Since the topic of media bias keeps coming up in a few other threads, someone suggested the creation of a separate thread. So here we are.
To start off, here is an article (biased? :P) about a study done on media bias.
I found this particularly telling:
"The tendency to see bias in the news...is such a reliable indicator of partisan thinking that researchers coined a term, "hostile media effect," to describe the sincere belief among partisans that news reports are painting them in the worst possible light." (emphasis mine)
Now, given the five Ws (who, what when, where, why), is bias unavoidable? Can "why" really be discussed in an unbiased fashion? If so, how? Equal time for both sides?
|
Well as I was saying over in the other thread, there are three main sources of bias in media. The first is personal bias which simply means the bias of the reporter in the way they view a story. This is usually unintentional since we generally are not aware of our own biases. Unfortunately we all process information in a subjective way, and therefore we pass it along in a subjective way as well.
The second source of media bias is framing. This relates to how a journalist or editor decides to present the story. Usually, there is much more information available then can be presented in the allotted space and this means that some material has to be left out. Therefore the person telling the story has to decide what the narrative is and what material is not relevant to that narrative. This leads to an unavoidable bias as some material gets set aside so that the bigger picture can be seen.
The third source of bias is gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is basically deciding which stories are actually reported on and which are ignored. This is also the method that is most likely to be agenda driven. For example, ABC has a story that casts Disney, it's parent company. in a poor light. ABC is less likely to run this story than CBS is, because they want to avoid running stories that could negatively impact them. A good example of this is the current focus of NBC on sustainable and renewable energy. They are owned by General Electric, who is hoping to tap into that market so they can sell the windmills they produce.
All three sources result in media bias, but only gatekeeping is driven by active bias. The other two are driven by subconcious decisions that we really have no control over. Gatekeeping does go on in newsrooms all the time, particularly with cable news that has lots of time to fill. However, it is the nature of the beast that bias slips in, even if efforts are made to avoid it. It is human nature and we are not going to get around it anytime soon.
|
Lots of good stuff, and...
However, it is the nature of the beast that bias slips in, even if efforts are made to avoid it. It is human nature and we are not going to get around it anytime soon.
True. Human nature is human nature, and there's no avoiding some bias. My problem is that sometimes, it seems to me the media pretend that they aren't biased, or could never, ever, in any way be biased. That is the hypocrisy that I dislike.
I find all the shooting back and forth over media bias troubling. I've noticed it being used as a crutch...i.e. someone makes an argument, backs it up with references, and the other side writes off the whole thing with nothing more than accusations of media bias.
So, bearing this in mind, I urge everyone to take accusations of "media bias" with a grain of salt. No one is completely impartial, but how can we have productive discussions if we can't even agree on a reliable source of information? Let's hold counter arguments to a higher standard than the parroting of media bias accusations, shall we?
I agree that every media outlet has some bias in there coverage however the recent "tea party" coverage by CNN and MSNBC, IN MY OPINON! showed there lack of even a pretense of neutrality.
The frat house jokes concerning the “tea baggers” were beyond juvenile and totally unprofessional.
The media has there darlings and there causes and may all that’s holy help you for not supporting what they want you too. Case in point Global warming anybody? It was all the rage for a few years until it was debunked by science and the record low weather we’ve been having recently. Now the media have moved on to a new cause and so forth and so on.
I find all the shooting back and forth over media bias troubling. I've noticed it being used as a crutch...i.e. someone makes an argument, backs it up with references, and the other side writes off the whole thing with nothing more than accusations of media bias.
So, bearing this in mind, I urge everyone to take accusations of "media bias" with a grain of salt. No one is completely impartial, but how can we have productive discussions if we can't even agree on a reliable source of information? Let's hold counter arguments to a higher standard than the parroting of media bias accusations, shall we?
Ok what is a reliable source of data then?
((Just a for instance not really a debate topic))
If I claim most American's support the veiws that Miss CA gave on her answer to Hilton's question and use Fox News to back it do you trust their artical? What if I use a CNN poll to support it? Or a CBS one? Or an MSN one? Whose do you trust more? What if a Fox poll says more support her, and a CNN poll shows most do not? Which has more value?
((CNN and Fox agree, most polls support her veiw the numbers range around a bit but in general hit about 55-45 in support of her veiw.))
So what is this reliable sourse of information you would like us all to agree on?
Case in point Global warming anybody? It was all the rage for a few years until it was debunked by science and the record low weather we’ve been having recently.
Sorry; as a geologist I'm forced to chime in that "global climate" is hardly demonstrated by "weather we've been having recently." And as far as "debunked"... the jury is still out. NO ONE KNOWS. Take a good look at the state of current science, and it becomes apparent that anyone who claims to know one way or the other is kidding him or herself: Al Gore and nay-sayers alike.
Is it really a crutch?
We perceive our world through a lens tempered by our own personal experiences. What is real to you may not be real to me. Granted, going down this path makes it very difficult to have any sort of meaningful debate since you become bogged down in what the definition of 'is' is.
Is media bias any less valid than your attempt to silence the media bias argument?
|
Case in point Global warming anybody? It was all the rage for a few years until it was debunked by science and the record low weather we’ve been having recently.Sorry; as a geologist I'm forced to chime in that "global climate" is hardly demonstrated by "weather we've been having recently." And as far as "debunked"... the jury is still out. NO ONE KNOWS. Take a good look at the state of current science, and it becomes apparent that anyone who claims to know one way or the other is kidding him or herself: Al Gore and nay-sayers alike.
Yep, and on top of that, considering climatological history, if there is a warming trend, automatically assuming it is or isn't man-made is disingenuous, especially with all the recent press assuming the cooling trend lately may be due to low sunspot activity.
Bah, no one knows anything for certain, but a lot of money is at stake, so lies and misinterpretation of data is inevitable...
Bah, no one knows anything for certain...
Is that not the crux of the human condition? After all, you are all just figments of my vivid, canine imagination.
|
I have to put in my 2cp here. Truth is. You can believe it or not. But it does not change Truth. There are 3 sides to every story yours mine and the Truth. Most news agencies try for the Truth but due to bias fail short. Then there are those who just don't care as the aforementioned "teabag" coverage.
|
|
Well as I was saying over in the other thread, there are three main sources of bias in media. The first is personal bias which simply means the bias of the reporter in the way they view a story. This is usually unintentional since we generally are not aware of our own biases. Unfortunately we all process information in a subjective way, and therefore we pass it along in a subjective way as well.
I think this may have, at one time, been true. Today, however, I would be prone to disagree with the "innocence" of the journalist. Media has become increasingly subject to sensationalism - the attempt of the media to portray nothing as something in order to generate a headline, and the corresponding sale of said media product. I would also argue that framing today is not so much a product of limited time any more as it is a product of sensationalism.
I'm sorry to all journalists out there, but you've ALL lost my trust. We here in the military are taught that we need to interact with you. Afraid I will only do exactly what they tell me I am specifically NOT supposed to do:
"No comment"
|
|
One thing people need to do, though, when discussing "bias" is remove Olberman, Maddow, Hannity, O'Reilly, Blitzer, Cooper, Beck, anyone on a morning network "news" show, Couric, and the like from the debate. They aren't journalists, they're pundits/talking heads or whatever you call them. Their JOBS are to have opinions, not report the news.
Couric tries to pretend to be a journalist, but she falls woefully short from the goal. The only decent network news person died last year: Tim Russert.