Thread: The Media

The problem with media bias is that it's impossible to detect unless you are looking for it or have something to compare it to.

If there is an issue that you care about and follow (in my case it's Israel/Palestine) the media bias is immediately clear. It consists of important stories that appear in the alternative media but not the mainstream media or if they appear, always with a very strong bias towards one side.

One recent example is the coverage of the Iranian election. The loser Hossein Moussavi claimed vote fraud and the mainstream media reported that, even though he produced no evidence, apparently in an effort to embarrass Ahmadinejad and destabilize Iran. The alternative media, on the other hand, reported that Moussavi was the Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989 and was responsible for the attacks on the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut that killed, respectively 60 and 299 US citizens in 1983.

In my opinion, fair reporting on the subject would have included all the elements: a claim of fraud, but no proof, and the fact that Moussavi is not a paladin of democracy.

So, from where I sit, and in regard to the issues that I've been following for a long time, the mainstream media is highly censored and biased.

Well, bias/unbiased is less important than agenda, in my opinion.

This is my take: Every private media outlet is, at its core, a money-making enterprise and thus its decisions will be made in any way that will maximize profits. This is the bias of the major mass-media; sensationalism sells, so that's their product; they tend to avoid offense or radicalism unless it is clearly invalid--don't want to upset the proles.

Certain media outlets, however, have political agenda in addition to their financial self-interest, and this is where the accusation of bias come from. A visible political agenda is a clear bias, whether left or right, and is particularly polarizing. The financial agenda is less polarizing, though it is no less damaging...it tends toward the broad and non-challenging, as people don't like to be told stuff they don't already believe, and so it works toward preserving the status quo.

It is, of course, vital for people to practice critical thinking and take EVERYTHING they get form the media with a grain of salt...which is what makes me sad about the whole thing. People just believe, without thinking.

I do think the media has a greater responsibility to be unbiased than the public has a responsibility to not fall for it, but only by a tiny margin.

As jockeys so rightly pointed out, bias is pretty much unavoidable where people are concerned, and especially when it's a large homogeneous group of people.

What that means, is that while we should be able to expect our media to at least be truthful, and not knowingly publish nonsense, individuals should be responsible for looking at all sides of an issue, and looking for bias so they can fully understand an issue.

If you're going to get your news from television in the US, I think the best way to do it would be to watch Fox News AND MSNBC, which are probably the most conservatively biased and liberally biased news outlets on television respectively. If you watch both, you can see what is the same, what's different, and (hopefully) distill the truth from all the B.S.



When I was a kid, there was a double murder across the street from my house. That's remarkable because I lived in a town of less than 5,000 people at the time, and things like that just didn't happen there. So, all the local news stations and papers were there asking questions of all the neighbors. I had a sister who was 16 at the time, and she was interviewed, with our parents' permission, by a reporter from the Statesman Journal, which was and still is one of the two largest and oldest newspapers in Oregon. (The other being The Oregonian)

The reporter asked my sister a bunch of questions, and her answers amounted to the fact that she really didn't know the people across the street, but she was really shocked about what had happened.

The next day, there was a HUGE column in the paper on the murders, and there was an enormously long quote from my sister, talking about how she was close friends to the family, and how quiet and happy they were, and how they got along so well, and she couldn't imagine anybody wanting to do something like that to such nice people.

The entire thing was fiction. We're not talking about a misquote here, we're talking about pure fiction. My parents even talked to a bunch of other neighbors, and nobody could account for that quote. The reporter didn't get any good responses, so they just wrote what they wanted to hear.

What was funny, is that me and my nearest brother actually did play with the kids from across the street regularly, and were probably the only two people on the whole block who knew them at all. If it weren't for the fact that we were 7 and 9 respectively, we actually could have told the reporters all about them.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

The entire thing was fiction. We're not talking about a misquote here, we're talking about pure fiction.

I've had the same experience and I think it is very common.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I've had the same experience and I think it is very common.

And you know what's REALLY messed up about that? Pretty much every time I've ever told that story, at least one person says the same thing.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I can explain media bias quite easily.

1. all people are biased. some more than others, but everyone is a little biased, at least.
2. media corporations are run by and made up of PEOPLE. see 1.
3. for reasons of getting along, people with similar biases to those making hiring decisions tend to get hired. thus, you usually get a pretty homogenous set of biases in a given workplace. (in my experience anyway)
4. when a large group of people all feel the same way, they tend to make decisions more harmoniously.
5. due to 4. (groupthink) that selfsame group will develop cultural blind spots if there are no dissidents (or if they are overwhelmingly drowned out by a loud majority)
6. due to 5. these groups will tend to display self-reinforcing behavior when it comes to exhibiting bias.

And I'd like to add to that:

Whoever pays the piper picks the tunes.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

So, from where I sit, and in regard to the issues that I've been following for a long time, the mainstream media is highly censored and biased.

Dov, from where you sit I imagine media bias is shoved down your throat on a daily basis. There should be WAYYY more pictures published of disgraced prime ministers cavorting with young nubile lingerie models than there currently is in the Italian press!

Originally Posted by majurey

Dov, from where you sit I imagine media bias is shoved down your throat on a daily basis. There should be WAYYY more pictures published of disgraced prime ministers cavorting with young nubile lingerie models than there currently is in the Italian press!

The Italians I know are just humiliated ... they don't mind their politicians screwing around but they can't stand it when they make the whole country a laughingstock.

In an ideal world, the media would show no bias. They do though, in this country pretty much every newspaper is biased toward one party, and it's well known and that's juw how it is.

I guess the BBC are relatively unbiased, but society does accept some bias with out even thinking about it - which is pretty dangerous.

Some factions of the media here are pretty good at inventing quotes. The next time you read a quote from 'an anonymous source' ask your self how perfect that quote is for the story. They bull**** those all the time.

Everyone here makes a good point. I agree with Jockeys as part of the answer. Add to that the politics and the fact that, in general people are like sheep wanting to follow a leader without question. Also, people in general will always take the easy way out. It is easier to believe something reported that it is to verify the facts. We have all heard rumors people pass as fact. Ever receive a chain letter warning of something like an age old virus or a "My friend's sister's friend's mother's aunt ...

We don't live in a perfect world and as history proves, there is no such thing so forget about the news being a propaganda machine or everyone not falling for it. For those of us that want to know the truth, it can be dangerous to your well being. I say that because there are those that do not want the truth exposed and would be willing to go to extremes to keep it hidden.

Years ago in collage two things jaded me on news reports. First was a class on comparative governments. The second was reading this book Amazon.com: None Dare Call It Conspiracy: Gary Allen, Larry Abraham: Books

I find the events mentioned in the book as interesting. It left me wondering why none of them were found in history books. The conclusions made in the book, well they were the authors spin on the events and falls into our conversation here.

Being in the Fire Department I am at a lot of the local emergency events in town so I know the facts. When I read about them in the paper or see them reported on television I often wonder if I was really there or if the event being reported was somewhere else. These are simple facts to report and they are often incorrect. What happens to the stories that are more complicated.

In conclusion I consider the news as entertainment. Each version is targeting a specific group of people. If something catches my attention or impacts my quality of life, and I have the time, I will research it until I am satisfied. Other wise it is just interesting trivia.