Mainstream media Bias

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Phdtobe, Oct 3, 2016.

Loading...
  1. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    Regarding pure reporting of breaking news events, I still think that CNN is the best. Fox is pretty good too, but CNN is better. (I don't generally watch MSNBC, Al Jazeera or any of the others.) During breaking news events, I use my remote and switch back and forth between CNN and Fox.

    But... most of the time breaking news isn't breaking. What we get instead is opinion-"journalism" trying to tell viewers which issues are important and what to think about those issues.

    CNN lost me when it seemingly spent weeks flogging Ferguson Mo., trying to portray that shooting of a young black by police as the world's most important news event. That obviously reflected the personal views of CNN's editors and producers. We see the same thing whenever there's a shooting. CNN will jump on top of it and portray it as "gun violence", suggesting that the solution is to restrict law-abiding people's possession of firearms.

    Neither Fox or CNN attract me all that much at the present moment, since the opinion they present is election coverage all the time. I already have plenty of political opinions of my own, I don't need to hear journalist's opinions. I just get tired of it.

    I used to escape to TV sports, since that was about the only unpoliticized corner of the media left. It was the one place where everyone, black or white, rich or poor, republican or democrat, could come together in solidarity to cheer for the same team. But the Colin Kaepernick "fuck America" thing and the newspaper and TV sports-pundits all lauding and defending it ruined that.

    I'm finally spending many of my evenings with the TV off and find myself doing something I haven't done in a long time. Reading. (Often history and philosophy. Or else science-fiction which I have always loved.) I still have some control over what I read. It isn't all political propaganda, all the time.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2016
  2. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    What do I (or others) hope will happen to you? Can you please disclose what the unwritten hope is?
     
  3. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    When MH370 disappeared, CNN had the highest ratings with its 24/7 reporting. I thought it was excessive, but I guess people liked being able to turn to CNN at any moment and get updates. There were other major news events where CNN received the highest ratings. I remember a report from years ago that found that CNN had more viewers than Fox. This is different from having higher ratings. Fox has many political shows that attract a lot of people who will watch the whole show. CNN had a higher number of people who turn to the channel briefly for news updates.

    I would say the same thing to anyone who thinks either Fox or MSNBC is more balanced. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is based on watching all three channels. I don't know why you're whining about Me Again when you just called someone dopey.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2016
  4. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Never said the other news networks weren't unbiased. They all are. The point I was making was that your assertion that CNN has a slight liberal bent was ridiculous and absurd.

    Whining? Well alrighty then if that's what you want to call it. I recognize the fake concern from the religous a mile away. He infers I'm looking for something and applies his message accordingly, which is always said in that smarmy faux concern that people like him do. They have to let you know that in they're piously looking out for you. It's condescending.
     
  5. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    How do you know it's fake?
     
  6. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    Real Clear Politics is where I get my dose of US politics. Its articles ranges from far left to far right. For my right of Centre viewing, I look at Fox, and for my left of centre I do CNN. I will guess, all the news people on Fox in the Evening and weekends are middle right to far right except maybe Kelly. On CNN all the news people in the evening and weekends are middle left to far left. The Fox's personalities are bigger so they have a bigger following.

    In Canada, I look at CBC, it is middle and to the left but it is subtle. For world news I look at BBC.
    RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls
     
  7. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Same way you deduced I was "searching" for something because I used words in a manner you disagree with. Assumption.

    Perhaps you're genuine. You'd be the first in 45 years. I don't need your concern, blessing, prayers or thought about anything that concerns me.

    Take care.
     
  8. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    The Lord Jesus Christ died and resurrected -- and He is genuine -- and He has many followers who are genuine. Yes, there are wolves in sheep's clothing who masquerade as sheep by being insincere and by taking advantage of others, but they will ultimately give an account at their end of their life, if they do not repent while they have the opportunity.

    There are many genuine people on this planet who understand that eternity lies before us -- and the decisions we make today may have eternal consequences for many.

    Heaven is real and it is a kingdom with a king -- and no one can enter it, except through the king (which is through the Lord Jesus Christ). Hell is also real and it is full of people who are dying to have a second chance, but they will not get it. Only here in this mortal life are we given an opportunity for salvation. I used to be an atheist and I thought that all of this stuff was "religious rubbish," until I learned otherwise.

    If you are interested, click here to watch a 51 minute video titled "23 minutes in hell." It is the account of a man who was allowed to see and experience hell, to enable him to come back here to tell us about it.
     
  9. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member


    My first thought is to inform sports figures that they are mere entertainers. But then I recall that entertainers no longer see themselves as entertainers but as our spiritual guides.
     
  10. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. This is a rather subjective topic.

    And, your response to me wasn't rude and condescending?
     
  11. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member


    Perhaps it was, my apologies.
     
  12. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    At one time, I’d like to think that I was one of the most patronizing people on the board. After all, I am superior to most of you. I never tried to be better than the rest of you, I simply was. And despite my best efforts to practice humility, I had to deal with the reality that most of you are inferior to me. So I finally learned to accept it.*

    But I must admit that some of you are giving me a run for my money. Obnoxious, patronizing, insulting, and to use a word that others have recently used here on the forum, snarky. (I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like a fun word.)

    And since every thread ends up getting hijacked, I may as well pull a hijack here by positing a question: Who tends to be more obnoxious: left wingers or right wingers, Clintonites or Trumpettes, the blatantly religious or the blatantly anti-religious?

    Well, one thing I can say for the most psychotically obnoxious of you guys (term used inclusively): y’all are really great for entertainment.
    ____________________

    * If you think the opening paragraph is serious, you need to remove your head from your ass. It is complete fabrication. Or maybe it's not. Who knows? And who cares?
     
  13. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Dr. Levicoff, your writings are always brilliant, fascinating and fun to read but alas, you knew that.
     
  14. Life Long Learning

    Life Long Learning Active Member

    CNN was once referred to as the Communist News Channel (CNN). Its not that left, but it is LEFT.



     
  15. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Let's see, Nevelov (Neveloff?) had the stationery store and Levicoff, IIRC, had the pharmacy. Pharmaceuticals, hmmmm...
     
  16. dfreybur

    dfreybur New Member

    In the 1960s I thought that the TV news was unbiased. We had a liberal newspaper in the afternoon and a conservative newspaper in the morning. Then I graduated from elementary school and gradually widened my perspective. It's what I was taught at the time but it never was actually true.

    But it is true that it got a lot worse in the 1980s. What happened is before that produced shows got the ratings and drew the advertising income. The news happened because that was demanded to keep your broadcast license. The political bias followed that of the owner and/or editor/producer. What happened in the 1980s is TV stationed discovered that there could be an advertising stream just from the news. Ratings became more important and the motivations changed from a mandatory show to keep your license to anew income stream.

    In time the media owned the two large parties. And the media is driven by ratings. Worse behavior leads to higher ratings. Ever since this feedback loop started the quality of candidates has eroded. Now we'd do better with those criminal clowns in the news.

    But since the media owns the parties, the media also owns the two party system. Until the voters revolt the media will ignore the parties that bother to stand for something other than ratings.

    The idea that the media hammers Trump does not mean they are lying and he's acceptable. The idea that the media favors Clinton and gives her a pass on everything does not mean she's acceptable. But the media will never mention the other candidates. Who mostly lack the funding to be able to afford to misbehave, human nature being human nature.
     
  17. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    From a historical perspective, those are excellent observations. However, it seems that "internet media" is challenging the status quo of "traditional corporate media."

    Uncontrolled and unregulated: Internet media (growing):
    - self-published outlets
    - youtube
    - twitter
    - chat forums (look at degreeinfo.com)
    - drudgereport.com, michaelsavage.wnd.com, etc.
    - 21st Century outlets, Etc.

    Tightly controlled and regulated: Traditional corporate media (dying financially):
    - TV (old school)
    - Print newspapers owned by the New York Times (it's nationwide)
    - Print magazines: Newsweek, Time, etc. (they are all hemorrhaging financially)
    - Old school 20th Century outlets, etc.
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I think you have it backwards. Mainstream media defend the two party system because they're controlled by it, not the other way around. This became the case once politicians realized that it was easy to get accommodations from the media by threatening to withhold access to information.
     
  19. jhp

    jhp Member

    Much of the above is controlled, some very tightly.:scared:
     
  20. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    You're right. Look at Facebook as an example. To maintain an account, participants must now provide a cell phone number to receive a text-confirmation. Otherwise, the account holder will be locked out.

    The Social Security (SS) Administration tried to do the same thing, but as soon as SS recipients began to get locked out of their online SS accounts, the recipients complained vociferously, so the SSA did a quick U-turn -- and now no phone number is required to login.

    It appears that eventually, almost all security will be tied in to a cell phone number, along with some sort of bio-metric identification.
     

Share This Page