I think it's safe to assume that most people accept the usual "liberal" and "conservative" tags that people have placed on the media. We're pretty much in agreement that FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, among others, are extremely conservative, and that MSNBC, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Bill Maher, among others, are extremely liberal.
Another kind of bias exists; one that goes relatively under-discussed compared to the liberal/conservative arguments: a corporate bias. The premise of corporate bias is simple: in general, a media outlet will not report negatively on a product or company if that product or company pays to advertise through that outlet. For instance, if you see an ad for Mobile 1 Synthetic motor oil (just a random example) on CNN, you are unlikely to see a report on CNN that focuses on a negative about Mobile 1.
The media is a business first, and is therefore driven to make money above all else. This is the reason for stories about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton while other noteworthy stories go essentially uncovered. The same is true with glamorous or sensationalist stories. A great example is shown in Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine," when the news crew in LA runs to cover what may or may not be (and turns out to not be) a shooting, but the crew had no interest in doing any kind of story about the pollution in LA; a much more serious problem to a larger number of people. These are the stories that are run and that get coverage, because these are the stories that people want and that make money.
This is understandable, but does that make it right? Journalism suffers because they won't report on certain topics fairly. It is the same with liberal or conservative slants; people don't get a full honest story, because the media is paid to present something to them in a particular way.
To put it in a gaming perspective, this story [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.88882] ran yesterday through the News Room section of the forums. It's about accusations that MSNBC was interested in running a story about the PS3 which would have portrayed it in a very negative light. I've watched a significant amount of MSNBC programming in the last year or so, and I truly cannot remember a PS3 or Sony ad in their commercials. They certainly may have been there, but I don't remember them. I do remember, however, seeing Microsoft ads during their programming. I'm not saying there's any kind of corporate conspiracy or payoff, just that it's interesting how MSNBC allegedly chose to cover the PS3, and not the XBOX 360.
Another example is Game Informer, which skews it's scoring system to make it look like moderate scores (around 6 or 7) are much better than they actually are- scores that would actually be around 4 or 5. They do this because many of the games they would be scoring poorly advertise, and might pull their ads if they were discussed too negatively.
What do you think about media bias; conservative, liberal, or corporate? Which is the most significant or "worst" slant? Do you have any examples? Any solutions?
Another kind of bias exists; one that goes relatively under-discussed compared to the liberal/conservative arguments: a corporate bias. The premise of corporate bias is simple: in general, a media outlet will not report negatively on a product or company if that product or company pays to advertise through that outlet. For instance, if you see an ad for Mobile 1 Synthetic motor oil (just a random example) on CNN, you are unlikely to see a report on CNN that focuses on a negative about Mobile 1.
The media is a business first, and is therefore driven to make money above all else. This is the reason for stories about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton while other noteworthy stories go essentially uncovered. The same is true with glamorous or sensationalist stories. A great example is shown in Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine," when the news crew in LA runs to cover what may or may not be (and turns out to not be) a shooting, but the crew had no interest in doing any kind of story about the pollution in LA; a much more serious problem to a larger number of people. These are the stories that are run and that get coverage, because these are the stories that people want and that make money.
This is understandable, but does that make it right? Journalism suffers because they won't report on certain topics fairly. It is the same with liberal or conservative slants; people don't get a full honest story, because the media is paid to present something to them in a particular way.
To put it in a gaming perspective, this story [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.88882] ran yesterday through the News Room section of the forums. It's about accusations that MSNBC was interested in running a story about the PS3 which would have portrayed it in a very negative light. I've watched a significant amount of MSNBC programming in the last year or so, and I truly cannot remember a PS3 or Sony ad in their commercials. They certainly may have been there, but I don't remember them. I do remember, however, seeing Microsoft ads during their programming. I'm not saying there's any kind of corporate conspiracy or payoff, just that it's interesting how MSNBC allegedly chose to cover the PS3, and not the XBOX 360.
Another example is Game Informer, which skews it's scoring system to make it look like moderate scores (around 6 or 7) are much better than they actually are- scores that would actually be around 4 or 5. They do this because many of the games they would be scoring poorly advertise, and might pull their ads if they were discussed too negatively.
What do you think about media bias; conservative, liberal, or corporate? Which is the most significant or "worst" slant? Do you have any examples? Any solutions?
fficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv&ei=LaGfSZmrNJmQsQOMktnVCQ&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1#