Liberal Media Bias, XXIV

[mattp]

Is anybody but me thoroughly disgusted with the news media lately?

 

Covering the Election, the TV news and even the newspapers cover the latest polling data and dwell upon who snubbed who in the last debate, but there is little coverage of the actual positions that the candidates are taking, who they are aligned with, or anything else substantive that would actually be important in deciding who to vote for.

 

Covering the War, we are constantly hearing about how the surge is working, but there is little mention of the fact that most experts and even Bush’s men admit that there is little sign of progress but a lot of reason to think we are delaying the inevitable civil war. Even with Pakistan being in the news these past two weeks, there is more time and print spent on the success of the surge than the danger of disaster in Pakistan, the clear deterioration of Afghanistan, or the dim prospects for ongoing improvement in Iraq.

 

Covering the Environment, we heard for years about how there was scientific debate over climate change when there was not and now though that has faded away yet we are still hearing very little about the depth or details of the issue or the US’ role in global environmental politics, and there is scant little discussion of how we might address the issue or how this or that possible choice might affect the future or our economy.

 

Covering the Bush Administration, we've read the stories but there sure isn't much of an emphasis on the fact that more Bush appointees or associates have been accused of or indicted on felonies than any recent administration (isn't that correct?), and the Gonzalez resignation stayed in the headlines for about 3 days. Bush has ignored Israel and Palestine and now they talk with a straight face about how he thinks he's going to attain a major breakthrough during his last year in office?

 

On Health Care: more of the same.

 

The righty’s around here periodically argue that the media maintains a clear liberal bias, but does it?

[tvashtarkatena]

Today's media has a stupidity bias.

Edited January 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

OK then, that raises the question: is the liberal or conservation position on these major issues more stupider?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

OK then, that raises the question: is the liberal or conservation position on these major issues more stupider?

 

it's not more stupider it's dumberer. and Bush is the worstestest president ever!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, the conservative position has prevailed since Reagan, and here we are, right where we all want to be.

 

The conservative position has been about looking backward to a time that never was, trying (unsuccessfully) to attain US dominance over the rest of the world, and social control: the expansion of government into the private lives of individuals. Too much of the conservative agenda is focused on steroid bloated national security; the movement has grossly overblown the threats we face and thus cost us an enormous amount of money, opportunity, credibility, morale, civil liberties, and not a few young lives.

 

Every one of this mega-projects has been an abject failure. Why? Because their not based on any reasonable approximation of reality. They're base on myths.

 

In contrast, the core of the liberal position has been about trying to solve problems that we are or will be facing: poverty, the environment, healthcare.

[mattp]

Why can't the liberal media present real information about these issues? My impression is that polling data shows the public is on average far more "liberal" or at least slightly to the "left" if you view politics as a spectrum than the stated positions of most politicians or the press on all of the issues that I listed above.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Why can't the liberal media present real information about these issues? My impression is that polling data shows the public is on average far more "liberal" or at least slightly to the "left" if you view politics as a spectrum than the stated positions of most politicians or the press on all of the issues that I listed above.

 

"real information" = biased viewpoint of MattP, TTK, and everyone as far left as Karl Marx.

[mattp]

DO you argue, KK, that there actually WAS a substantial basis to debate whether climate change was caused by human activity until as recently as last year?

 

Do you argue that the Surge IS actually producing progress in Iraq that is sustainable or that the daily barrage of stories on this theme deserve more public attention than the deterioration in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

 

Do you believe that the criminal conduct of Bush associates should be published as isolated stories that come and go and are forgotten?

 

Do you think nobody is interested in how the economy is impacted by taxing and spending policies or what and whether our government actually CAN do anything to help us?

 

Is your favorite Fox news channel informing you about the details of the positions taken by the candidates?

 

What's your point?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

DO you argue, KK, that there actually WAS a substantial basis to debate whether climate change was caused by human activity until as recently as last year?

 

Do you argue that the Surge IS actually producing progress in Iraq that is sustainable or that the daily barrage of stories on this theme deserve more public attention than the deterioration in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

 

Do you believe that the criminal conduct of Bush associates should be published as isolated stories that come and go and are forgotten?

 

Do you think nobody is interested in how the economy is impacted by taxing and spending policies or what and whether our government actually CAN do anything to help us?

 

Is your favorite Fox news channel informing you about the details of the positions taken by the candidates?

 

What's your point?

 

In other words, once Mattp has decided something is "fact" - incontrovertible and final, nobody can present one shred of evidence, doubt, or commentary to the contrary. If they do, they are "biased". Pssst - sounds like you are the one advocating a bias.

 

[mattp]

Do you want to talk about anything other than how you dislike TKK and myself? IF we wanted to argue about whose an ass around here we could certainly do so -- and I'll put my record of taking nutty stands, ignoring "facts," or taunting and insulting those who disagree with me up against yours any day of the week.

[tvashtarkatena]

The media does what makes the most money with the least amount of effort. Candidate debates are a great example. Is it a real debate? No. It's a series of soundbites concerning issues largely framed by the media host.

 

The media knows how to cover 'issues' and candidates in a certain narrow way, so that's what they do.

 

Having said that, the NYT has maintains an excellent scoreboard of elections, positions, polling data, etc. I've also seen some great post election analysis there that completely contradicts the talking head drivel you hear on radio and TV.

 

There are talking heads I think put some effort and thought into their analysis, however. David Brooks is my personal fave. I used to like Saphire back in the day. Krugman comes out with some good stuff occasionally. But they are few and far between.

 

A candidate's voting record is really where the rubber meets the road, but few people are willing to dive in that far, and the media is COMPLETELY disinterested in that level of detail.

 

When I give talks on civil liberties, people are often surprised to find out, for example, that Caldwell's voting record has been quite a bit more supportive than Murray's: this fact defies their perception that Caldwell is a 'corporate hack' while Murray is 'caring mom in tennis shoes'. (Both have decent voting records on this issue, BTW, it's just that Caldwell's has been consistently more in line with preserving constitutional freedoms). These soundbite descriptions, which are so often thrown around on this forum (Hillary will press the button! Romney is a cultist!) are carefully crafted PR messages deliberately released by competing campaigns for mass consumption. They are the fast food of politics, designed to reinforce one's pre-existing political tastes, and people eat them up. The candidates, when studied a bit closer, are always quite a bit more complex in their records and beliefs, however.

 

[ClimbingPanther]

Regardless of what facts one may want to be included, it's hard to argue that they have not been largely absent from the major news outlets' reporting. I'm surprised at how much fluff talk is flashed on screens and headlines. I don't know hardly anything about any of the candidates. Looks like I'll have to do my own digging to learn anything.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Do you want to talk about anything other than how you dislike TKK and myself? IF we wanted to argue about whose an ass around here we could certainly do so -- and I'll put my record of taking nutty stands, ignoring "facts," or taunting and insulting those who disagree with me up against yours any day of the week.

 

actually, I don't dislike you. you seem like a nice guy.

 

and I did make a valid point; you just don't want to entertain it. you complain about bias, because the media doesn't toe your line and interpretation of events. you have drawn a conclusion on certain subjects and expect the media to report that conclusion as fact and not present anything counter to your conclusion. sounds like bias to me.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Regardless of what facts one may want to be included, it's hard to argue that they have not been largely absent from the major news outlets' reporting. I'm surprised at how much fluff talk is flashed on screens and headlines. I don't know hardly anything about any of the candidates. Looks like I'll have to do my own digging to learn anything.

 

primaries are mostly decided by our two oligarchies, and even if we the people had some sway, well, it's not us folks on the left coast. the battles will be over by the time Washington state has a say, and the candidates "coronated".

 

[mattp]

...and I did make a valid point; you just don't want to entertain it. you complain about bias, because the media doesn't toe your line and interpretation of events. you have drawn a conclusion on certain subjects and expect the media to report that conclusion as fact and not present anything counter to your conclusion. sounds like bias to me.

 

I asked what your position on these matters was. What would be a "fair" reporting on these issues in your mind? What we've had? Take a couple of the subject areas I listed above and ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[tvashtarkatena]

I've found the best way to have a political discussion with any depth is to put guy's like KKK on ignore and focus on folks who don't consume fantasies like "Left Coast" and "Coronations". They're simply not familiar enough with the political process, having never worked a compaign, gotten out the vote, or represented their districts in a caucus, to understand the democratic process first hand. They have a conspiracist's, media fed idea of what it is that has little to do with reality.

[mattp]

That is sound advice, TTK, but if you ignore those who are obsessed with bashing the "left coast" or who complain about birkenstocks you pretty much lose the entire right side of the argument around here.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

...and I did make a valid point; you just don't want to entertain it. you complain about bias, because the media doesn't toe your line and interpretation of events. you have drawn a conclusion on certain subjects and expect the media to report that conclusion as fact and not present anything counter to your conclusion. sounds like bias to me.

 

I asked what your position on these matters was. What would be a "fair" reporting on these issues in your mind? What we've had? Take a couple of the subject areas I listed above and ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

Reporting on global warming, Iraq, the primaries, etc, has not been fair. If anything these issues have been biased to your perspective.

 

as for "omissions" in reporting, blame the American public, who is more interested in the minutiae of an OJ trial, Brittney's latest rehab, or the latest crap of the day.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That is sound advice, TTK, but if you ignore those who are obsessed with bashing the "left coast" or who complain about birkenstocks you pretty much lose the entire right side of the argument around here.

 

TTK has never showed any evidence of putting me on ignore. In fact, his citation above, proves he still doesn't have me there. For months I had him on ignore, told him so, and he refused to respect that. I knew this because I could see his stupid attacks against me via citations from other participants. (if only the "ignore" feature also included citations!)

 

I would be very very pleased if that moron would put me on ignore, respect it (we know he is too OCD and full of himself to do that), and never ever respond to me. Then I could ignore his worthless ass and spray would be a much better place.

 

[mattp]

Reporting on global warming, Iraq, the primaries, etc, has not been fair. If anything these issues have been biased to your perspective.

 

OK, spell it out a little bit. You mention three areas where you say that the press has been biased toward a liberal view.

 

Take global warming: WAS there really any debate about this when the media was presenting two sides to the issue? Has the media presented sufficient analysis, background, or menu of policy options? What is "fair" in your mind?

 

How 'bout Iraq: did the media present the fact that Bush was lying about the war from the start in such a way that the average public knew it? MOre recently, your buddy Fairweather has admitted that he lied -- do you? And if so, did the media fairly cover this? How about the Surge: do you think the amount of fluff about how it is working (or maybe you don't think it is fluff) is proportionate to information about the dangers facing us throughout the region? What would be a fair presentation?

 

The primaries: yes in Seattle, at least, there has been more coverage of the Democratic candidates. But is there coverage of their positions? Based on what I've read of polling data over the last several years, the average American supports more movement toward broader health insurance coverage and maybe even national health care than most of the candidates propose, the average American wants more movement toward getting out of Iraq, they'd support more environmental regulation, they are more pro choice... You name it. How does the "non-coverage" of these candidates' positions favor a liberal bias? Or the dearth of information on the relationships between lobbyists, the government, industry, and the press?

[tvashtarkatena]

See what I mean? Good luck, Matt.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How 'bout Iraq: did the media present the fact that Bush was lying about the war from the start in such a way that the average public knew it?

 

There you go again.

 

The first sentence in and of itself is biased to a conclusion, and that conclusion is what you want reported. End of story.

 

Ditto for any of your scenarios. And no, I'm not going to spend hours writing point by point with you on 3,4,5, or more issues.

 

Is the media biased? Yes. A vast majority of them are left-leaning, and that does manifest itself in reporting. Subtly. Not 100% black and white, but consistently slanted slightly towards the beliefs of reporting the news. In addition, the media are businesses, seeking to maximize profit. They need viewers, so that affects reporting, and introduces bias. Sometimes that bias coincides with the personal political biases of those reporting the news, and sometimes the latter runs counter to it.

 

[sirwoofalot]

I think the true crux of the real issue was briefly mentioned, contradicted, and the brushed aside.

 

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

 

All of it; NYT, CNN, Fox News, you name it.

 

I am sure most if not all of the rank and file reporters truly believe they are reporting the news in a fair and balanced way.

 

But the rank and file reporters are not pulling the strings. The man is. And the man says report it so we make money; the truth, the details, the facts DO NOT MATTER, and the only this that matters is the money

 

It is all a bunch of over sensationalized poopy diapers

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think the true crux of the real issue was briefly mentioned, contradicted, and the brushed aside.

 

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

 

All of it; NYT, CNN, Fox News, you name it.

 

I am sure most if not all of the rank and file reporters truly believe they are reporting the news in a fair and balanced way.

 

But the rank and file reporters are not pulling the strings. The man is. And the man says report it so we make money; the truth, the details, the facts DO NOT MATTER, and the only this that matters is the money

 

It is all a bunch of over sensationalized poopy diapers

 

Sorry, that's too simplistic. Just like saying Iraq is "ALL ABOUT OIL". There are multiple factors coming into play, partly related to money (driving the direction of news reporting - what topics to cover). But once a topic is deemed "newsworthy", then other biases come into play. And "THE MAN" is not completely to blame for the first part. WE ARE. If the news were erudite, well-done, and went far beyond sound bites... people would not watch. It's the collective ADD of the American public.

[mattp]

And no, I'm not going to spend hours writing point by point with you on 3,4,5, or more issues.

 

I asked about 5 issues, you replied that you had some kind of position on 3 of them. Are you willing to state a substantive position, and better yet provide even an simplistic summary of your basis for it, as to a single issue?

 

By the way, I agree with you that the American public doesn't seem to want real news reporting or analysis of current issues, but is that because we are all a bunch of losers and the media is helpless to do something different or does the media industry bear some responsiblity here? My own feeling is that the broadcast media, at least, is using public resources and therefore should be expected to serve the public interest -- which I think includes informing the votors about the issues they vote on.