Question:
What's your opinion of bias in news media as a whole?

Choices:
Strong Liberal slant
Mild Liberal slant
Moderate/balanced
Mild Conservative slant
Strong Conservative slant

 

quote:

Originally posted by Greenleaf771:
What do you mean? Like how they found out it existed?

Because I would say internet and angry conservatives blowing things out of proportion.

Precisely! How did we find out about the liberal media?

For some reason on this laptop 'i' looks like 'l', and so whenever I read this thread title I think it says "Media Bliss."

The irony just kills me inside.

What do you mean? Like how they found out it existed?

Because I would say internet and angry conservatives blowing things out of proportion.

Here's a question: through what means did the public learn of the "liberal media"?

I want to tell you all to watch the DVD "Embedded," but of course its way too liberal to even suggest.

Yes, there is bias in the media. Yes, its both liberal and conservative. But some people just like to point fingers saying "They're biased!" when really it may have been what occurred and it just happened to fit the liberals agenda.

Nobody can say what is biased, because everyone is biased. The Onion is biased (but fun to read). FOX news is biased (and painful to watch). I prefer NPR, but everyone accuses it of bias too.

Free speech, as long as it's not directly offensive or disrespectful to anybody.

Yes, a majority of journalists are liberal. However, they can't make the media liberal if their bosses and editors are conservative. Otherwise, the reporters get fired. Some sources have liberal bias, others have conservative bias, and a few are centrist; overall, the media is balanced.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20030904.shtml

--Only one man's opinion, but hey, it is Walter Cronkite.

The majority of editors are conservative, as are owners of the majority of newspapers (especially major newspapers with high circulations).

The majority of people who go into the field of journalism are liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by redrepublican:
And they should talk about school being built. It is a milestone in this war.

Well, it again may be good for some special report about how a town has hope for the future blah blah blah. But it's not headline news surely.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
Red has a point. We don't see any "Major victory in (Iraqi Town X)" or "Reconstruction of Iraqi going strong" or "Despite casualties Coalition presses forward." It's all "Here's more reported deaths with little to no mention of the mission."

That's not news. That may be some kind of special report but it is not news. (Save for the victory of so and so town...Which was reported. Every single news organisation in america reported the baghdad takeover) News is something that is timely and factual. Coalition pushes forward is not really factual unless perhaps the coalition advanced farther today than any other day. Then it may be news albeit boring.

quote:

It's like having a report of D-day that's headlined: "Thousands of Americans die in massive offensive." The focus constantly makes it sound like a defeat, no matter the outcome. It's terrible for the publics morale, and I think it's a threat to the operations over there, alienating the military from the citizenry they serve.

How is it a threat to operations? If the offensive were to fail would you blame it on the media? That would be downright laughable.

Well headlines are supposed to grab attention, because "the media" is a business, so if WAR! sells better, that's what will be printed.

Not all media is biased. I want to be a journalist, and if there is one thing that we learn in class it's the journalism ethics. You are SUPPOSED to cite every source, never putting your opinion in the text. So if there's an issue, you interview people on both sides to the best of your ability, and put in the good comments. Sometimes you just can't find someone on one side of an issue, and sometimes they just don't give quotes that are worth printing. Therefore, one side appers a lot more often, adding an unintentional slant to the story. And sometimes there are just flat out more facts supporting one side.

I will also say that the media that is reported correctly is never paid attention to; the reason that the media slants are such a big deal is that people notice one source's slant and assume this refers to mass media in general. Although no one can maintain a completely slantless media source, there are some that are credible.

I suggest getting information from more than one source, that way you have a well-rounded view of all opinions and facts on a subject. Even the most credible of sources may slip up every once in a while.

Red has a point. We don't see any "Major victory in (Iraqi Town X)" or "Reconstruction of Iraqi going strong" or "Despite casualties Coalition presses forward." It's all "Here's more reported deaths with little to no mention of the mission."

It's like having a report of D-day that's headlined: "Thousands of Americans die in massive offensive." The focus constantly makes it sound like a defeat, no matter the outcome. It's terrible for the publics morale, and I think it's a threat to the operations over there, alienating the military from the citizenry they serve.

I KNOW. But there is not only death in war. There is victory; largely belonging to teh American and Allied Forces.

I am not talking about school buildings. I am talking about victories. FOX is going to show how American Soldiers took Fallujah tomorrow at nine.

And they should talk about school being built. It is a milestone in this war.

War sells. You should know that. Who's going to buy a paper with a big headline that says "Iraqi school founded, kids overjoyed" as opposed to those big, black letters saying, "WAR!" or something of the sort?

quote:

So it's liberal?

You cannot really call war coverage liberal, which is what I am referring to, but if it was run by a conservative, one who is an activist, there would certainly be other stories other than the deaths of soldiers.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
The reporters ARE the news source. Them and the program directors. Anchors do little but read a teleprompter.

Hey, it's harder than it looks...

quote:

FOX NEWs isnot conservative. Its not centrist.

So it's liberal? But I thought that that was the one thing it most definitely was NOT.