Liberal Media Bias, XXIV

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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, you replied that you had some kind of position on 3 of them. Are you willing to state even an overview of your basis for any coherent position on a single one?

 

Reporting on Iraq has always been biased. To me the bias has been predominantly anti-war and anti-Bush. And no, I'm not going to go down that endless debate again.

 

More interesting is how reporting has trended recently. Less negative reporting on Iraq, even a hint or two that maybe the surge "is working". Hmmm. Is that because the media is suddenly leaning right? Fat chance. If this is intentionally being done, maybe it's because we are in an election cycle and a Democrat may be elected, and Democrats are NOT talking about immediate withdrawal? No, perish the thought!

 

"Stay the course" was attacked and mocked constantly by the media showing their bias, but if a Democrat states that same message and gets elected on that message, wanna bet the media is much less critical of that theme, and much less negative on the war? There wouldn't be more "feel good" reports about the war, and how the effort is working, would there? The media would never, ever do that, now would they?

 

The media, as a rule, magnifies criticism of and opposition to conservative policies and positions, and is silent (tacitly supporting) or much gentler in criticism of liberal policies and positions. If both sides will do essentially the same thing (rhetoric aside), the media will blast the message when the conservatives are the messengers (or in power), and do the opposite when the tables are turned.

 

[mattp]

OK: I see how this works. You wanna spew some critique without stating any basis for it. You haven't stated whether reporting on the surge working is accurate or not, or how this may be connected with your secondary arguement that the reporting is in response to the Democrat's message. Any examples of how "stay the course" was mocked in anything like an unfair manner? Nope. A single example with even a basic explanation of how a conservative policy that has been unfairly portrayed as compared to the corresponding liberal one? Nope. You aren't going to spend hours ....

 

Have a nice day, Mr. K.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

OK: I see how this works. You wanna spew some critique without stating any basis for it. You haven't stated whether reporting on the surge working is accurate or not, or how this may be connected with your secondary arguement that the reporting is in response to the Democrat's message. Any examples of how "stay the course" was mocked in anything like an unfair manner? Nope. A single example with even a basic explanation of how a conservative policy that has been unfairly portrayed as compared to the corresponding liberal one? Nope. You aren't going to spend hours ....

 

Have a nice day, Mr. K.

 

I've spent as much time as you have, and given as much "basis" for my POV, as you. Get over yourself.

[JayB]

Hmmmm...

 

Google News Search for "Iraq Surge"

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Surge+Iraq&btnG=Search

 

Google News Search for "Climate Change Emissions"

 

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Climate+Change+Emissions&btnG=Search

 

 

 

 

 

[Dechristo]

 

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?)...

 

No, according to an interviewee heard recently on NPR's "Democracy Now" program, the Clinton administration still holds the dubious title on that score.

[mattp]

No, according to an interviewee heard recently on NPR's "Democracy Now" program, the Clinton administration still holds the dubious title on that score.

 

Details?

 

And, if this is true, would you argue that the press coverage of the scandals of the Bush Administration has been unfairly scathing in a way that they were not toward the Clinton Administration? Is there a liberal bias at work here?

[sirwoofalot]

“New Worthiness” is based solely on the ability to sell advertising.

 

Our media looks at news as selling advertising mixed in with a few stories; the more outrageous the story the more expensive advertising.

 

Yes, it is just that simple.

 

The next time you are watching the tube do this, during the commercials turn off the sound and count how many scenes there are in every 60 second or 30 second spot.

 

ADD? You bet!

 

Who’s fault?

 

Look in the mirror. We all need to look in the mirror.

 

Want to change it?

 

As my Mother always said, “If you want to change anything first start with the person you see in the mirror.

 

[mattp]

Good call on the google searches, Jay.

 

As to those pieces on the Surge, the first page of results that you posted is largely foreign media and editorial pieces. I don't know about Boston, but here in Seattle there have been front-section full or half-page stories about the success of the surge at least 3 times a week for the past month or more.

 

And the NPR stories I listen to when getting ready for work included one last week where the guy reported that we are apparently buying a reduction in violence by hiring many of the Sunni bad guys as security guards, which he said was an unsustainable program that hasn't changed any of the underlying instability, but my impression is there have been many more where there is a lengthy interview with Joe soldier Farhad Shopkeeper who tells about how things are so much better now.

 

I'm not sure how your climate change surge says anything about the question of bias.

 

 

[sirwoofalot]

No, according to an interviewee heard recently on NPR's "Democracy Now" program, the Clinton administration still holds the dubious title on that score.

 

Details?

 

And, if this is true, would you argue that the press coverage of the scandals of the Bush Administration has been unfairly scathing in a way that they were not toward the Clinton Administration? Is there a liberal bias at work here?

 

NO! there is a financial bias here.

Look how the left gobels up slandering the right! Look how hot the right gets and calls the media bias!

 

IT SELLS!

 

Yeah there is a bias, and that bias is to what can sell.

[JayB]

Good call on the google searches, Jay.

 

As to those pieces on the Surge, the first page of results that you posted is largely foreign media and editorial pieces. I don't know about Boston, but here in Seattle there have been front-section full or half-page stories about the success of the surge at least 3 times a week for the past month or more.

 

And the NPR stories I listen to when getting ready for work included one last week where the guy reported that we are apparently buying a reduction in violence by hiring many of the Sunni bad guys as security guards, which he said was an unsustainable program that hasn't changed any of the underlying instability, but my impression is there have been many more where there is a lengthy interview with Joe soldier Farhad Shopkeeper who tells about how things are so much better now.

 

I'm not sure how your climate change surge says anything about the question of bias.

 

 

Iraq Surge. First Hit. Washington Post. Text Below:

 

"A year later, security has undeniably improved greatly -- although some experts suggest that the relative calm is due in part to all the ethnic cleansing that has already taken place. But all that promised political reconciliation? There are no signs of it whatsoever.

 

A year later, rather than admit the surge has failed in its primary task, Bush is calling it a success. And rather than hold the Iraqi government accountable -- say, by threatening to withdraw or pull back U.S. troops -- administration officials have come up with yet another plan that might work, might not, but either way buys time.

 

Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung write in The Washington Post: "In the year since President Bush announced he was changing course in Iraq with a troop 'surge' and a new strategy, U.S. military and diplomatic officials have begun their own quiet policy shift. After countless unsuccessful efforts to push Iraqis toward various political, economic and security goals, they have decided to let the Iraqis figure some things out themselves. . . .

 

"In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10. . ."

 

"Climate Change Emissions"

 

First Hit. CNN.

 

" Banks are still financing investments in carbon-dioxide producing projects, and none has a policy to avoid investments in carbon-intensive projects such as coal-fired power plants, the report found. Five out of 40 big banks said that they were incorporating into their lending decisions the odds that borrowers - such as coal-fired power plants - will face new costs as governments set a price on carbon emissions.

 

"The actions to date are the tip of the iceberg of what is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with targets scientists say are needed to avoid the dangerous impacts of climate change," wrote Mindy Lubber, the president of Ceres, the coalition of investor and environmental groups, in a report.

 

The study is described as the first comprehensive assessment of how 40 of the world's largest banks are preparing themselves to deal with climate change. In assigning the highest ranking to HSBC, the report found that its board was actively engaged in climate change policy, that it plans to reduce its own so- called environmental impacts, and that it offered climate-change related investment products."

 

 

If you were to systematically analyze the first 200 results on either search, let alone the entire data set - it would provide little or no support for your contentions. Restrict it to US coverage and you'd get the same result.

 

 

 

[mattp]

Jay:

Over the past 8 weeks, have the Boston Globe and the local Boston TV and Radio stations spend as much time reporting on questions as to whether the Surge is working as they have presenting testimonials about how much better things are now than a year ago?

[rob]

Dude, fox news. They report, I decide.

[JayB]

Jay:

Over the past 8 weeks, have the Boston Globe and the local Boston TV and Radio stations spend as much time reporting on questions as to whether the Surge is working as they have presenting testimonials about how much better things are now than a year ago?

 

I have no idea. I listen to WBUR at work, and that's the extent of my engagement with the local media, aside from the local weather forecasts.

 

The consensus opinion that I've encountered while surveying the media seems to be that:

 

1) Violence is down.

2) Political reconciliation necessary for sustained peace hasn't occured.

3) The methods used to reduce violence (co-opting Sunni militias, etc) could catalyze an even-bloodier escalation if they aren't complemented by a durable political settlement that will persist in the absence of a substantial American troop presence.

 

With regards to climate change, a substantial percentage of the stories implicitly incorporate the connections between C02 emissions and climate change that you claim are absent from the coverage. This is true of the first story that appears on Google news, and an expansion of the data set to include all stories would result in conclusions that are contrary to your thesis.

 

 

[sirwoofalot]

The more you say media bias, the more he says your Interpretation, the more they say our reporting is fair and balanced, all add up to more of the same.

 

SELLING ADVERTISING!

 

It is called the New Reporting Entertainment Industry for a reason.

 

Fist it is entertainment.

Secondly they are profit maximization companies.

 

Their collective jobs are to maximize profit for their investors. NOT REPORTING THE NEWS!

 

It is not about the news. It is about getting you and me arguing these points as we are, and THAT drives this media mass miss information machine which is our so called free press.

 

[mattp]

I agree with your distillation of the reporting as to Iraq, Jay, in terms of the message one would derive if they were paying attention. However, I bet anyone who listens to the AM radio news, scans the newspaper without reading it carefully, or who watches TV news in Seattle while they are cooking dinner thinks that the war in Iraq, at least, is looking up -- and isn't aware of what you describe as the other side of that coin. Based on what I take to be your assessment that the results of the Surge remain to be seen, isn't it a little biased for our media to be giving the impression that the surge has worked?

 

As to climate change, you misrepresent or misunderestimate my point entirely. I tried to specifically indicate throughout this discussion that the impact of CO2 emissions (I noted the human causation or something like that I think) IS finally acknowledged in the press. But anybody who knows anything about the matter and who wasn't on the payroll of some right wing think tank or working for an oil company knew this ten years ago! For the media to have told us there was any "debate" all these years is whacked. Do you think we are getting a "fair" presentation of what is or is not being done about it now, or what our options may be, or whatever else might inform the voting public as to what they need to know in order to vote wisely?

[tvashtarkatena]

Barring natural events, the White House sets much of the national news agenda. The Press Secretary tells journalists what's important, they 'analyse' and print it. Much of the language journalists use (the 'surge', 'waterboarding', etc) is cast by the White House.

 

Overall, this country would do much better with a very weak federal government and much less power and focus concentrated in the Oval Office. Sure, some states would suck more than others (as they do now) but a strong presidency has not served us well and does not provide enough political diversity (on the contrary, it quelches policy experimentation) to move use into the future effectively. If the President's an idiot, we're all forced into idiocy during his term. Not a good system.

 

Even with a weak presidency, the Judiciary and Constitution would still be there to make sure a state government didn't go too crazy.

[kevbone]

and Bush is the worstestest president ever!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Finally something we agree on.

[Stefan]

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.

 

I suspect there are two reasons for this.

 

1) The reporters following the candidates have already reported on the positions of the candidates. Therefore reporting AGAIN on their positions is NOT NEW news. The reporters know so much about each candidate there is nothing NEW.

 

2) The candidates are doing so many things, they cannot devote enough time every day to every news outlet. Therefore the news outlets you are consuming cannot say anything about the positions, becuase they have not had time with the candidates.

[sirwoofalot]

Oh, I give up!

You don't want to hear anything other than his right wing point of view or their left wing point of view, when both of you are WRONG about the media.

 

MONEY, money, money.

 

THAT'S IT!

 

But you want to hold you ideas so you can continue to spray each other!

 

Well spary away Nearo, spray away.

[sirwoofalot]

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.

 

 

I suspect there are two reasons for this.

 

1) The reporters following the candidates have already reported on the positions of the candidates. Therefore reporting AGAIN on their positions is NOT NEW news. The reporters know so much about each candidate there is nothing NEW.

 

2) The candidates are doing so many things, they cannot devote enough time every day to every news outlet. Therefore the news outlets you are consuming cannot say anything about the positions, becuase they have not had time with the candidates.

 

 

3.) or reporting sound bites and half truths is what sells and bings the media money.

 

Edited January 10, 2008 by sirwoofalot

[mattp]

Question for Wolfie: DOes Rupert Murdock have any political agenda or is he simply a bottom line kind of guy?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

1) The reporters following the candidates have already reported on the positions of the candidates. Therefore reporting AGAIN on their positions is NOT NEW news. The reporters know so much about each candidate there is nothing NEW.

 

2) The candidates are doing so many things, they cannot devote enough time every day to every news outlet. Therefore the news outlets you are consuming cannot say anything about the positions, becuase they have not had time with the candidates.

 

1) Candidates are often vague on positions so they can "adjust" them as is expedient, or just keep them hidden to avoid being attacked.

2) Candidates in primaries are trying different tactics/messages out to see how they "resonate". Like Hillary "finding her voice" at the last minute.

3) the "real story" is the "horse race", and any shockers/surprises that come up (dirty politics) during campaigning.

 

[sirwoofalot]

Question for Wolfie: DOes Rupert Murdock have any political agenda or is he simply a bottom line kind of guy?

 

I must admit I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of R. Murdock; however what I do see is a man who has used our media to fatten his wallet. NOT unlike M. More.

[JayB]

I agree with your distillation of the reporting as to Iraq, Jay, in terms of the message one would derive if they were paying attention. However, I bet anyone who listens to the AM radio news, scans the newspaper without reading it carefully, or who watches TV news in Seattle while they are cooking dinner thinks that the war in Iraq, at least, is looking up -- and isn't aware of what you describe as the other side of that coin. Based on what I take to be your assessment that the results of the Surge remain to be seen, isn't it a little biased for our media to be giving the impression that the surge has worked?

 

As to climate change, you misrepresent or misunderestimate my point entirely. I tried to specifically indicate throughout this discussion that the impact of CO2 emissions (I noted the human causation or something like that I think) IS finally acknowledged in the press. But anybody who knows anything about the matter and who wasn't on the payroll of some right wing think tank or working for an oil company knew this ten years ago! For the media to have told us there was any "debate" all these years is whacked. Do you think we are getting a "fair" presentation of what is or is not being done about it now, or what our options may be, or whatever else might inform the voting public as to what they need to know in order to vote wisely?

 

Per your first comment. I think that you are constructing an imaginary public that responds to your imaginary representation of the media in an imaginary way. Neither the news coverage, nor the average person's parsing of it correspond terribly well with the picture you've constructed.

 

In the second case it seems to me that for as long as I can remember, the gist of the reporting concerning CO2 emissions and global warming was that the scientific debate was largely settled, and the question was no longer if CO2 emissions are driving a warming of the atmosphere, but questions concerning projected rates of warming, etc were still the topic of ongoing debate. Even amongst those who hold the same opinion on this matter, there's still the matter of the optimal policy response, who should pay for it, etc.

 

IMO the manifold deficiencies of the media are a bit of a red-herring. What really bothers you is that people can evaluate the same information, and come to conclusions or hold opinions that differ from your own (which is presumably infallible). Instead of accepting this and dealing with this much more complicated and difficult-to-change reality, it seems like you've constructed your own simplified narrative as a kind of coping mechanism.

 

Corrupt-media + sheeple incapable of independent thought = public programmed to believe falsehoods.*

 

*falsehood in this case = conclusions/opinions that differ in any fashion from those held by mattp.

[tvashtarkatena]

1) The reporters following the candidates have already reported on the positions of the candidates. Therefore reporting AGAIN on their positions is NOT NEW news. The reporters know so much about each candidate there is nothing NEW.

 

2) The candidates are doing so many things, they cannot devote enough time every day to every news outlet. Therefore the news outlets you are consuming cannot say anything about the positions, becuase they have not had time with the candidates.

 

1) Candidates are often vague on positions so they can "adjust" them as is expedient, or just keep them hidden to avoid being attacked.

2) Candidates in primaries are trying different tactics/messages out to see how they "resonate". Like Hillary "finding her voice" at the last minute.

3) the "real story" is the "horse race", and any shockers/surprises that come up (dirty politics) during campaigning.

 

The "Horse Race" is what is covered today. It is the opposite of the real story: it's the product that is packaged for ready consumption for people who do not have the capacity to understand a candidate with any real depth. Essentially, it's a string of largely meaningless events that nonetheless have enough entertainment value to ignite a slow news day.

 

The real story is a candidate's record, philosophy, and character. This does come up, but rarely with any depth.

Edited January 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena