polisciguy
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 396
- Reaction score
- 133
- Location
- Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
That may explain some conformation bias, it keeps some viewers very happy, but it also limits your audience to those with that bias. Most media bias seems to be by omission - never report the downside of that bias.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
I think this is not only totally wrong, but it's being promoted as an excuse to cover for the fact that the Mainstream Media is totally in the tank for the left. Furthermore, it's been that way for a long time (at least since the Clinton days). However, they haven't been as prominent or outspoken as they are now because they thought they had ushered in Hillary...and lost. Now, they've pulled out all the stops and they'll keep getting more and more outrageous until they succeed in damaging Trump enough.
Bottom line...the Mainstream Media is left-wing agenda driven, they've been that way for decades and they won't stop.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Are you suggesting that when the Church Senate Committee found 400+ CIA agents/assets planted in USA MSM that their purpose was to entertain? Perhaps the trees are blocking your view of the woods?
I'm not suggesting anything, personally. It was just a prompt for discussion.
That theory has been floated before by anyone who thinks it's easier to critique the media on free-market grounds rather than ideological grounds.
For one thing, even if you buy into your theory you can still be left with a media who wants to do both ... fashion a public mindset to which they themselves already ascribe and which will necessarily also keep drawing people back to confirm what they were indoctrinated to believe.
For another thing, the market is ready for a news outlet about which you can't determine their ideology and they're awfully hard to come by.
I don't think the theory can stand on it's own since it's obvious that editors and the reporters they hire are of like ideological mind and they vote that way.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Al jazeera thought that there was a market for non entertainment non biased news in America, spent a LOT of money trying to make it happen.....yes they were not the right people to do it and yes they had to change the name and did not BUT their complete failure to find a market really calls into question this theory that there is a market for that.You add great points. The two practices aren't mutually exclusive, as you mention.
It seems, as far as I can tell anyway, that the market for an apparently unbiased source of media, though large, doesn't typically include the average media consumer. That market is served, in some small part, by more academically driven news sources - particularly print and online sources. There isn't really anything in that category the way of television media, to be sure, but individuals who really want to get to the bottom of politics (the audience for this sort of media) tend to read more dense material or participate in forums like this versus watching 24 hour television news.
I am curious what a more mainstream-like approach to that market would look like.
Thanks for your response.
Nonsense. It is a political bias, purely and simply. They have gotten so extreme that they are at the point of hurting themselves financially.
You add great points. The two practices aren't mutually exclusive, as you mention.
It seems, as far as I can tell anyway, that the market for an apparently unbiased source of media, though large, doesn't typically include the average media consumer. That market is served, in some small part, by more academically driven news sources - particularly print and online sources. There isn't really anything in that category the way of television media, to be sure, but individuals who really want to get to the bottom of politics (the audience for this sort of media) tend to read more dense material or participate in forums like this versus watching 24 hour television news.
I am curious what a more mainstream-like approach to that market would look like.
Thanks for your response.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Al jazeera thought that there was a market for non entertainment non biased news in America, spent a LOT of money trying to make it happen.....yes they were not the right people to do it and yes they had to change the name and did not BUT their complete failure to find a market really calls into question this theory that there is a market for that.
Secondly, why are PBS Newshours ratings not a 100 times better than they are if this is what people want and almost no one else is offering it?
No, what Americans tend to want is to get told that the ideas in their head are right, we dont want to know reality if reality is different than that, fantasy trumps reality, willfully.
Hello all!
A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?
So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
I guess I dont see the point. Whatever the motivation, its still biased. We arent upset that media corporations want to make money. Rather that they do so by violating our trust, claiming to be unbiased, while being anything but.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?