Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on May 27, 2009 By Draginol In Politics

A very interesting video on media bias.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/The_Cost_of_Media_Bias/1736/6337/


Comments (Page 1)
on May 28, 2009

Interesting analysis. I liked the map part.

on May 28, 2009

And the media, particularly CNN, have absolutely no sense of embarrassment about her.  She's a hero to some of them.

I enjoyed the lecture on disrespecting our President the most, the cherry on top being her 'look-alike' moment.

on May 28, 2009

So many things to ssay about this video:

- The CNN reporter in the video was obviously biased (even I - a liberal - pointed that out on my blog when I saw that video last month).  I thought she was very unprofessional.

- It's unfair for the right-wing media to claim her as representative of the media.  I understand their reasons for doing so - she's a great lighting-rod that they can use to build conservative outrage.

- It struck me as absurd that this conservative-biased pajama TV reporter is talking about media bias.  Pot kettle?

- The media does not give a 15-point lead to anyone - no matter how much they might like to believe they have that kind of influence.  I know that "media bias" is a big talking point for the conservatives because it gives them something to build outrage on top of.  I like how the conservative media pretends that FOX news isn't biased, or isn't influencing people in the conservative direction.  If this so-called 15-point advantage actually existed because of the "liberal" media, then how do they figure in the effects of FOX news - which is probably the most popular "news" media?  Does this 15-point gap get eliminated entirely by FOX news and Limbaugh's radio show?  They never attempt to breach that question.

- This means that the map at the end is just fiction designed to stir-up conservative outrage.

on May 28, 2009

Interesting

on May 28, 2009

I like how the conservative media pretends that FOX news isn't biased, or isn't influencing people in the conservative direction

Even the "non-news" shows on FOX have liberal guests daily to present their side, even Hanity with his Great American Panel. No other news outlet comes close to doing that.

Here's one of the headlines right now on my AT&T home page: Photos of a young Obama reveal a campus hunk. This is news how? This one video is pretty much indicative of the left-wing media. Show me a similar FOX reporter doing the same thing and I'll shut my mouth. Of course if you consider stories that ABC, NBC. CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The new York Times (to name a few) will not show about left-wing politicians to be fair, then i guess you would think FOX is biased. When is the last time you heard one of the major networks talk about the Acorn scandal? They are just dying for that to go away.

Here's what's on MSNBC:

No presidential suite for Obama in Las Vegas

Report: Iraq abuse photos depict torture, rape They can't get enough of this kind of stuff

There is a reason why FOX continues to dominate. I wish I could say it was because liberals don't watch the news, but that's not it. One can only take so many puff pieces on the president before they go elsewhere to hear what is really going on.

on May 28, 2009

This is old territory, but Fox's bias is fully disclosed and confined to the commentary shows, unlike ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN which all pretend to be unbiased, neutral purveyors of news in all their programming.  Liberal points of view are well-represented Fox's commentary shows and their regular newscasts are indeed straightforward & not particularly slanted.  The left likes to pretend that Fox is the only outlier, with nothing but crazy loons on the air, as compared to 'real news' networks.  They can't isolate bias (or crazy loons) to Fox anymore, though (MSNBC).  People are smart enough to decide for themselves, fortunately.

on May 28, 2009

Liberal points of view are well-represented Fox's commentary shows and their regular newscasts are indeed straightforward & not particularly slanted.

 

I have two things to say:

Bill O'Reily shouting down dissenters (or otherwise curtailing them).

-and-

Hannity and Colmes 

 

Either they're biased, or they need to get new people in there who have guts.

on May 28, 2009

Bill O'Reily shouting down dissenters (or otherwise curtailing them).
-and-
Hannity and Colmes

Neither show is a news program. Both consistently have opposing views. The fact that you mention 'Hanity and Colmes" tells me you haven't watched it for at least four months (Colmes left for his own radio show, but is a regular guest on O'Reily). Neither has had, to my knowledge, a tingle up their leg about any candidate, as some host on other news channel programs have.

O'Reily is currently criticizing Arnold the governator (a Republican), and disagreeing with Laura Ingram, a right wing radio host. Most of the haters never watch the shows, only repeat their parties talking points.

I don't have a problem with liberal shows, just don't deny the bias, is that too much to ask? I know the two mentioned are conservatives, but they have liberals and independents on all the time. Two liberals, stroking each other, like Garafalo and Oberman doesn't even pretend to be inclusive.  

on May 28, 2009

What Nitro said.  Apparently you are not speaking from first-hand viewing and don't understand the distinctions here if you are.

on May 29, 2009

CNN convinced my uber conservative mother to vote for obama. Every time I would convince her to vote mccain, and the next day "well, I saw this thing on CNN that said..."

And don't ask me why the hell she prefers CNN, she just thinks they are more professional and unbiased.

on May 29, 2009

> This is old territory, but Fox's bias is fully disclosed and confined to the commentary shows

Yeah, "fair balanced and accurate" isn't that their new slogan?  Is that what you mean by "fully disclosed"?  FOX has made their money by selling a commodity: giving people the news coverage they want to hear.  I understand that conservatives were an underserved market, but we're definitely blurring the lines between "telling people what they want to hear because it makes us money" and "news".  (And while I don't particularly like left-leaning news, I still think FOX leans farther to the right than most news leans to the left.  Further, when conservatives have their FOX news, they can't seriously complain about the mainstream media anymore.  FOX is part of the mainstream media.  Stop pretending that you're all being victimized by the mainstream media.)

> O'Reily is currently criticizing Arnold the governator (a Republican)

I'm not surprised.  Arnold has been a left-leaning republican.  I've noticed some hard-leaning republicans going after their more moderate party members, which threatens to reduce the party to only the far-right wing.

> This one video is pretty much indicative of the left-wing media. Show me a similar FOX reporter doing the same thing and I'll shut my mouth.

Yeah, I hate the fluff stories as well, but you can't deny that FOX was gushing all over Sarah Palin.  (Good god.  I can respect fiscal conservatives, but it seems like conservatives lost their minds when they thought - and continue to think, like O'Reilly does - that Palin is a good candidate for the Republicans to push forward.)

> There is a reason why FOX continues to dominate.

Isn't there something bizarre about conservatives' complaints that the News media is giving democrats a 15-point lead in the polls, but then those same conservatives love to turn around and laud the fact that FOX news has so many viewers?  Sorry, but if the conservative-biased FOX news is so popular, then you can't seriously claim that the liberal-news has that much control over votes.  You're essentially arguing that FOX dominates viewer ratings, but the minority news media STILL manages to have not only more power over people's opinions, but can pull-out a 15-point lead because they are so much more powerful than FOX.  Yeah, right.

The modus operandi of the right-wing media is to find and exaggerate stories of their own victimization.  It's a great way to stir-up anger, make people emotional and irrational.  It all plays into their control of the people.  We don't buy your stories of false persecution.

on May 29, 2009

It struck me as absurd that this conservative-biased pajama TV reporter is talking about media bias.  Pot kettle?

There is nothing wrong with bias. In fact media should be biased, because that's part of reporting the truth.

The problem with the mainstream media is not that they are biased but that they claim not to be. If you lie and claim to be neutral and you are a journalist, you are scum. That's it. And this description now matches most of the mainstream media and almost all journalists.

The days of honest and good journalism in the mainstream media are basically over. When newspapers still competed and didn't just buy stories from the big few press agencies (or worse, print whatever propaganda piece they can get their hands on) I suppose they could still be trusted. But today I find that there are few people less well informed on a subject than journalists pretending to cover it.

I don't consider Pajamas Media a neutral news source, quite in contrast I consider them an extremely biased, honest news source.

Here's them:

http://pajamasmedia.com/about-us/

I have read Oman and Mohammed's blog before Pajamas Media was even founded. I have also read Glenn Reynolds (as my friend Steven Den Beste used to link to him quite often from USS Clueless back in the days).

While the mainstream media reported from expensive hotels in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Pajamas' people reported from the trenches of two dentists working in an Iraqi hospital in the same city outside the Green Zone.

When the mainstream media reported total disaster from Iraq, Pajamas' sites had articles about an Iraq that looked totally different. (And I myself trusted them and went there and found Pajamas to be right.)

When the mainstream media typed an ancient document in Microsoft Word to "prove" that George Bush was AWOL a week before elections, Pajamas reported that using a document typed in Word is not, in fact, evidence of an event that would have been recorded in the 70s.

And finally, my favourite example of journalist scum: the BBC had pictures taken by their journalists of terrorists setting up rockets (surrounded by children, of course). They did not stop them, they did not call the police, they just took pictures and interviewed the criminals. They were never helt responsible for failing to report an ongoing crime. They are apparently above the law.

Mainstream media journalists are generally scum. And if I am wrong about this, just point me to a place where I can read that most journalists did denounce the actions of the few bad apples who stood by taking pictures while terrorists murdered innocent children. Or just tell me when the mainstream media apologised for lying about Israel hitting a UN school in Gaza, or when they apologised for making up a massacre in Jenin.

 

on May 29, 2009

I notice liberals keep bringing up Hannity and O'Reilly, even though it's been pointed out several times they ARE NOT news reporters, they are commentators and analysts.  Regardless, Fox news is ONE outlet, how many other media outlets are on the liberal side again?

You are crazy if you think the media is not biased towards Obama and the democrats.

 

 

on May 29, 2009

You are crazy if you think the media is not biased towards Obama and the democrats.

"Journalists are better informed. That's why most of them vote for the Democrats."

Liberals will agree.

"Journalists are biased. They favour the Democrats."

Liberals will disagree.

 

on May 29, 2009

Inverse8


> This is old territory, but Fox's bias is fully disclosed and confined to the commentary shows
Yeah, "fair balanced and accurate" isn't that their new slogan?  Is that what you mean by "fully disclosed"?  FOX has made their money by selling a commodity: giving people the news coverage they want to hear.  I understand that conservatives were an underserved market, but we're definitely blurring the lines between "telling people what they want to hear because it makes us money" and "news".  (And while I don't particularly like left-leaning news, I still think FOX leans farther to the right than most news leans to the left.  Further, when conservatives have their FOX news, they can't seriously complain about the mainstream media anymore.  FOX is part of the mainstream media.  Stop pretending that you're all being victimized by the mainstream media.)
> O'Reily is currently criticizing Arnold the governator (a Republican)
I'm not surprised.  Arnold has been a left-leaning republican.  I've noticed some hard-leaning republicans going after their more moderate party members, which threatens to reduce the party to only the far-right wing.

Your first comment I'll get in to more later but how's this sound: you name me one more Conservative TV Mainstream News Network besides Fox.

Onto Arnold. I can't speak for O'Reily (He's a political commentor not a news reporter though in his past he was a news reporter) for I am not him and I do not watch him.  The problem that I have with Arnold is not his left leaningness per say its the fact his state is poorly being runned/managed to the point that tax payers are going to have to pick up the bill.

If Arnold was smart he would have a soft drink tax OR a fast food (both of which can be classified easily) tax (oh wait California has put laws that restrict certain fast foods and soft drinks).  Also, California government is one of the biggest in the country.  You could argue that they need it for they are the biggest state.  The bigger an organization is the better the management needs to be.  Obviously California is not being managed well by either party.  I'm not for bailing out the auto industry (unless UAW would have taken a decent cut then I may be incline but probably not) nor am I for helping another state due to their own ninniery.