Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineJohnnyTruant
The Polycannon
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 226
Loc: The great state of Mind
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Media Bias
    #9167418 - 11/01/08 09:20 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

I've always felt that Fox News is the least biased news around, as far as major news networks go. And it's not that they aren't biased, everyone network is biased, but the other networks just seemed more biased to me. I hear people, lefties anyway, bitch constantly about how biased towards the right Fox is, and how reliable their networks, like CNN, ABC, etc., are. But there's a new study out, and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside; and for the record, I'm not right or left, I think the idea of a large political party is bad news no matter what they claim to believe:

Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to.

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.

Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.

"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."

The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.

Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.

But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.

For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew center said.

MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.

The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.


http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/study-media-coverage-has-favored-obama-campaign/15616/ <--- if you'd like to see for yourself.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChiefGreenLeaf

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,596
Re: Media Bias [Re: JohnnyTruant]
    #9167459 - 11/01/08 09:39 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

that studies probably just biased. ha. my mom watches fox news all the time. they seem pretty retarted to me, but then again i dont think very much of tv in general. at least on cnn i saw a story about chemtrails. 60 minutes is good and lou dobbs is the only honest guy left on the news.
but why should my opinion matter, it's biased (to the truth maybe)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleantiPock
fighting entropy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/09/07
Posts: 2,509
Loc: Sol 3
Re: Media Bias [Re: JohnnyTruant]
    #9167529 - 11/01/08 10:10 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

JohnnyTruant said:
I've always felt that Fox News is the least biased news around, as far as major news networks go. . . . .




:rofl2: holy shit I spit coffee over this one


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnnyTruant
The Polycannon
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 226
Loc: The great state of Mind
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Media Bias [Re: antiPock]
    #9167578 - 11/01/08 10:23 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Hey now, I never even said I like Fox, I don't like any news because they all push their own agendas and shit on everyone else's, I'm just tired of hearing how terrible Fox is compared to the other networks when the fact of the matter is that that's complete bullshit.

It seems like nearly all networks are biased towards the left. Fox is one of very few that is not. I personally think that because tv is so inundated with leftist shit it makes Fox seem that much more biased towards the right just because they're not for the left. It's as if the middle of the road has been pushed towards the left, so now everyone thinks that anything even remotely in favor of the right is horribly biased in that direction.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleantiPock
fighting entropy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/09/07
Posts: 2,509
Loc: Sol 3
Re: Media Bias [Re: JohnnyTruant]
    #9167598 - 11/01/08 10:30 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Have you watched FOX "news" recently? It is pretty much a 24-hour anti-Obama infomercial. I don't even think FOX does news anymore, it is just one long series of opinion shows. They used to at least attempt to hide the bias with the "fair and balanced" mantra etc., but they seem have given up any pretense of that now.

I do enjoy watching FOX for purely entertainment purposes, though it makes me sad how many take it as canon. The funny thing is, Bill O'Reily (who I used to hate) may be the most rational person on the network.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnnyTruant
The Polycannon
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 226
Loc: The great state of Mind
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Media Bias [Re: antiPock]
    #9167699 - 11/01/08 10:59 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

I've watched some of all networks' "news" recently, and mostof them are a 24 hour pro-Obama infomercial. None of them do news. Ever. I will agree that Fox is getting worse, though.

Fuck Bill O'Reilly.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Media Bias [Re: JohnnyTruant]
    #9168400 - 11/01/08 02:27 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

The MSM (mainstream media) has abandoned all pretense of neutrality this election cycle. They've committed suicide and they don't even care, they're so invested in dragging their guy across the finish line. Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece on the death of journalism here:

Quote:

The End of Journalism
Sometime in 2008, journalism as we knew it died, and advocacy media took its place.

By Victor Davis Hanson

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnable. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression.

In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.

The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.

Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.




You'll have to go to the link to see the other three areas VDH refers to. Well worth the effort. As they say, read the whole thing.





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Media Bias [Re: Phred]
    #9168631 - 11/01/08 03:17 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

And of course, there's the ongoing spectacle of the LA Times beclowning themselves to an ever greater degree as their excuses for withholding the tape taken at a jew-bashing event attended by Obama, Ayers and his batshit-crazy terrorist wife, and PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi get ever more bizarre. Their latest excuse? Barry's friends are so dangerous that revealing the source would put his life in jeopardy.

Quote:

The Los Angeles Times’s Strange Notion of Journalistic Ethics
Give us the tape … or at least a transcript of Obama’s radical shindig.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Journalistic ethics?

When it comes to insulting our collective intelligence, the Obamedia soundtrack of the ongoing campaign breaks new ground on a daily, indeed an hourly, basis. Still, the Los Angeles Times takes the cake.

Change you can believe in is a short hop from fairy tales you can be sold. In that spirit, the Times tells us, we’d really, really love to release the videotape we’re holding of that 2003 Khalidi shindig — the one where Barack Obama joined a motley collection of Israel-bashers, including the former terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, to sing the praises of Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for PLO master-terrorist Yasser Arafat. But alas, our hands are tied by journalistic ethics.

Of course the ever ethical Times would never try to skew election coverage in favor of a candidate it has recently endorsed (after blowing kisses at him for two years). Nor would the newspaper give its readers anything but a complete, accurate, and truthful account of an event like the Khalidi Bash that it deemed worthy enough to cover. You can take that to the bank. But, gosh-darn, it turns out that a “source” the Times won’t name supposedly provided reporter Peter Wallsten with the videotape on the solemn promise that the paper would never let it see the light of day … except to report on it as the Times saw fit.

If you believe that one, I’ve got a tax cut for you.

Let’s suspend disbelief for a moment. Let’s pretend that there is really some sentient being out there who actually leaks a videotape to a reporter wanting and expecting the event depicted to be given news coverage but somehow not wanting or expecting the tape itself to be published. And let’s further pretend that this phantom source who doesn’t want to tape disclosed nevertheless gives the tape to the newspaper rather than keeping control over it himself.

Let’s say we buy that this highly unlikely scenario actually happened. That would still not prevent the Los Angeles Times from putting out a transcript of the Khalidi testimonials and other speechifying.

We know, for example, that Barack Obama spoke for several minutes. Yet the Times has provided us with only the most cursory summary — to be more precise, not a summary but an account. A summary is a synopsis that fairly reflects what was said. Reporter Wallsten, to the contrary, fleetingly tells us only that “Obama adopted a different tone [from rabid anti-Israel speakers] in his comments and called for finding common ground.”

How so? We’re not told. Here’s the entirety of the Times description of Obama’s remarks:

Quote:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”




How very enlightening. What were the topics of the dinner-table talk? What blind spots and biases was Obama referring to? Did anything in his speech provide clues? We have no idea: the Times doesn’t tell us.

Moreover, we also know that several speakers that night sang paeans to Khalidi — who regards the establishment of a Jewish state in “Palestine” as the Nakba (i.e., “The Catastrophe”) and justifies terrorist attacks against Israeli military and government targets. The Times concedes the party was a forum “where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.” Yet, again, we are given only two blurbs:

Quote:

[A] young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.” One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”




You know there was a lot more where that came from, spouted by several other speakers whom the Times story fails to name. Why not put out a transcript of what was said and by whom? And if the Times has information about what was in the commemorative book that was prepared for the occasion of Khalidi’s triumphant departure to assume the Edward Said chair at Columbia University, why not put that out too?




More at the link. Go there now.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblelIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
Re: Media Bias [Re: Phred]
    #9168675 - 11/01/08 03:30 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Phred, are you saying the media is more biased than usual this election? Personally I think the US media has a strong bias even at the best of times, especially the media leaders such as the NY Times.

It's only after a big scandal is blown that things open up for a while, reporters start asking the tough questions and questioning authority (instead of regurgitating institutional memory). A few weeks pass, then things slink back to the way they were.

The point I'm trying to make is the media is never a source of unbiased info.


Edited by lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl (11/01/08 03:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
Re: Media Bias [Re: antiPock]
    #9169115 - 11/01/08 05:12 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

antiPock said:
Quote:

JohnnyTruant said:
I've always felt that Fox News is the least biased news around, as far as major news networks go. . . . .




:rofl2: holy shit I spit coffee over this one




I don't get it either, it's perplexing to even hear those words. I'm pretty sure even many of the fox journalists don't believe half the things coming out of their mouths? The Colbert Report was started as a direct satire of the propaganda and slant of Fox news and Bill O'Riely.

Are you aware of what slanted language is?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Media Bias [Re: ScavengerType]
    #9169260 - 11/01/08 05:49 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

I like how the guy that laughed at the notion that fox was the least biased news station never said what bias, neutrality, or any other relevant descriptor is much less why that was a ridiculous assertion. (I'm not counting the 24-hour anti obama infomercial comment as that has nothing to do with the relativistic determination he claimed to be mocking)



Does bia or neutrality in media even mean anything relevant?  Is it useful to worry about it?  Why?




What is media bias?  What is media neutrality?  How do you determine either and how do you quantify bias?


I'll take a look at the study later


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGreen_T
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK Flag
Re: Media Bias [Re: johnm214]
    #9169652 - 11/01/08 07:23 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

.


Edited by green_titan (04/02/09 12:16 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnnyTruant
The Polycannon
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 226
Loc: The great state of Mind
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Media Bias [Re: Green_T]
    #9170135 - 11/01/08 09:41 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Where are you that you get the BBC, or do you just go online? Might have to look into that...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Media Bias [Re: JohnnyTruant]
    #9170612 - 11/02/08 12:06 AM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias :cheers:


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineboomer q
Comrade General
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,091
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: Media Bias [Re: zouden]
    #9173051 - 11/02/08 03:40 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Reality has a well-known liberal bias :cheers:



:thumbup:


--------------------
I got bags of funk and i sell em by the tons


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Media Bias [Re: boomer q]
    #9174838 - 11/02/08 09:46 PM (15 years, 3 months ago)

Another post about bias where people claim it exists yet can't define what it is, what neutrality is, or how you determine where a provider is on that spectrum with neutrality being the desired point.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Media Bias Is Real
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 4,270 32 12/29/05 11:32 AM
by Catalysis
* No media bias? luvdemshrooms 1,223 7 02/18/04 06:56 PM
by zappaisgod
* Media Bias silversoul7 1,113 9 08/30/04 09:44 PM
by silversoul7
* An Englishmans take on Liberal media bias in the US ... GazzBut 1,010 13 10/11/04 05:40 PM
by unbeliever
* No Liberal Media Bias... uh huh.
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,615 27 06/24/04 06:45 AM
by germin8tionn8ion
* Media Bias
( 1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms 3,704 56 07/02/03 09:40 PM
by hongomon
* Media Bias Anonymous 603 13 04/12/03 03:22 AM
by enotake2
* An example of liberal media bias Divided_Sky 639 4 08/30/04 10:37 AM
by Divided_Sky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,336 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.