effort cataloged.

Perhaps you should rethink who is offering vague perceptions.

You missed my edit, so here goes:

Start by defining what you're actually talking about. Who are the MSM? Which specific media outlets are being accused here? MSNBC? Fox? Washingon Post? These are not one entity but separate organizations. Which one are part of this "collusion?" Who are the "government?" Congress? Obama? Hillary's campaign (lol)? Trump's?

Please show this evidence and these written admissions.

 

[ocean515]

You missed my edit, so here goes:

Start by defining what you're actually talking about. Who are the MSM? Which specific media outlets are being accused here? MSNBC? Fox? Washingon Post? These are not one entity but separate organizations. Which one are part of this "collusion?" Who are the "government?" Congress? Obama? Hillary's campaign (lol)? Trump's?

Please show this evidence and these written admissions.

I'm not your teacher, find another class.

 

[bubbabgone]

Attack the source and ignore the content... So typical.

Oh c'mon ... it's the first step.
So much easier to dismiss content out of hand than to confront it.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I'm not your teacher, find another class.

You admit defeat that easily? Why weigh in on my post at all if you have nothing to back up your point of view?

 

[ocean515]

You admit defeat that easily? Why weigh in on my post at all if you have nothing to back up your point of view?

No admission of defeat, acknowledgment of futility of effort.

When you offer something to back up your opinion, I'll consider whether it's worth the time and trouble to provide details that are in abundance, but apparently obscure to you.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

No admission of defeat, acknowledgment of futility of effort.

When you offer something to back up your opinion, I'll consider whether it's worth the time and trouble to provide details that are in abundance, but apparently obscure to you.

I back up my point of view with 20 years of experience as a journalist and editor at different media outlets of various size. I also back it up with simple reason. Mainstream news media comprise hundreds of organizations, i.e, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Tribune Company, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Al-Jazeera, Scripps Howard, McClatchy/Knight-Ridder, BBC, Getty, Gannett, dozens of other national and international newspaper chains, local news affiliates, etc. That's just traditional media.

Which ones are in on this cabal of one-sided misinformation? Which ones are colluding to hide the truth? And with which government entities are they colluding? The White House? The DNC? The Clinton Campaign? The House of Representatives?

What information is being squashed?

Your point of view is easily dismissed without a coherent argument and evidence.

 

[Surrealistik]

Just going to note that there are plenty of far better sources to pull similar critiques of MSM from, including the prestigious likes of Noam Chomsky.

And yes, it is obviously very much in the tank for Hillary this electoral cycle.

 

[ocean515]

I back up my point of view with 20 years of experience as a journalist and editor at different media outlets of various size. I also back it up with simple reason. Mainstream news media comprise hundreds of organizations, i.e, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Tribune Company, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Al-Jazeera, Scripps Howard, McClatchy/Knight-Ridder, BBC, Getty, Gannett, dozens of other national and international newspaper chains, local news affiliates, etc. That's just traditional media.

Which ones are in on this cabal of one-sided misinformation? Which ones are colluding to hide the truth? And with which government entities are they colluding? The White House? The DNC? The Clinton Campaign? The House of Representatives?

What information is being squashed?

Your point of view is easily dismissed without a coherent argument and evidence.

Is that right?

You are posting anonymously on a political blog and have offered nothing to support you claim, other than experience which can't be corroborated. That is a very weak reed you are clinging to.

You ask which ones. Well, you just about covered it.

Cabal? Certainly hyperbole is not indicative of someone willing to engage in a meaningful and productive manner.

As to evidence, the depth and breadth of evidence you're apparently choosing to ignore is rather stunning.

However, some observations and data.

Yes, liberal media bias is real, and here's how it affected the CNBC debate | Washington Examiner

The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media - Michael Brown

There are many more but I've already exceeded your effort, so I will leave it at that.

 

[SailaWay]

You missed my edit, so here goes:

Start by defining what you're actually talking about. Who are the MSM? Which specific media outlets are being accused here? MSNBC? Fox? Washingon Post? These are not one entity but separate organizations. Which one are part of this "collusion?" Who are the "government?" Congress? Obama? Hillary's campaign (lol)? Trump's?


Please show this evidence and these written admissions.

this is how the UNWISE debates..... they cannot win on the top priority issues.. so they sidestep with Basicly NONSENSE.. these are the types thinking they are wise but are just the opposite when they lose with the most important issues.....And the most important issue is how the election is RIGGED and it is the media that is doing that....why?? because they are OWNED by globalists who gets their money from their MEDIA to brainwash the unwise to vote for their money issues

BUT this insane greed always runs off the wise and later their GREED SYSTEM collapses

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Attack the source and ignore the content... So typical.

FYI, InfoWars is one of the very, very few sites that I immediately question because of where it came from. Quote Breitbart or Daily Caller or even Rush Limbaugh, and I'll take a look at it (as I've always done)...because I strongly believe that WHAT is said is much more important than WHO said it (which is one reason why I'm liberal). I see Breitbart and the Daily Caller in the same vein that I do Alternet (which is a far-left site) - they might be reporting something factual, so I look at what's said (and what the sources are) before I make any decision.

When it comes to InfoWars, however, they've got a solid track record of supporting whackadoodle conspiracy theories. When I see InfoWars, I think of this guy walking down the street in Seattle holding a big sign saying "Ninjas killed my dad and I need money for training". The guy wasn't smiling - he didn't seem to be joking.

So I immediately paid no further attention to the guy - that way lies madness. So it goes with InfoWars - that way lies madness. If Alex Jones posts something that is backed up by reasonably credible source, then I'll take a look at it...but I will never believe anything from InfoWars unless other, more credible sites are backing it up. InfoWars is no different from many religious websites out there that base their beliefs on nothing more than suspicion...meaning that not paying attention to InfoWars is NOT like not paying attention to Fox News - it's more like not paying attention to scientology.org preaching to us about killing invaders from Xenu by dropping nukes in volcanoes.

Oh, and one more thing - I would advise you to refrain from making assumptions about other people...because it often doesn't work out as well as you might expect.

 

[bubbabgone]

I back up my point of view with 20 years of experience as a journalist and editor at different media outlets of various size. I also back it up with simple reason. Mainstream news media comprise hundreds of organizations, i.e, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Tribune Company, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Al-Jazeera, Scripps Howard, McClatchy/Knight-Ridder, BBC, Getty, Gannett, dozens of other national and international newspaper chains, local news affiliates, etc. That's just traditional media.

Which ones are in on this cabal of one-sided misinformation? Which ones are colluding to hide the truth? And with which government entities are they colluding? The White House? The DNC? The Clinton Campaign? The House of Representatives?

What information is being squashed?

Your point of view is easily dismissed without a coherent argument and evidence.

Such as?

 

[Schism]

I back up my point of view with 20 years of experience as a journalist and editor ...[snip]

Which ones are in on this cabal of one-sided misinformation? Which ones are colluding to hide the truth? And with which government entities are they colluding? The White House? The DNC? The Clinton Campaign? The House of Representatives?

Using your 20 years of experience, could you seriously claim that Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Paul Krugman, are NOT in the tank for Hillary?
...and that their reporting isn't biased?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Using your 20 years of experience, could you seriously claim that Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, Paul Krugman, are NOT in the tank for Hillary?
...and that their reporting isn't biased?

A liberal columnist and a couple of MSNBC talking heads don't comprise the "mainstream media." That's like saying that the existence of Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer prove the media are all in the tank for Republicans. I'm not that familiar with Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd, but I read Paul Krugman. He's an economist and a liberal columnist. That's not the same as MSM bias.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Attack the source and ignore the content... So typical.

My first interaction with that guy was him exploding into an emotional breakdown and calling the Secret Service on me. This website has forever changed my views on liberalism. I am now inclined to believe the opposite of everything he and his ilk say.

Question Reality

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Is that right?

You are posting anonymously on a political blog and have offered nothing to support you claim, other than experience which can't be corroborated. That is a very weak reed you are clinging to.

You ask which ones. Well, you just about covered it.

Cabal? Certainly hyperbole is not indicative of someone willing to engage in a meaningful and productive manner.

As to evidence, the depth and breadth of evidence you're apparently choosing to ignore is rather stunning.

However, some observations and data.

Yes, liberal media bias is real, and here's how it affected the CNBC debate | Washington Examiner

The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media - Michael Brown

There are many more but I've already exceeded your effort, so I will leave it at that.

Dude, do you recall your original reply to me? Here are a couple snippets:

This bias is manifested in demonstrable deceit, outright fraud, and confirmed collusion.

I recognize people can be overly sensitive when "their" candidate is perceived to be treated unfairly, but all the evidence, including those exposed and cataloged, reveals a coordinated effort to manipulate and deceive in order to boost the prospects of victory for a single candidate.

History details the course of Nations led by governments who controlled the media. The United States was founded to escape such tyranny. It's people should not tolerate efforts to return to that norm.

You accused the mainstream media of fraud, collusion, and government control. Your links don't show that at all.
In fact, from your first link:

I don't think it's deliberate, or that any collusion, deception, or bad intentions are at play, except in the rarest circumstances. I also think very highly of many of the journalists whose personal views are significantly to the Left of the American political center. Many of them do an excellent job of reporting the news fairly and trying to understand political viewpoints all around the spectrum.

But the vast majority of journalists at these major outlets are generally liberal, and this ends up slanting their coverage.

That's much, much different. I think that author made a fair, but debatable, point. You've yet to back up your assertions.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Such as?

Several newspapers ranging from medium to large markets, some part of chains, some independently owned.

 

[Grim17]

My first interaction with that guy was him exploding into an emotional breakdown and calling the Secret Service on me. This website has forever changed my views on liberalism. I am now inclined to believe the opposite of everything he and his ilk say.

Question Reality

Again, you are attacking the source and not addressing the content that was presented in the video.

I stated on post 1 that I am not a fan of Infowars. To take it further, I don't like Alex Jones, nor do I frequent the infowars website. I simply tripped upon the link to the video and found it to be relatively spot on and quite entertaining.

 

[bubbabgone]

Several newspapers ranging from medium to large markets, some part of chains, some independently owned.

"Start by defining what you're actually talking about."
Like what, where, owned by whom, and in what capacity in each?
"Please show this evidence."
"You've yet to back up your assertions."

 

[Caine]

Grim, I voted for Reagan and Bush 41...and if Bush 41 were running today, I'd gladly vote for him again. Why? Because he's honorable and forthright enough that he stood up to the far right when he was in the White House. He realized that he was president of ALL the people, and wasn't just there to push this or that partisan agenda. And I can tell you that just as he was absolutely right to NOT continue on to Baghdad (even though I like the rest of my fellow servicemembers didn't understand why at the time, and Trump has stated that Bush 41 was wrong btw), he would know to flatly ignore anything from InfoWars, just as he'd flatly ignore anything from {pick a far-left site of your choice}.

I don't view InfoWars as "far right" by any stretch of the imagination.

They take shots at both political leans... it wasn't too long ago that they were ripping on George W. Bush pretty hard over the Iraq war, if you don't recall.