2014 Midterms

[Alaska Darin]

It's demonstratively false

No, it isn't. Compare Christie's "Bridge Gate" coverage to whatever the Obama scandal you want. I can only imagine the coverage of Bengazi, the IRS, etc if a Republican was in the White House - and the media would be correct to do it.

[Deranged Rhino]

No, it isn't. Compare Christie's "Bridge Gate" coverage to whatever the Obama scandal you want. I can only imagine the coverage of Bengazi, the IRS, etc if a Republican was in the White House - and the media would be correct to do it.

Coverage where? That's the point, your going by an old definition of what constitutes the "media" if you're basing it on how four networks and a few papers covered the story. Where do you think most people get their news these days? It sure ain't network news or a newspaper. The media has grown, and become personalized. You're using an outdated definition which is why the statement is so stale and incorrect.

Edited July 7, 2014 by GreggyT

[B-Man]

How do you define the media, B-Man? Because unless your definition includes a total left slant to every news outlet, blog and radio show, and pod cast on the airwaves, it is demonstratively false.

 

 

LOL

 

Your 'argument' seems to be with the word "the", not media.

 

Multiple studies have demonstrated the bias of the media..................to anyone who reads.

 

If the newspaper in Billings Montana or the radio station in Tallahassee is not biased, that does NOT mean the media isn't.

 

Sorry, you are wrong , no matter how small you want to frame it.

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

LOL

 

Your 'argument' seems to be with the word "the", not media.

 

Multiple studies have demonstrated the bias of the media..................to anyone who reads.

 

If the newspaper in Billings Montana or the radio station in Tallahassee is not biased, that does NOT mean the media isn't.

 

Sorry, you are wrong , no matter how small you want to frame it.

 

.

 

How do you define the media? I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Tiberius]

 

No, it isn't. Compare Christie's "Bridge Gate" coverage to whatever the Obama scandal you want. I can only imagine the coverage of Bengazi, the IRS, etc if a Republican was in the White House - and the media would be correct to do it.

Compare them how? You can pull any argument you want out of your rear end but that doesn't make it so. What Greg actually said applies to you and b man so much, you guys love media that is tailored to your biases and you call that fair and unbiased when actually it's completely the opposite. Just because you don't like what's on a tv news story doesn't make it biased against your side.

[IDBillzFan]

How do you define the media? I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

Therein lies the differences. You're taking the broader approach to media to include places like Huffington Post, Daily Caller, etc. And there is no question that the definition of "media" has been dramatically re-defined due to the internet.

 

I think what most people are referring to...and by "most" I pretty much mean anyone other than gatorman...are the places where the majority of Americans get their morning or evening news. This would include, but not be limited to, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, etc.

 

Now think about the coverage given when a white hispanic shot a black kid in Florida relative to the coverage given to 50 blacks being shot by blacks in a single weekend in Chicago.

 

Think about the coverage of a 20-something-year-old Mitt Romney pulling a college prank by cutting a kids hair, and a 20-something Hillary Clinton laughing at how she freed a child predator.

 

Think about the coverage of Bridgegate and then think about the coverage of Lois Lerner's lost emails?

 

It's embarrassing, and if you're half as smart as you want us to believe you are, you'd stop splitting hairs and see it as well.

[DC Tom]

How do you define the media? I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

AP, CNN, NBC, Washington Post, NYT, CSN, NPR, Huffington Post, WND...

 

Let's just say "anyone represented in the White House Press Corps."

[Rob's House]

 

No, I think any definition of the word "media" is either too narrow or too old fashioned if it leads one to the erroneous conclusion that "Americans are victims of a very biased media". We aren't victims of a biased media. Saying we are implies there is a singular driving force behind the media, or at the very least collusion but that's demonstratively false. There is no singular media, not anymore and not for decades. Any notion that there is one is outdated. There's also the implication that the media did this to us when the truth is we in fact did this to the media. We aren't victims, we're Americans, which means above all else, we're consumers.

 

But it makes for a convenient talking point (for both sides) to employ in just about any circumstance.

 

The reality of the national media today is far more dangerous and alarming than mere bias. Today's media is individualized, commercialized, and packaged. Today's media caters to the individual consumer's biases and interests more so than actual facts or semblance of responsible journalism. Not to say there aren't good journalists out there doing God's work, there are plenty -- but if they don't fit your ideology, you're not likely to see their copy. Our desire for brevity and instant gratification as a culture has created a market for "info-tainment" which is far more profitable, and entertaining, than straight news. The tailspin effect of this has been competition, from all sides and all platforms: print to radio to TV to cable news to the internet to social media... the Fourth Estate has been fighting a losing battle for centuries.

 

But that answer isn't as catchy or as easy to digest as crying "bias in the media" anytime it suits your political purpose. It's demonstratively false, but makes people feel good inside I guess.

 

There doesn't have to be collusion. When the overwhelming majority of those employed by and in charge of major media outlets happen to subscribe to the same general philosophy, the message that most often reaches the majority of the public can be terribly skewed in one direction with no coordination whatsoever.

 

Don't you live in Hollywood? Look around at your peers. Those are the people with the biggest microphone. If you can't see the broadly disparate treatment given to liberal v conservative politics in the aggregate I think you may be living in a bubble. That or you've become Californianized to the point that you're desensitized to it.

[Deranged Rhino]

Therein lies the differences. You're taking the broader approach to media to include places like Huffington Post, Daily Caller, etc. And there is no question that the definition of "media" has been dramatically re-defined due to the internet.

 

I think what most people are referring to...and by "most" I pretty much mean anyone other than gatorman...are the places where the majority of Americans get their morning or evening news. This would include, but not be limited to, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, etc.

 

Now think about the coverage given when a white hispanic shot a black kid in Florida relative to the coverage given to 50 blacks being shot by blacks in a single weekend in Chicago.

 

Think about the coverage of a 20-something-year-old Mitt Romney pulling a college prank by cutting a kids hair, and a 20-something Hillary Clinton laughing at how she freed a child predator.

 

Think about the coverage of Bridgegate and then think about the coverage of Lois Lerner's lost emails?

 

It's embarrassing, and if you're half as smart as you want us to believe you are, you'd stop splitting hairs and see it as well.

 

I do appreciate your thoughtful response, but disagree that I'm splitting hairs. I think the distinction I'm making is very relevant, more relevant than a discussion of merely bias in the media. Where we disagree, and I think it's easily demonstrated in terms of raw viewership and readership levels, is that the majority of Americans get their news from the traditional sources. I believe, quite frankly, the opposite is true. And if it's not true today, it will be tomorrow. Or the next day. It's a dwindling number of people, mainly older in terms of demographics, that get their information exclusively, or even primarily, from those sources.

 

It's true that those institutions are still relevant, I'm not trying to argue they aren't, but they do not influence the national conversation anymore to the extent they once did. I can't name one of my colleagues or acquaintances that gets their news from TV sources (network or cable). I realize that's a not a scientific measurement by any stretch, but I don't think it's simply anecdotal either. TV and print move too slow today to be a relevant news source, and when they try to move at the speed of social media and its like, they tend to fall on their face in a very public fashion (hello, CNN). The majority of people under the age of 40 do not hold these traditional outlets dear like the generations before them and that's not a trend that's likely to change.

 

So then, what are we really talking about? Philosophically, what's the point of talking about a limited, and dying, selection of industry and analyzing them as if they still carried the weight they once did? Shouldn't we consider redefining exactly what we mean when we say media today? It sure ain't journalism anymore, it's salesmanship and brands and increasing traffic to websites. With the competition being able to move faster, and with less ethical regulations by hiding behind the shield of "opinion", traditional media doesn't have a shot to compete. And they haven't for almost a decade now. Why cling to what has become an irrelevant benchmark when less and less Americans get their information that way?

 

If viewership and readership of those traditional media outlets are on the decline and have reached the point where their influence has been marginalized to the extent of comic absurdity (which I argue it has but concede is debatable), how is their bias of any consequence? The major pushers of this mythical bias in the media comes from the opinion pieces from the right -- why? Because it gives talk show hosts and radio hosts something to talk about, just as bitching about Fox News gives the left leaning media outlets something to B word about when they call out their bias. It used to matter, I grant you, when reporting and media coverage was the sole source of information for most of the public... but that's just not the case anymore.

 

Even if you disagree with my belief that the mainstream media is already irrelevant, you cannot deny the overall trend. The more personalized our technological dependence becomes, the lower the demand for impartial coverage has become. People don't want to learn about the world as it is anymore, they only want to hear about the world as they see it. Anything that challenges those views, regardless of personal politics, is becoming easier and easier to dismiss thanks to the abundance of additional outlets and sources now available. Now they can get exactly the news they want, how they want it, delivered not just to their personal computer screen, but their phone, TV, and iPad. Thanks to technology and American capitalistic know how (not meant as anything other than a compliment), there's no need to have your opinions or world view challenged. Besides, that takes too much time.

 

That's what's really dangerous. Far more dangerous than whether or not Scott Pelley is a democrat or a republican.

 

We can argue the bias in traditional media all you want, but it's an irrelevant debate without talking about the broader trend.

 

AP, CNN, NBC, Washington Post, NYT, CSN, NPR, Huffington Post, WND...

 

Let's just say "anyone represented in the White House Press Corps."

Which is an ever-expanding list.

 

There doesn't have to be collusion. When the overwhelming majority of those employed by and in charge of major media outlets happen to subscribe to the same general philosophy, the message that most often reaches the majority of the public can be terribly skewed in one direction with no coordination whatsoever.

 

Don't you live in Hollywood? Look around at your peers. Those are the people with the biggest microphone. If you can't see the broadly disparate treatment given to liberal v conservative politics in the aggregate I think you may be living in a bubble. That or you've become Californianized to the point that you're desensitized to it.

 

I hear what you're saying, but are we lumping Hollywood into the journalism business now? That rich, young actors tend to lean to the left on social causes and have no shame about self promotion isn't a revelation to me, it's just not the whole picture. There are far more conservatives and republicans calling the shots in terms of what's made and what isn't in this town than there are liberals. It's just actors are naturally in front of the camera more than studio heads and executives.

 

Again, I'm not arguing that there isn't a left leaning bias in those traditional outlets LA referenced, far from it. I'm saying that any definition of "mainstream media" which includes only those outlets is outdated and irrelevant. Thus, any concerns about the bias within those institutions is more chicken little than anything else.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Greg:

 

Show me the data.

[Deranged Rhino]

Greg:

 

Show me the data.

Which data? You want me to show data that more and more people's primary news sources are outside the traditional media? I don't think it's a question people are studying or paying attention to, though they should be, because the answer is evident. The end is nigh for nightly news or daily rags as American's primary sources for news and information, that is if the end isn't here already.

 

Look at the total number of viewers, I don't have the exact figures in front of me but they're easy enough to check. Network news pull about 22 million and change on average. 22 million out of an adult population (18 and up) of roughly 76 million. With those figures, less than a quarter of the adult population watches the nightly news -- and despite a slight bump in 2013 (thanks to more people having jobs and watching the morning news programs), the overall viewership of both cable and network news trend is down. Compare those numbers to opening day last year where 100+ million adult Americans tuned their TVs to network stations and you see it's not that people don't know how to find network news channels, it's just they don't carry the same relevance.

 

Newspapers are another animal, I know less about their actual numbers though my friends in ad sales are changing jobs like they're going out of fashion so I can't imagine they're soaring, even with inflated numbers from their digital platforms.

Edited July 8, 2014 by GreggyT

[Alaska Darin]

Coverage where? That's the point, your going by an old definition of what constitutes the "media" if you're basing it on how four networks and a few papers covered the story. Where do you think most people get their news these days? It sure ain't network news or a newspaper. The media has grown, and become personalized. You're using an outdated definition which is why the statement is so stale and incorrect.

bull ****. It doesn't matter where you get your "coverage" from. The vast majority of all media, regardless of source is hard core liberal and anyone who doesn't think that is a fool. The media is choosing winners and losers because the average person is indoctrinated and unable to do any critical thinking on their own.

 

You can't seriously be contending that a shift in how someone gets content has anything to do with bias, right? Because that's absolute nonsense.

 

http://www.mrc.org/m...l-bias-part-one

 

“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”

— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.

[Tiberius]

 

bull ****. It doesn't matter where you get your "coverage" from. The vast majority of all media, regardless of source is hard core liberal and anyone who doesn't think that is a fool. The media is choosing winners and losers because the average person is indoctrinated and unable to do any critical thinking on their own.

 

You can't seriously be contending that a shift in how someone gets content has anything to do with bias, right? Because that's absolute nonsense.

 

Like on what? What issues is the media brainwashing people on to make them vote Democrat?

 

 

 

http://www.mrc.org/m...l-bias-part-one

 

“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”

— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.

That's one newspaper. And you have your ass in a swirl because gay marriage and occupy wall street got too much coverage there? Whatever. You just like feeling like a victim of those mean old liberals in the media

[TakeYouToTasker]

Coverage where? That's the point, your going by an old definition of what constitutes the "media" if you're basing it on how four networks and a few papers covered the story. Where do you think most people get their news these days? It sure ain't network news or a newspaper. The media has grown, and become personalized. You're using an outdated definition which is why the statement is so stale and incorrect.

Greg:

 

Comcast, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner own 90% of all media content.

[IDBillzFan]

“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”

— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.

 

Not sure how I forgot about the Occupy movement and how it was covered relative to the Tea Party gatherings. That was pretty bad.

[Rob's House]

 

I hear what you're saying, but are we lumping Hollywood into the journalism business now? That rich, young actors tend to lean to the left on social causes and have no shame about self promotion isn't a revelation to me, it's just not the whole picture. There are far more conservatives and republicans calling the shots in terms of what's made and what isn't in this town than there are liberals. It's just actors are naturally in front of the camera more than studio heads and executives.

 

Again, I'm not arguing that there isn't a left leaning bias in those traditional outlets LA referenced, far from it. I'm saying that any definition of "mainstream media" which includes only those outlets is outdated and irrelevant. Thus, any concerns about the bias within those institutions is more chicken little than anything else.

 

I count all of it: Network news, cable news, late night talk shows, Comedy Central, sitcoms, movies, newspapers, websites, radio, etc.

 

It's not that there aren't sources of different news for the political junkie who's actively seeking answers; it's about the message that reaches the average Joe on a daily basis, and that message is overwhelmingly liberal.

 

I'm not basing that on the political makeup of Hollywood and the average newsroom, although I do believe that's where it starts, but I'm basing it on the coverage. I honestly don't get how any serious person who was above the age of 12 during the Bush years could argue otherwise. Others have cited several of examples of Obama scandals that never get traction. That's because outside of Fox News, Drudge, and Talk Radio no one talks about them. By contrast, Bush could have farted in a crowded elevator and it would have been national news for two weeks.

 

Bush fired a handful of US attorneys, which is nothing. You gotta be trying really hard to find a scandal to run with that, but they did. You didn't have to track that down or watch news media to know about it. It got more coverage by media not overtly conservative than any of Obama's blunders that have been mentioned in this thread.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Rob's House

[Nanker]

57 States < potatoe

[Tiberius]

 

Greg:

 

Comcast, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner own 90% of all media content.

All profit making corporations. That's your "Liberal Media"??? Come on! That's funny. Thanks for posting that. Proves my point not yours

[Azalin]

All profit making corporations. That's your "Liberal Media"??? Come on! That's funny. Thanks for posting that. Proves my point not yours

 

the only thing it proves is that you have no idea what he's talking about.

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

Which is an ever-expanding list.

 

Maybe ever-changing. Not ever-expanding.