Where is the press???????

[4merper4mer]

I'm interested in all of your thoughts on this.

 

I somewhat understand the press falling into certain categories when it comes to political beliefs. One trait of human nature is being comfortable surrounded by like minded people. I get that and I think it explains the general bias of most media outlets. NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NYT = liberal. MSNBC = uber liberal. Fox, Breitbart = conservative/neocon, whatever.

 

Personally I don't like that, but I understand it, at least I think I do.

 

What bothers me is that the trend seems to have dug itself in even deeper. It is very easy to tell the biases of each outlet and very easy to tell that people at those outlets are under pressure even if they agree in general but vary on the specific.

 

Fox, Breibart, and Drudge are all very obviously in the tank for Trump and have been for a long time. Breitbart even got rid of some people for not falling in line. Drudge is an individual person running his own show so he may not belong on this list.

 

MSNBC was for Bernie and is wending their way back to Hillary. The others are all for Hillary.

 

Whatever Hillary says or whatever Trump says has to be defended by their outlets. To me, this is way too far.

 

Even specific issues that don't involve individual politicians have specific spins by these places and they are almost always homogenous. You can put up a panel like "The Five" and everyone can argue, but the overall message is usually very clear if you listen.

 

I do understand some of the underlying reasons why this happens but not all of them. I'm interested to find out if you agree this is happening, why you think it is happening, and if it is the long term trend or if it is actually creating an opportunity for a new type of press outlet. I would love a network/web site/ paper/ whatever that simply dug for facts and was not for any politician or ideology as a premise. This could be done by having people with different slants or by having people committed to looking at things objectively. It could even be something dedicated to digging for dirt.....not TMZ dirt, but actual evidence of corruption. There should be enough conservatives and liberals out there dedicated to facts before ideology that something like this could happen. I don't find any outlets at all that resemble this even though my impression of the past...perhaps a naive one...is that a lot of the press did this. It should be easier to do today because getting to market is so much easier with the internet, yet nothing of this the has risen.

 

What do you think?

[keepthefaith]

Many will discount this since Bozell is a righty but he often publishes information regarding media bias and will usually back it up with numbers.

 

http://www.mrc.org/

 

The most recent example of total BIAS to me is the story of the Russians hacking the DNC which the left attempts to link Trump. What's amazing about this story is how quickly the news changed from the content of the hack to the Russian "excuse". Literally every network but Fox was running with that story based on about zero evidence. There is no question given the speed at which the story moved that this is a coordinated effort of damage control for the Democrats. The Media is absolutely conspiring to do this.

[GG]

 

I do understand some of the underlying reasons why this happens but not all of them. I'm interested to find out if you agree this is happening, why you think it is happening, and if it is the long term trend or if it is actually creating an opportunity for a new type of press outlet. I would love a network/web site/ paper/ whatever that simply dug for facts and was not for any politician or ideology as a premise. This could be done by having people with different slants or by having people committed to looking at things objectively. It could even be something dedicated to digging for dirt.....not TMZ dirt, but actual evidence of corruption. There should be enough conservatives and liberals out there dedicated to facts before ideology that something like this could happen. I don't find any outlets at all that resemble this even though my impression of the past...perhaps a naive one...is that a lot of the press did this. It should be easier to do today because getting to market is so much easier with the internet, yet nothing of this the has risen.

 

 

In a nutshell, you answered your own question. We're in the middle of a massive transformation of the media & news businesses, so that's why it's jumbled at the moment. Everyone is trying to figure out the new model, so they're throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Media fragmentation is a buzz word that's been thrown around for about 20 years, and it has taken on different forms as broadcast, cable, satellite & Internet have evolved. But I don't think we're close to the finale yet. All of these new media outlets are still living hand to mouth, and I'm not convinced that a viable revenue model exists for all of them to survive over a long term.

[Azalin]

I don't see how it's ever been possible for any news organization to be truly objective. As human beings, reporters, editors, station managers, etc have always had their own values, emotions, morals, and personal biases. I believe that many of them, perhaps more in the past than in the present, have maintained a conscious effort to be completely objective, but even the best can only do so much.

 

I believe things changed significantly during and after the Watergate hearings. Woodward and Bernstein's exposure of the government involvement in the break-in and subsequent cover up brought down a lot of powerful people, including a US president. My personal belief is that those events inspired many young people to become journalists, not to be reporters as chroniclers of events, but instead to "make a difference" - to be activists. At that time, the villains were Nixon and the Republicans, and I remember very clearly the anti-Ford and pro-Carter sentiment that was obvious in the reporting of Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Howard K Smith, followed by the antagonistic regard for Reagan by Cronkite's successor Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, etc.

 

CNN brought the 24 hour news cycle to cable television, even displaying a degree of objectivity early on. They eventually began to display the same biases as the major broadcast networks, which eventually left a market opening for Rupert Murdoch and FOX. With FOX reporting from a decidedly more conservative point of view and people like Rush Limbaugh dominating the AM airwaves, news - especially political news - turned into the confirmation bias machine that we have today. The irony being that with all these news outlets and blogs everywhere, it's even harder to get honest, accurate news without sifting through a mountain of crap to get it.

[4merper4mer]

I don't see how it's ever been possible for any news organization to be truly objective. As human beings, reporters, editors, station managers, etc have always had their own values, emotions, morals, and personal biases. I believe that many of them, perhaps more in the past than in the present, have maintained a conscious effort to be completely objective, but even the best can only do so much.

 

I believe things changed significantly during and after the Watergate hearings. Woodward and Bernstein's exposure of the government involvement in the break-in and subsequent cover up brought down a lot of powerful people, including a US president. My personal belief is that those events inspired many young people to become journalists, not to be reporters as chroniclers of events, but instead to "make a difference" - to be activists. At that time, the villains were Nixon and the Republicans, and I remember very clearly the anti-Ford and pro-Carter sentiment that was obvious in the reporting of Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Howard K Smith, followed by the antagonistic regard for Reagan by Cronkite's successor Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, etc.

 

CNN brought the 24 hour news cycle to cable television, even displaying a degree of objectivity early on. They eventually began to display the same biases as the major broadcast networks, which eventually left a market opening for Rupert Murdoch and FOX. With FOX reporting from a decidedly more conservative point of view and people like Rush Limbaugh dominating the AM airwaves, news - especially political news - turned into the confirmation bias machine that we have today. The irony being that with all these news outlets and blogs everywhere, it's even harder to get honest, accurate news without sifting through a mountain of crap to get it.

 

 

Clearly a summary but I think this is a decent account and a lot of it probably holds water.

 

I get the bias...not that I like it....of outlets, but it has seemed to become more and more refined. Not just a conservative channel...but a conservative channel with a specific take on certain issues. Same with the libs. Groupthink vs. Groupthink.

[Deranged Rhino]

[Dorkington]

AP, Reuters, BBC?

[4merper4mer]

Not really my point.

AP, Reuters, BBC?

Seriously?

[Deranged Rhino]

Not really my point.

 

It should be your central thesis as it's the primary explanation for the current sorry state of the US media. It's not fragmentation that's the problem, it's consolidation. Six companies own 90% of everything you watch, read, and listen to -- not just in terms of news but entertainment and sports. Local TV affiliates and local radio stations are swapping identical programming. There really aren't more choices for consumers now, just more echo chambers designed to reinforce their existing positions and biases.

 

There isn't really an independent media in existence in this country. Even the folks on the web are, for the most part, owned in some way by the larger entities or reliant upon the larger entities for distribution.

[Azalin]

 

 

Clearly a summary but I think this is a decent account and a lot of it probably holds water.

 

I get the bias...not that I like it....of outlets, but it has seemed to become more and more refined. Not just a conservative channel...but a conservative channel with a specific take on certain issues. Same with the libs. Groupthink vs. Groupthink.

 

It looks to me like it's nothing more than businesses filling niche markets. Which reminds me - does Naked News still broadcast?

[GG]

Not really my point.

Seriously?

 

Yes seriously. AP & Reuters are independent newsgathering organizations that syndicate their stories to other outlets. Same with Bloomberg. Why did you ignore Google, Facebook & Twitter from the icongraph, when online advertising is taking 25% of ad spending, and a growing share of eyeballs?

 

The media is much more fragmented and varied now than it was in 1983, despite what the silly icongraphic says.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Yes seriously. AP & Reuters are independent newsgathering organizations that syndicate their stories to other outlets. Same with Bloomberg. Why did you ignore Google, Facebook & Twitter from the icongraph, when online advertising is taking 25% of ad spending, and a growing share of eyeballs?

 

The media is much more fragmented and varied now than it was in 1983, despite what the silly icongraphic says.

 

Demonstrably false. As someone who sees how the sausage is made.

[K-9]

I'm interested in all of your thoughts on this.

 

I somewhat understand the press falling into certain categories when it comes to political beliefs. One trait of human nature is being comfortable surrounded by like minded people. I get that and I think it explains the general bias of most media outlets. NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NYT = liberal. MSNBC = uber liberal. Fox, Breitbart = conservative/neocon, whatever.

 

Personally I don't like that, but I understand it, at least I think I do.

 

What bothers me is that the trend seems to have dug itself in even deeper. It is very easy to tell the biases of each outlet and very easy to tell that people at those outlets are under pressure even if they agree in general but vary on the specific.

 

Fox, Breibart, and Drudge are all very obviously in the tank for Trump and have been for a long time. Breitbart even got rid of some people for not falling in line. Drudge is an individual person running his own show so he may not belong on this list.

 

MSNBC was for Bernie and is wending their way back to Hillary. The others are all for Hillary.

 

Whatever Hillary says or whatever Trump says has to be defended by their outlets. To me, this is way too far.

 

Even specific issues that don't involve individual politicians have specific spins by these places and they are almost always homogenous. You can put up a panel like "The Five" and everyone can argue, but the overall message is usually very clear if you listen.

 

I do understand some of the underlying reasons why this happens but not all of them. I'm interested to find out if you agree this is happening, why you think it is happening, and if it is the long term trend or if it is actually creating an opportunity for a new type of press outlet. I would love a network/web site/ paper/ whatever that simply dug for facts and was not for any politician or ideology as a premise. This could be done by having people with different slants or by having people committed to looking at things objectively. It could even be something dedicated to digging for dirt.....not TMZ dirt, but actual evidence of corruption. There should be enough conservatives and liberals out there dedicated to facts before ideology that something like this could happen. I don't find any outlets at all that resemble this even though my impression of the past...perhaps a naive one...is that a lot of the press did this. It should be easier to do today because getting to market is so much easier with the internet, yet nothing of this the has risen.

 

What do you think?

I think in the 24/7 "news" cycle it is more difficult to distinguish news reporting from editorializing. And I think that issue is exasperated by less number of owners owning far more media outlets than was previously permissible.

[B-Man]

The AP and Reuters may be described as independent.

 

but they have been demonstrably unbalanced in what they report.

[4merper4mer]

 

Yes seriously. AP & Reuters are independent newsgathering organizations that syndicate their stories to other outlets. Same with Bloomberg. Why did you ignore Google, Facebook & Twitter from the icongraph, when online advertising is taking 25% of ad spending, and a growing share of eyeballs?

 

The media is much more fragmented and varied now than it was in 1983, despite what the silly icongraphic says.

 

 

I wasn't questioning whether they exist. I was questioning whether they were impartial and without a particular bias. Dorkington seemed to be implying that they are, to which I say lol.

[Dorkington]

The AP and Reuters may be described as independent.

 

but they have been demonstrably unbalanced in what they report.

I'm going to take your opinion on 'balance' with a very large rock of salt.

[GG]

 

Demonstrably false. As someone who sees how the sausage is made.

 

With all due respect, you are the sausage.

 

Are you arguing that if you have an idea to start a newsgathering enterprise, or produce a TV show, movie, etc, you had the same number of opportunities to showcase that product in 1983 that you have now?

[B-Man]

I'm going to take your opinion on 'balance' with a very large rock of salt.

 

I can appreciate your response,

 

but the obvious difference is I'm not claiming to be.

 

 

I post articles with a conservative slant, that most PPP people do not try to access.

 

It is for informational reasons, I am not wedded to each word or opinion, as some assume.

 

 

That being said........................The A.P. and Reuters are as biased as the nets.

Edited August 3, 2016 by B-Man

[GG]

 

 

I wasn't questioning whether they exist. I was questioning whether they were impartial and without a particular bias. Dorkington seemed to be implying that they are, to which I say lol.

 

My response was to greggy who's claiming that media consolidation has reduced the number of voices we hear.

 

The response to you, is of course all news sources are getting increasingly more biased. It's all part of the spaghetti on the wall strategy to pander to a specific audience and see if that business model works.

[4merper4mer]

 

My response was to greggy who's claiming that media consolidation has reduced the number of voices we hear.

 

The response to you, is of course all news sources are getting increasingly more biased. It's all part of the spaghetti on the wall strategy to pander to a specific audience and see if that business model works.

 

 

You quoted me so I assumed you were responding to me.