• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The real Media Bias (1 Viewer)

Exactly. Conservative/Liberal spin makes people yell at their TV's, and keeps them tuned in.

ITS ALL RATINGS. Is there really a difference between Entertainment and News? I doubt it!
 
stsburns said:
Is there really a difference between Entertainment and News?
Click to expand...


Yes. You can usually tell by the names of the show.
Most with the name News in the heading are at least making a half ass-ed effort at informing. Names or catchy phrases like crossfire,factor,Air America, Hannity, Wolf, Savage, Rush,etc are merely entertaintment based on a news story.It is sort of like a a movie about a book. If you read the original book you can see the similarities but often "artistic license" is taken to the point where the two products are different as night and day.

Where the hell did that bird come from in Disney's Aladdin adaptation anyway?
 
Sad but true. I occasionally watch FOX at primetime just to laugh at it and yell at Bill O'Reilly a bunch.
 
jpwright said:
Sad but true. I occasionally watch FOX at primetime just to laugh at it and yell at Bill O'Reilly a bunch.
Click to expand...

I've been watching a lot of Fox recently. I don't count on the TV for my "news".
 
There is one very good unbiased source for TV news. The BBC is on every night on PBS at 10 Central time. It's got great coverage of events you wouldn't hear anything about on the networks.
 
I agree that TV is all ratings, but what do you expect? Maybe a flash-in-the-pan movement of journalists for truth?

I'd rather have a free press that goes for the money and on the way does some reporting than any other system that's feasible. Plenty of these papers rely on the public trusting them. Sometimes that involves deception, but the easiest way to do that is to hire honest reporters who report the facts.

Not so bad, eh?

As for ripping off poor countries, yeah, that really sucks for them, but think twice before you decide the United States should lay down and let the rest of the world catch up to it economically. Always a balance, always.
 
quarterback7 said:
There is one very good unbiased source for TV news. The BBC is on every night on PBS at 10 Central time. It's got great coverage of events you wouldn't hear anything about on the networks.
Click to expand...


True, the BBC is good. On my cable, I also get the BBC channel, which gets alot into Britain's culture with tv shows, news programs, documentaries. I find myself watching quite a bit. I'm STILL trying to catch a show they're run as of late concerning the history of Great Britain. One of these days I'll catch it from the beginning.
 
If you want to get a really in depth look at the true biases in the media you should look into "The Propaganda Model of News" by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Theres a 1hr documentary about it floating around online called "The Myth of the Liberal Media" and it is fascinating. "The Corporation" or at least the 2nd hour of it also contains some relevant information. If you just want a quick laugh at O Reilly's expense the Outfoxed is always good for a laugh.
 
freethought6t9 said:
If you want to get a really in depth look at the true biases in the media you should look into "The Propaganda Model of News" by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Theres a 1hr documentary about it floating around online called "The Myth of the Liberal Media" and it is fascinating. "The Corporation" or at least the 2nd hour of it also contains some relevant information. If you just want a quick laugh at O Reilly's expense the Outfoxed is always good for a laugh.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the recommendations.

I recently watched a documentary on Noam Chomsky, titled "Manufacturing Consent", which was very insightful. There is also a great book called "Four Arguments for The Elimination of TV" by Jerry Mander, which is no less than mind-blowing.
 
"Orwell Rolls in his Grave" is another superb documentary on the corporate media. Micheal Powell being dragged in front of the senate is simply awesome. I'm busy downloading manufacturing consent, will check the book out, thanks.
 
freethought6t9 said:
"Orwell Rolls in his Grave" is another superb documentary on the corporate media. Micheal Powell being dragged in front of the senate is simply awesome. I'm busy downloading manufacturing consent, will check the book out, thanks.
Click to expand...

Thanks, again. I'll check out "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" as soon as I finish with "The Corporation" which should arrive in the next day or so.

Also, More meaty stuff::shock:

WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?

Mediachannel.org has created a comprehensive chart of exactly who owns what.
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

Colombia Journalism Review provides a clickable list of the major media companies and their holdings. This web guide demonstrates the exceedingly far reach of these companies.
http://www.cjr.org/owners/

This is a clickable chart of the ten largest media companies in the world, current as of Dec. 20, 2001 (it is important to note that media concentration is not only an American problem). It includes US companies such as the Walt Disney Company and AOL Time Warner, as well as international giants Bertelsmann and Vivendi Universal.
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

A graph of media ownership shows the number of corporations in control of US media plunging from 50 in 1983 to only six now. It is followed by a really useful list of links, which includes the major media reform advocacy groups.
http://www.corporations.org/media/

As FAIR explains, "Almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States are owned by for-profit corporations--institutions that by law are obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism."
This brief introduction to corporate ownership of the media is followed by a number of links to resources on the topic, including Norman Solomon's columns.
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/corporate.html

EXAMPLES OF A DECLINE IN MEDIA QUALITY

Michael Massing of the Columbia Journalism Review evaluates the press coverage immediately after the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=massing

Print and broadcast media in the US have severely cut back foreign news coverage, leading to a poorly educated American public. This may be one of the reasons that Americans were so shocked by the events of Sept. 11--they have little to no knowledge of politics, ideology, and religion in the rest of the world. Meanwhile, coverage of crime, violence, sex and scandals has greatly increased.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0927-03.htm

original source:

http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin7.html
 
Last edited:
"I have been in local TV newsrooms in Phoenix, Seattle and Pittsburgh, and I don't think there is bias, either liberal or conservative," said the alumna, Tallee Whitehorn, 27, an assistant news director at WTAE- TV, an ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh. "This is not really a place for it, unless I wanted to get a lot of hate mail, which I don't."

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html
 
SOURCE

"Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any different. However, they have also argued convincingly that the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo."
 
The media is owned and controlled by the jews....
 
Rupert Murdoch, republican, owner of News Corp. and Fox News Network, reaches:

280 million people in the U.S. (US TV Network)
300 million people in Asia (Asian Satellite Network)
300 million homes (cable channels)
38 million people (magazines)
 
Votergate should be a CNN SPECIAL and should have been smeared on the news instead of that little girl in Aruba, with all due respect to her family I would much rather see national news on the NEWS instead of their familys plight.
 
No media bias...?:2razz: If one thing the liberals have ALWAYS had, & they USED to have a monopoly on almost ALL of the news too!

Kind of sucks , huh?:smile: Those glory days are now over!:smile:
 
Stu Ghatze said:
No media bias...? If one thing the liberals have ALWAYS had, & they USED to have a monopoly on almost ALL of the news too!

Kind of sucks , huh?:smile: Those glory days are now over!
Click to expand...

I suggest you use the search function and read all the other threads on this subject, so you can stop embarassing yourself. We've proved you wrong several times over. But you wouldn't know that because your too busy hitting the reply button.:doh
 
ban.the.electoral.college said:
I suggest you use the search function and read all the other threads on this subject, so you can stop embarassing yourself. We've proved you wrong several times over. But you wouldn't know that because your too busy hitting the reply button.:doh
Click to expand...




You are hilarious? You said, " We've proved you wrong"? Who is "we", perhaps the fox guarding the hen-house?:2razz:

When roughly 78% of all national newspeople interviewed as they have been in the past;.. admit to have liberal leanings in their politics, it is NO phantom!

The blind might be blind, ..but they are not also deaf. Its easy to see, hear, & how the news is presented, & it sure as hell ain't independent.

Kind of reaks of "internationalist" flair. Gee, it just must be co-incidental, huh?

Lets see how is the message reported: Bush is evil, Bush is racist, Bush lied, America is evil, Bush, Cheney & Halliburton, Bush stole election, Bush owns Diebold voting machines, Christians are evil, Sympathy for terrorists, justification for Terrorists, America uses torture??

On & on, ..& Al jazeera has nothing on them!
 
Last edited:
Stu Ghatze said:
You are hilarious? You said, " We've proved you wrong"? Who is "we", perhaps the fox guarding the hen-house?

When roughly 78% of all national newspeople interviewed as they have been in the past;.. admit to have liberal leanings in their politics, it is NO phantom!

The blind might be blind, ..but they are not also deaf. Its easy to see, hear, & how the news is presented, & it sure as hell ain't independent.

Kind of reaks of "internationalist" flair. Gee, it just must be co-incidental, huh?
Click to expand...

You've missed weeks of debating this topic. And you suddenly arrive on the scene acting as if you know everything, when in fact you are only insulting your own intelligence. I told you to use the search function to read all the posts of several threads on this topic before you make yourself look more foolish. Perhaps, I was asking for too much. So, suit yourself. I don't have time to bring you up to speed. I would hope you might be able to do that on your own.
 
Stu Ghatze said:
You are hilarious? You said, " We've proved you wrong"? Who is "we", perhaps the fox guarding the hen-house?:2razz:

When roughly 78% of all national newspeople interviewed as they have been in the past;.. admit to have liberal leanings in their politics, it is NO phantom!

The blind might be blind, ..but they are not also deaf. Its easy to see, hear, & how the news is presented, & it sure as hell ain't independent.

Kind of reaks of "internationalist" flair. Gee, it just must be co-incidental, huh?

Lets see how is the message reported: Bush is evil, Bush is racist, Bush lied, America is evil, Bush, Cheney & Halliburton, Bush stole election, Bush owns Diebold voting machines, Christians are evil, Sympathy for terrorists, justification for Terrorists, America uses torture??

On & on, ..& Al jazeera has nothing on them!
Click to expand...

I have already provided the most recent facts on Liberal Bias from a non-partisan survey...source included for further reading...

Located in the thread..."Polls -The Great Myth... "Liberal Media Bias"...Post #2

Have at it!:2wave:
 
eah, but as I said then your data is incomplete, it makes no reference to economic policies, or the journalists reactions to them. And then of course there is the fact that this is irrelevant, who do you think is in charge? The journalists, who are assigned stories (for the most part), or the editors (who assign and edit the journalists stories) or the owners (who hires and fires anyone they want, and makes sure the journalists and editors don't damage the corporate interests of the parent). Read the article poswted by skilmatic if you don't want to take my word for it, or "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman if you want to see where the real biases of the media lie.

Let me give you a good example of what Chomsky and Herman demonstrate with their propaganda model. When comparing the deaths of a Polish priest named Popieluszko by Polish police in the 80's to the deaths of 4 American nuns by the El Salvadoran National Guard. Now Poland was a client state of the U.S.S.R. and the New York Times carried 78 articles on his death, made repeated attempts to link the crime to the Polish or Soviet government with no real evidence. In comparison the rape and murder of the four Americans had only 26 articles in the Times and the crime had strong ties to upper echelons of the Salvadoran government, a client of the U.S, this was never discussed in the Times, at least not in a fair way based on the evidence suggesting high placed orders to kill the women.

Now it seems to me that a liberally biased, American hating paper would have largely ignored activities in the Eastern Bloc and incessantly banged on about the four women, in fact this crime deserved as much attention as the Polish, both were brutal and sadistic, and while grisly, detailed accounts of the state of Popieluszko's body were readily available whereas accounts of the finding of the four Americans was brief and perfunctory.

What we have here is an example of the U.S. media being extremely servilient to the U.S. Government, but don't take my word for it, read the book, there are many other factors and biases at work just in regard to these stories, there is a hell of a lot of evidence I've missed out, and all of it is damning.
 
Are you buying these downloads or how you getting em. Id like to watch these myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom