bias in the media

[shootthebandit]

Russell brand posted his video basically saying how the news was completely biased and did not even entertain the opinion of someone (who was very reasonable) simply because he held a different opinion


The news presenter then made this video in retaliation with petty character attacks. At one point one of the panel actually says "we are all zionists". Im sorry but you cant discuss something like this with only one opinion. Its not a discussion, its telling the viewers what to think


Id just like to ask you americans if this is legitimate news coverage in america. If it is im pretty sure that the news is meant to remain as impartial as possible and just tell us whats happening not force a certain viewpoint at the viewer

N.b. this is not a thread to discuss the current problems in the middle east, its a discussion whether the news has a right to be this biased. I hope this discussion can remain in the off topic section

 

[Thaluikhain]

Might want to specify American media in the title there.

 

[Zhukov]

It's Fox dude.

Bias is what they do. It's the entire appeal of their news service. "If you're a right-wing American, watch this channel to hear things you'll agree with!"

Not to take away from Singlet McGee up there, but calling out Fox for being biased is like calling out McDonalds for unhealthy food.

 

[Super Cyborg]

I generally just don't like the media here. When something huge happens, all the channels like to talk about it, and if there's nothing else, lets talk about politics with heavy opinions, and not talk about actual news. When I was in Denmark in May, I saw BBC news and thought "that's the kind of news we need, where it talks about a variety of stuff, and is more insightful about stuff." I've just lost interest in American politics in general because of all the crap, so American news channels don't cut it anymore. It's worse when channels try to have a two sided debate, when it's two angry people yelling at each other instead of being productive. As soon as the media and politicians get things straightened out, I'll pay attention again.

 

[Queen Michael]

All media is biased to some degree. When some natural disaster has happened, they always use the word "tragedy" when reporting about it. That's biased. Imagine if a news anchor used that phrasing about Obama being re-elected or yet another Transformers movie coming out.

And as has been said uncountable times before, not every question has two equally valid sides that deserve equal attention. In my opinion, there is no reason to listen to creationists, intelligent design proponents, holocaust deniers, and people who actually think X-Men 3 was the best movie in the trilogy.

In other words, the question isn't about if the media should be biased or not. It's about when it should be.

 

[chaser5000]

It's Fox dude.

Bias is what they do. It's the entire appeal of their news service. "If you're a right-wing American, watch this channel to hear things you'll agree with!"

Not to take away from Singlet McGee up there, but calling out Fox for being biased is like calling out McDonalds for unhealthy.

Cue the angry Fox news viewers rushing in the proclaim that Fox is the only source of truth in the MSM, and how you're just an ignorant liberal who can't handle the truth.

 

[Zhukov]

It's Fox dude.

Bias is what they do. It's the entire appeal of their news service. "If you're a right-wing American, watch this channel to hear things you'll agree with!"

Not to take away from Singlet McGee up there, but calling out Fox for being biased is like calling out McDonalds for unhealthy.

Cue the angry Fox news viewers rushing in the proclaim that Fox is the only source of truth in the MSM, and how you're just an ignorant liberal who can't handle the truth.

Nah, doesn't happen much on this forum. We're pretty left-leaning 'round these parts. Right wing types tend to either keep a low profile or quit in frustration at the antics of all us bleeding heart liberals.

Maybe they hang out in the 'Religion and Politics' section, but I wouldn't know since I never go in there without ear muffs, a gas mask and a big stick.

 

[shootthebandit]

It's Fox dude.

Bias is what they do. It's the entire appeal of their news service. "If you're a right-wing American, watch this channel to hear things you'll agree with!"

Not to take away from Singlet McGee up there, but calling out Fox for being biased is like calling out McDonalds for unhealthy.

I didnt know it was this bad. Ive seen some of their stuff about videogames obviously but I didnt think they were THIS bad. He didnt even let that other guy speak because he didnt agree with him. The guy was a lot more reasonable than he was and he was just a dick

All media is biased to some degree.

All media is biased including the BBC (and other UK news). In the UK news is expected to be presented professionally and without opinion. Yes it is still biased but it isnt blatantly ramming an ideology down your throat

And as has been said uncountable times before, not every question has two equally valid sides that deserve equal attention. In my opinion, there is no reason to listen to creationists, intelligent design proponents, holocaust deniers, and people who actually think X-Men 3 was the best movie in the trilogy.

This is true but when it comes to a debate with say someone who thinks X-men 3 is the best. You will at least humour them and listen to their ideas and respect their opinion. Not even giving them a chance to speak is just rude and unprofessional. This guy was just rude and he wasnt saying that Xmen 3 was the best. He was saying that its justified for an organised army to bomb innocent people because of the actions of a "terrorist" organisation. Whether or not I agree with him is invalid its still an important issue that NEEDS to be discussed

N.b. Evolution has been proven to be true. Creationism and intelligent design have not. The media (certainly in the UK) will not give these the time of day because they are not true (if they are proven true then the media will change accordingly). This is more a case of report requiring substantial evidence to be considered "news" or whether its based on opinion

In other words, the question isn't about if the media should be biased or not. It's about when it should be.

I suppose thats kind of a valid point but to me its more a case of gathering evidence for a report and presenting that evidence in a professional manner to make a point (whether its bias or not). Yes people may believe in creationism/intelligent design. Their faith may be more powerful than facts and thats fine by me but you cannot present a news program saying that creationism happened because there is no evidence (except one book written a thousand years ago).

The guy in the video had no facts and he even said "we could talk about the 1947 UN partition and subsequent wars but its not relevant". I think that no matter what view you have on this. If you know anything about this you'll know that the events from 1947 onwards are very important as they led to whats happening now

Perhaps its not so much biased media its sensationalist emotive media that bothers me. As russell said he clearly wasnt going to sit down and discuss a solution he was clearly trying to antagonise people and I think russell calling him a terrorist is partially correct. Whether you agree with him or not he presented his opinion by bullying and intimidating people who disagreed.

I guess i dont really have an issue with bias because another source may be biased in the opposite way (russell) so you can usually find a middle ground but blatantly disregarding what someone has to say and acting unprofessionally is not news. In fact looking back at my OP I dont even know why I used the word bias. Its not bias its an emotive opinion. You actually need to display some evidence for your report to be valid. This isnt even a report its just a sensationalist opinion

 

[Parasondox]

Might want to specify American media in the title there.

I second that motion. The US has a serious problem when it comes news media and bias reporting. Should they introduce a legislation to allow fair and balanced views like they do in the UK? Maybe, but money talks doesn't it. Okay newspapers have free reign to be bias but television news can't.

At the moment with Gaza, you sure as hell can't criticise Israel without being tagged as somethings hateful and negative.

 

[shootthebandit]

Might want to specify American media in the title there.

I second that motion. The US has a serious problem when it comes news media and bias reporting. Should they introduce a legislation to allow fair and balanced views like they do in the UK? Maybe, but money talks doesn't it. Okay newspapers have free reign to be bias but television news can't.

At the moment with Gaza, you sure as hell can't criticise Israel without being tagged as somethings hateful and negative.

I didnt really want to go down this route but america has close ties with israel. Perhaps that skews the media a bit. Ive seen some american stuff and its either bill maher with his liberal stuff or its these guys with their conservative stuff. Theres very rarely a miďdle ground and everything tends to be more opinion than hard facts

 

[Muspelheim]

It's difficult not to at least respect the Fox News networks for their clever business idea. They say what they know quite a few people would like to hear. They've very carefully found a small circle of viewers, and have managed and grown that resource very well indeed. They tell people what they want to hear and portray the world so that it fits with their vision of it.

And while doing so, the steady viewership grows. It must be difficult imagining anything else than the Fox News branded variant of reality if that is what you have been grown up on, if that is and has always been your window outwards. The Fox Networks have made themselves an indispensable part of millions of people's lives. That is shrewd business, at least.

Of course, all news networks and outlets are biased in some way. Hell, even the idea of a free press is in itself biased against an autocratic worldview. But Fox News have built its entire success around exploiting this fact. Which is amusing, considering its image of being some sort of valiant stronghold of factual reporting in a land overrun by commie homo nazis, or whatever.

As for the Gaza situation, well... It's a knotty issue. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle road. It seems you must either concede that Palestinian children killed by Israeli artillery hardly counts as human beings, or you must concede that Israel shouldn't exist and should be forced into the sea. It's far too many people going "You're either with us or against us", which has always been an idiotic statement. When the less moderate people gets to run the show, you are apparently either an anti-semite or an ultra-sionist. Play your cards right, and you get to be both.

That on top of being a BBC-watching Bolshevik in my case.

 

[shootthebandit]

It's difficult not to at least respect the Fox News networks for their clever business idea. They say what they know quite a few people would like to hear. They've very carefully found a small circle of viewers, and have managed and grown that resource very well indeed. They tell people what they want to hear and portray the world so that it fits with their vision of it.

And while doing so, the steady viewership grows. It must be difficult imagining anything else than the Fox News branded variant of reality if that is what you have been grown up on, if that is and has always been your window outwards. The Fox Networks have made themselves an indispensable part of millions of people's lives. That is shrewd business, at least.

Of course, all news networks and outlets are biased in some way. Hell, even the idea of a free press is in itself biased against an autocratic worldview. But Fox News have built its entire success around exploiting this fact. Which is amusing, considering its image of being some sort of valiant stronghold of factual reporting in a land overrun by commie homo nazis, or whatever.

Thats pretty true and yes its amusing but at the same time its worrying that they are spreading such ignorance

As for the Gaza situation, well... It's a knotty issue. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle road. It seems you must either concede that Palestinian children killed by Israeli artillery hardly counts as human beings, or you must concede that Israel shouldn't exist and should be forced into the sea. It's far too many people going "You're either with us or against us", which has always been an idiotic statement. When the less moderate people gets to run the show, you are apparently either an anti-semite or an ultra-sionist. Play your cards right, and you get to be both.

I agree. Its a very complex issue and like ive said I dont really want to be "picking sides" and thats not what the thread is about. Ill leave that to the R&P forums. I dont care what your opinion is but not even letting someone with a differing opinion speak is wrong especially for a "news" network. Also deciding that you arent going to entertain 60 years of history which led up to these events and is crucial to why this is happening is very bad journalism no matter which side of the fence you sit

That on top of being a BBC-watching Bolshevik in my case.

The BBC has always been impartial and doesnt affiliate with any politics or ideas but its still biased. Its still my preferred source of news though. Channel 4 news (UK) is also pretty good because of people like John Snow who actually have some journalistic credibility. He actually went to gaza to do a report first hand. I doubt the guy from fox news has ever set foot in gaza

 

[Blow_Pop]

The media in America is very biased. Particularly with what's happening there. This is why I don't watch the news or read newspapers from America. I find BBC news or other global news sources to get my news from.

At the moment with Gaza, you sure as hell can't criticise Israel without being tagged as somethings hateful and negative.

You can, it just depends on HOW you do it and WHY you are doing it.

I didnt really want to go down this route but america has close ties with israel.

Not only that but both right and left wing politicians have all basically agreed that they pretty much support what's going on.



On a side note, even if Fox news sets foot in Gaza it'll still be heavily biased and things like that "debate" up there will still happen

 

[MeTalHeD]

I work in the media and you'd be surprised how easy a story can be twisted to suit an agenda - or maybe you wouldn't be all that surprised. It happens all the time. The basic belief journalists have when starting in the media industry is that (assuming they work in news) they will be the voice of the voiceless, tell peoples' stories and maybe change society for the better because they shed light on matters that need attention. Is your government corrupt? The journos are there to highlight why and how this happened (never mind the what, where and when).

Is a company ripping customers off? A consumer journalist can help expose the owner, warn people and there's a small chance people might get their money back.

If, for example, the editor is scoring freebies from a company embroiled in a scandal, reporting on it becomes an uphill battle because they can block it at every turn. Then there is the editor's individual bias. Someone could harbour racist tendencies and head up a newsroom. I have seen it happen that a black run company is called corrupt for a dodgy deal, but a company run by white people would be "colluding", even if they're as corrupt as the others. What actually happens is the news takes on the editor's personality. If they are liberal, a gay parade will be splashed across their pages with wild abandon and portrayed as progressive. A more conservative newspaper would take the same parade and lambaste it for destroying the moral fabric of society.

The argument at university was: what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? It depends which side you're on. Editors are supposed to be impartial, but they're human too. Same thing with judges. However, I believe it is next to impossible to separate your bias from your job. A reporter who has an interest in nature is going to seek environmental stories to write about and heaven help any corporations who get in the way.

A truly impartial reporter/editor or editorial team is a myth. To be accurate, it is a standard journalists and newsrooms hold themselves to, but can never reach. When you're blatantly picking sides under the guise of journalism, you are no longer sharing news. You're sharing opinion. Opinions are never equal, which is why reporters need to stick to the facts first. There are times when they can highlight key issues - such as ethical or legal ones (think Euthanasia, legalising marijuana or abortion) - but they are not allowed to pick sides in a story. Technically you're the watchdog for society, but that society can be immoral and corrupt. If you're lucky, you won't get threatened for telling the truth.

News these days isn't about informing people. It's about getting higher readership or viewership. The news items they carry are sensationlist at heart. In other words, a soup kitchen struggling to make ends meet won't feature despite it serving the community for decades. A shooting gets more papers sold (apparently), it brings debates about gun laws and there are more in depth features on the "fearful community" later on.

If bias didn't pay the bills, we'd have the most neutral news sources in the world bending over backwards to inform us first, and scare us last.