Liberal Media Bias

[3rdnlng]

This is on my MSN homepage, not as an advertisement but represented as an article. Electric cars are the darling of the left and the MSM so not all myths were addressed in a Ford Company advertisement presented as an article.

 

http://www.bing.com/fordelectric/electric-vehicles/article-electric-vehicle-myths.aspx?WT.mc_id=msn&

 

Myth----electric cars are green.

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/216263/are-electric-cars-actually-bad-for-the-environment

 

Could this be an example of media bias?

[Delete This Account]

Again..................and again...............and again,

 

its not the commentators (on either side )

 

It is the slant given to the actual news stories on the front page and on the "news" report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the actual response, but it still falls short.

 

Your Bledsoe example IS still editorializing.........The AP follwed a direct quote from Mr. Romney with the administration's persective (the numbers went up), but NOT the perspective of many others (listed in threads here) that the numbers DO show a continuing weak recovery.

 

IMO the AP only provided the Dem opinion in their story to undercut Mr. Romney's quote.

 

Thanks.

 

 

.

it is not.

 

the sky turned green today. we won't explain why it turned green. but it turned green. please allow yourselves to come up with your own conclusions, because to go further and attempt add perspective as to why the sky turned green today would lead to a certain bias.

the world is flat, according to scientists.

The Bible states that the first humans on Earth were Adam, followed by Eve. to dispute that, would lead to the media being second-guessed or labeled as biased.

 

jw

 

Are you seriously comparing reporting on Bledsoe's last season to the slant that some business journalists put in their stories? How about the final version that comes out of editing?

 

In any event, why should Hannity be thought of in a different than Ohlbermann? Both are blowhard who push an ideological point.

i merely asked a question. more people watch Hannity. i hope it's a result of entertainment value than anything else, but i fear that not to be the case.

 

oh, and GG, as far as some here are concerned, it would be biased to report on Bledsoe in the way we did. so, if i was wrong in making such a broad and awkward comparison, there are those here who consider it to be a serious flaw in how i do my job, so please go on and continue to shoot this communist messenger.

 

jw

Edited January 9, 2012 by john wawrow

[DC Tom]

This is on my MSN homepage, not as an advertisement but represented as an article. Electric cars are the darling of the left and the MSM so not all myths were addressed in a Ford Company advertisement presented as an article.

 

http://www.bing.com/fordelectric/electric-vehicles/article-electric-vehicle-myths.aspx?WT.mc_id=msn&

 

Myth----electric cars are green.

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/216263/are-electric-cars-actually-bad-for-the-environment

 

Could this be an example of media bias?

 

No, that's an example of MSN showing an advertisement for Ford. That's not bias, that's a complete lack of ethics.

 

Edit: and why the !@#$ do you have an MSN home page? Who uses MSN these days? What the hell is wrong with you?

Edited January 9, 2012 by DC Tom

[IDBillzFan]

Personally, I find stories like this to be a signifcant part of the problem. It's not a direct bias, but rather an indirect bias that hits all the liberal talking point buttons.

 

This couple used to be comfortable. Now they are are not. You see, he is a cook at Ruth's Chris Steak House, serving up $44 steaks to the 1%.

 

Of course, the fact that he works at Ruth's Chris cooking steaks for the 1% has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are not as comfortable as they used to be. But you need to get about half way into the story before you get past all the "Occupy" discussion and realize they, like many others, lost their jobs, lost their health care, had some setbacks, and are unhappy with their lot in life.

 

But Ruth's Chris. Steaks that cost $44 that only the 1% can afford. Occupy something. That's the story, even though it's not the story.

 

I wonder if anyone asked this couple if they lost their jobs because their companies were unable to afford them due to all the crippling regulations, or maybe the new health care law.

 

Probably not. But Ruth's Chris! Bad, bad people.

[Delete This Account]

here's something that's eluded me.

when people refer to the "mainstream media," is Fux part of it? and is the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times part of the East Coast Elite? so many labels, so many square pegs or is it square holes, these things i cannot keep straight.

 

jw

[GG]

i merely asked a question. more people watch Hannity. i hope it's a result of entertainment value than anything else, but i fear that not to be the case.

 

oh, and GG, as far as some here are concerned, it would be biased to report on Bledsoe in the way we did. so, if i was wrong in making such a broad and awkward comparison, there are those here who consider it to be a serious flaw in how i do my job, so please go on and continue to shoot this communist messenger.

 

jw

 

Not if you combine the other networks opposite Fox News.

 

Frankly, my summation of watching things that I understand on the cable opinion shows, is that CNN & MSNBC are nearly always wrong in their analysis, while Fox is usually more correct, but they do it with an angry and meanspirited tone that turns me off. That's why I avoid cable "news" as much as I can.

 

As for sports reporting, 99% of the stuff is very much fact based. But when you have a doozy phenomenon like Tebow Mania, then the reporting crosses the line into editorializing, because humans can't themselves in staying truly objective to a polarizing story.

[Delete This Account]

Personally, I find stories like this to be a signifcant part of the problem. It's not a direct bias, but rather an indirect bias that hits all the liberal talking point buttons.

 

This couple used to be comfortable. Now they are are not. You see, he is a cook at Ruth's Chris Steak House, serving up $44 steaks to the 1%.

 

Of course, the fact that he works at Ruth's Chris cooking steaks for the 1% has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are not as comfortable as they used to be. But you need to get about half way into the story before you get past all the "Occupy" discussion and realize they, like many others, lost their jobs, lost their health care, had some setbacks, and are unhappy with their lot in life.

 

But Ruth's Chris. Steaks that cost $44 that only the 1% can afford. Occupy something. That's the story, even though it's not the story.

 

I wonder if anyone asked this couple if they lost their jobs because their companies were unable to afford them due to all the crippling regulations, or maybe the new health care law.

 

Probably not. But Ruth's Chris! Bad, bad people.

no, actually, if you read further down, the lack of universal health care did them in.

 

"In 2006, Andono suffered a heart attack. She spent nine days in the hospital, undergoing an angioplasty so a stent could be inserted to help blood flow. The result: a whopping $47,000 bill, the family says."

 

well, i guess that's just bad luck, eh?

 

jw

[GG]

here's something that's eluded me.

when people refer to the "mainstream media," is Fux part of it? and is the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times part of the East Coast Elite? so many labels, so many square pegs or is it square holes, these things i cannot keep straight.

 

jw

 

When you look at the totality of those organizations, it's a fairly balanced line between the journalists and editorialists. I know that WSJ reporters don't talk to the editorial page people.

 

As an aside, say what you want about Murdoch, but he's the only guy on the planet who's still willing to fight and save newspapers & journalism as you know it. Just ask anyone at WSJ. Yeah, the paper reads more like the USA Today than the old WSJ, but at least they have a shot to see tomorrow, which is something that didn't exist with the Bancrofts.

[Delete This Account]

Not if you combine the other networks opposite Fox News.

 

Frankly, my summation of watching things that I understand on the cable opinion shows, is that CNN & MSNBC are nearly always wrong in their analysis, while Fox is usually more correct, but they do it with an angry and meanspirited tone that turns me off. That's why I avoid cable "news" as much as I can.

 

As for sports reporting, 99% of the stuff is very much fact based. But when you have a doozy phenomenon like Tebow Mania, then the reporting crosses the line into editorializing, because humans can't themselves in staying truly objective to a polarizing story.

i have no trouble with Tebow. i think he makes for a good story. in my few dealings with him, he comes off as a good genuiune kid, who's done well for himself and has been true to himself.

 

the point i was making with the Bledsoe piece is that by merely quoting Bledsoe as saying he considers the Bills' starting job as his, flies in the face of the fact that he struggled the previous season. to simply quote Bledsoe and not apply perspective by citing mitigating facts is irresponsible.

 

it's no different than what somebody here was accusing the AP of doing with its debate story.

 

by taking political emotion out of the argument, i provided an example of how and why stories without perspective are mere press releases, or what Fox News does (couldn't resist )

 

jw

[B-Man]

it is not.

 

the sky turned green today. we won't explain why it turned green. but it turned green. please allow yourselves to come up with your own conclusions, because to go further and attempt add perspective as to why the sky turned green today would lead to a certain bias.

the world is flat, according to scientists.

The Bible states that the first humans on Earth were Adam, followed by Eve. to dispute that, would lead to the media being second-guessed or labeled as biased.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously you have your mind made up...............as your nonsensical examples demonstrate.

 

There are countless studies out there (from all types of sources) that show that the majority of "mainstream" news stories slant to the liberal viewpoint, not only from the limited perspective that they include in their stories, but more importantly, is what the editorial boards across the nation DECIDE is actually news enough to include in that days broadcast or frontpage.

 

There their bias is even more self-evident, as entire viewpoints and stories that are critical to what they view as the "correct" way of thinking are simply not even presented as "news".

 

 

This is where the much-maligned (by the established press) "New Media" is getting actual information out to Americans without the filter of network bias.

 

.

 

.

Edited January 9, 2012 by B-Man

[Delete This Account]

When you look at the totality of those organizations, it's a fairly balanced line between the journalists and editorialists. I know that WSJ reporters don't talk to the editorial page people.

 

As an aside, say what you want about Murdoch, but he's the only guy on the planet who's still willing to fight and save newspapers & journalism as you know it. Just ask anyone at WSJ. Yeah, the paper reads more like the USA Today than the old WSJ, but at least they have a shot to see tomorrow, which is something that didn't exist with the Bancrofts.

oh, in all seriousness, i have my issues with Fox News, but understand that it does provide a purpose -- and the Daily Show wouldn't be worth watching without Fox (again, a failure to resist).

 

all i'm really asking is that when posters here refer to "mainstream" media are they referring to the Liberal media or is it the popular media, or is it simply the media that they don't agree with at that point in time.

 

of course, how Sarah could come up with such a line, given that we're still not sure what's she's ever read (gotcha!), is a little mind-boggling to begin with.

 

jw

 

Obviously you have your mind made up...............as your nonsensical examples demonstrate.

 

There are countless studies out there (from all types of sources) that show that the majority of "mainstream" news stories slant to the liberal viewpoint, not only from the limited perspective that they include in their stories, but more importantly, is what the editorial boards across the nation DECIDE is actually news enough to include in that days broadcast or frontpage.

 

There their bias is even more self-evident, as entire viewpoints and stories that are critical to what they view as the "correct" way of thinking are simply not even presented as "news".

 

 

 

 

.

what do you mean by MAINSTREAM?

 

1) The popular media (which would include Fox and Wall Street Journal)

2) The mainnstream media identified by Sarah Palin, who has acknowledged she doesn't read all that much (though it's possible she could see a newstand from her backyard).

3) Any media that you disagree with.

4) All media that doesn't end with a .com.

5) Jon Stewart?

 

 

 

jw

[IDBillzFan]

here's something that's eluded me.

when people refer to the "mainstream media," is Fux part of it? and is the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times part of the East Coast Elite? so many labels, so many square pegs or is it square holes, these things i cannot keep straight.

 

jw

In my opinion, Fox is a part of it insomuch as you refer to the news reporting legs of the programming, which is nominal; folks like Shepherd Smith or Brett Baier. Beyond that, just like most other MSM sources, there are other components not considered part of the "news reporting." Just like newspapers have forever had varying sections (Real estate, Lifestyle, etc), those considered MSM have varying sections as well. The money has been in providing political opinion, so you have the Hannitys and Maddows of the world that normal people only consider opinion shows.

 

For what little it's worth, one of the reasons liberals like yourself hate Fox News so much isn't because it tilts everything to the right; it's because it's the ONLY TV news channel that tilts to the right. Alternately, the TV news that tilts to the left is shared by many. Frankly, I thought it was pretty smart marketing; especially once Obama became the Democrat flavor of the day, because he is such a polarizing figure, the right needed somewhere to go. But where? NBC? CBS? ABC? MSNBC? Not hardly. Enter one place for all conservatives to go, and it's not wonder it kicks the crap out of every other cable "news" channel. Fox isn't better; it just doesn't have to compete for conservative viewers like the others have to compete for liberal viewers.

[Chef Jim]

Personally, I find stories like this to be a signifcant part of the problem. It's not a direct bias, but rather an indirect bias that hits all the liberal talking point buttons.

 

This couple used to be comfortable. Now they are are not. You see, he is a cook at Ruth's Chris Steak House, serving up $44 steaks to the 1%.

 

Of course, the fact that he works at Ruth's Chris cooking steaks for the 1% has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are not as comfortable as they used to be. But you need to get about half way into the story before you get past all the "Occupy" discussion and realize they, like many others, lost their jobs, lost their health care, had some setbacks, and are unhappy with their lot in life.

 

But Ruth's Chris. Steaks that cost $44 that only the 1% can afford. Occupy something. That's the story, even though it's not the story.

 

I wonder if anyone asked this couple if they lost their jobs because their companies were unable to afford them due to all the crippling regulations, or maybe the new health care law.

 

Probably not. But Ruth's Chris! Bad, bad people.

 

I wonder if he has to go through the humiliation of having to wear a hairnet to go along with his below poverty level paying job.

[Delete This Account]

 

This is where the much-maligned (by the established press) "New Media" is getting actual information out to Americans without the filter of network bias.

 

.

 

.

and there you go again, coming up with buzz words that really mean nothing.

"New Media" isn't that MSNBC or the new network Ohlberman's working for. that's relatively new, isn't it?

bias, show me a reporter without bias and i'll show you a real live uni-corn.

 

buhloney, you're in over your head.

 

jw

 

In my opinion, Fox is a part of it insomuch as you refer to the news reporting legs of the programming, which is nominal; folks like Shepherd Smith or Brett Baier. Beyond that, just like most other MSM sources, there are other components not considered part of the "news reporting." Just like newspapers have forever had varying sections (Real estate, Lifestyle, etc), those considered MSM have varying sections as well. The money has been in providing political opinion, so you have the Hannitys and Maddows of the world that normal people only consider opinion shows.

 

For what little it's worth, one of the reasons liberals like yourself hate Fox News so much isn't because it tilts everything to the right; it's because it's the ONLY TV news channel that tilts to the right. Alternately, the TV news that tilts to the left is shared by many. Frankly, I thought it was pretty smart marketing; especially once Obama became the Democrat flavor of the day, because he is such a polarizing figure, the right needed somewhere to go. But where? NBC? CBS? ABC? MSNBC? Not hardly. Enter one place for all conservatives to go, and it's not wonder it kicks the crap out of every other cable "news" channel. Fox isn't better; it just doesn't have to compete for conservative viewers like the others have to compete for liberal viewers.

i respect that point of view. and i fully agree with it.

i rarely watch any of the cable news, or network news shoes, though i tune into Fox for kicks, especially now since they're doing far more in covering this death march to the republican nominee, which has this curious car-wreck rubber-neck quality to it.

 

jw

[B-Man]

 

what do you mean by MAINSTREAM?

 

1) The popular media (which would include Fox and Wall Street Journal)

2) The mainnstream media identified by Sarah Palin, who has acknowledged she doesn't read all that much (though it's possible she could see a newstand from her backyard).

3) Any media that you disagree with.

4) All media that doesn't end with a .com.

5) Jon Stewart?

 

 

 

jw

 

 

I will assume that you are playing dumb.

 

1. is the established mainstream media..the Networks, including cables CNN & Fox and the major newspapers

 

2. Nonsensical answer......and Mrs. Palin is smarter than you or I put together........quit buying into slander presented as facts.

 

3. more nonsense.......its not about what I believe or you.....see answer #1

 

4. the new media has already established itself as trustworthy as the old...there are jokers in the deck, but the intelligent reader can spot them.

 

5. Jon Stewart is an entertainer.

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2012 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

"If the rich or the middle class don't spend the money (at the restaurant), that would put me very much in danger." said Alan.

 

Looks like he's making what he used to make and she's not working anymore. I also wonder about purchasing a home for a little over $100,000 when they used to make "around" $40,000 a year combined. Also their present rent at $750 a month would have paid that mortgage. Something seems fishy here.

[Delete This Account]

I will assume that you are playing dumb.

 

2. Nonsensical answer......and Mrs. Palin is smarter than you or I put together........quit buying into slander presented as facts.

i will also assume the same as you on this point. and please, don't drag me down this hole of narcissism.

 

jw

[Chef Jim]

"If the rich or the middle class don't spend the money (at the restaurant), that would put me very much in danger." said Alan.

 

Looks like he's making what he used to make and she's not working anymore. I also wonder about purchasing a home for a little over $100,000 when they used to make "around" $40,000 a year combined. Also their present rent at $750 a month would have paid that mortgage. Something seems fishy here.

 

And someone who's been in the kitchen as long as him and is still working as a line cook does not have my sympathy. Have some ambition man!!

[B-Man]

and there you go again, coming up with buzz words that really mean nothing.

"New Media" isn't that MSNBC or the new network Ohlberman's working for. that's relatively new, isn't it?

bias, show me a reporter without bias and i'll show you a real live uni-corn.

 

buhloney, you're in over your head.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

 

John, with each reply you embarrass yourself more.

 

The term "New Media" has, of course, been around for several years and has a pretty specific meaning. You could look it up, as I feel no obligation to help with your education.

 

 

Oh, and the "all reporters have biases" strawman................................no one in the thread claimed otherwise, but you knew that..................you just didn't know what else to say.......

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2012 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

when people refer to the "mainstream media," is Fux part of it?

 

Call them "Faux News" again, and that's a question that answers itself.

 

and is the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times part of the East Coast Elite? so many labels, so many square pegs or is it square holes, these things i cannot keep straight.

 

jw

 

Who the hell pays attention to the Washington Times?

 

 

no, actually, if you read further down, the lack of universal health care did them in.

 

"In 2006, Andono suffered a heart attack. She spent nine days in the hospital, undergoing an angioplasty so a stent could be inserted to help blood flow. The result: a whopping $47,000 bill, the family says."

 

well, i guess that's just bad luck, eh?

 

jw

 

Were they insured?