View Full Version : Media Bias
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=PpBW6Tx2bGs
Interesting vid, huh? So according to his test, what is you PQ?
Mine is 20.7.
Like Texas?
I'll donate my trillions of monopoly dollars to support liberal bias.
Also, that is no university, it's a republican youth camp. A sham. A lie. Liberalism is the truth. Repent.
~Jirisys ()
Montmorency
08-19-2012, 02:41
Prager Uni? Oh dear...
Not going to even bother with the rest of that quiz, at this rate, I am going to get PQ of 100.
But I know for sure the irony of a topic on media bias having the most bias media I have seen in a long time.
I would have expected examples on both sides of the fence, perhaps some probing at the underlining causes of media bias, but having a whole lecture where fox is not mentioned once and not even on the initial picture and an advert saying "buy my book on liberal bias" my brain began to hurt from amount of bull being displayed in front of it.
Major Robert Dump
08-19-2012, 03:09
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
CountArach
08-19-2012, 03:40
This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2012/may/31/politico-barack-obama-gop-bias) pretty much sums up my thoughts on Media Bias:
This is always the problem with the charge of "media bias": for it to be valid, it would have to be the case that "not being biased" were a viable alternative option, and it isn't. No human can adopt a position of perfect neutrality: centrism is just as much a political position as is rightism or leftism, and splitting the difference – what Jay Rosen calls "he said, she said" journalism – is just as subjective a way of filtering reality as any other. (Rosen makes a strong argument that "he said, she said" is worse than the alternatives, but the important point here is just that it's no less subjective.)
This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2012/may/31/politico-barack-obama-gop-bias) pretty much sums up my thoughts on Media Bias:
Of course you cannot be without balance, but we could have some kind of a balance amongst reporters and management (say, half center to left and half center to right), so that the overall effect will be a more balanced offering of news for viewers. It doesn't happen though. 93% of reporters are liberals. So many people rely completely on the media for their opinions and believe what they here, and as most of them are libs, it slants the nation's opinion enormously.
Montmorency
08-19-2012, 03:59
(say, half center to left and half center to right),
See, what does that even mean? You missed the point.
So many people rely completely on the media for their opinions and believe what they here, and as most of them are libs, it slants the nation's opinion enormously. .
Does it really?
A large proportion of the population doesn't heed the opinions of friends and family, they merely take NBC's output as gospel?
Well, thank goodness for the FOX network - just what a clear-thinking recluse needs to get the facts.
Anyway, I'd like to see a source for the quote that 93% of reporters are liberal. As far as I could tell, the claim was that 93% of the reporters in the DC area voted Obama in 08. Like the good professor's test, this is a risibly crude measure.
CountArach
08-19-2012, 04:03
Of course you cannot be without balance, but we could have some kind of a balance amongst reporters and management (say, half center to left and half center to right), so that the overall effect will be a more balanced offering of news for viewers. It doesn't happen though. 93% of reporters are liberals. So many people rely completely on the media for their opinions and believe what they here, and as most of them are libs, it slants the nation's opinion enormously.
For what you say to be true then the following must all be true:
1) 93% of journalists are 'liberals'
2) Many people rely on the media for opinions
Ergo...
3) Most people will be liberals.
You know that is not at all the reality of the American political landscape so please try not to just turn this into an opportunity to bash liberals. You have set this thread up to have a serious discussion about the nature of media bias... don't ruin that.
Hooahguy
08-19-2012, 06:09
I just read the BBC. Its easier.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
6562
PanzerJaeger
08-19-2012, 08:34
Media bias towards liberal/Democratic positions among the mainstream, old media is a real thing in the United States, but this was a terrible way to broach the subject. As someone else said, starting a discussion on bias with an incredibly biased video was not a great introduction.
I avoid all state and socallec quality media. All socalled quality newspapers are owned by the same parent-company, which in turn is owned by a very shady character with very close ties to the crown. Blogs never let me down.
Sarmatian
08-19-2012, 12:20
Media bias towards liberal/Democratic positions among the mainstream, old media is a real thing in the United States, but this was a terrible way to broach the subject. As someone else said, starting a discussion on bias with an incredibly biased video was not a great introduction.
Well said.
I liked how he quoted from that STORM book, choosing one paragraph out of context that seemed radical enough and completely ignored the previous paragraph which said that STORM isn't a Marxist-Leninist organization, but that they rather hold some M-L values dear. The paragraph after the one he quoted criticized lack of democracy in M-L revolutions.
I get that even those two other paragraphs are "too communist" for most Americans, but it's quite different to what he said.
Centurion1
08-19-2012, 14:30
I just read the BBC. Its easier.
BBC is pretty liberal as well. They handle foreign news well though.
Hooahguy
08-19-2012, 14:54
BBC is pretty liberal as well. They handle foreign news well though.
Exactly. I dont care about British politics so it can be liberal in that regard but I dont care.
You kind of have to remember that out of all the nations that compose of the "West", America is pretty much the most conservative. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc are all "Liberals" by American definition even when they have "Conservative" parties in power.
I was reading something a few years back and Fox claimed that 50% of Americans used their channel and resources as their primary news source. I cannot find this actual source, but I remember it was Bill O'Reilly saying it but another source from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/27/fox-news-most-popular) supports this notion.
The most mainstream media source is conservative, in comparison to the larger numbers of "not-so-conservative" mainstream media, which in reality is not all liberal, it is simply not as right-wing as Fox. This one source is world renown for its right-wing conservative bias, quoting from the Guardian source:
Fox News threw out the old model of television news – pitched towards a mass audience across the political spectrum and aspiring to standards of fairness in reporting – and replaced it with an aggressive drive for a niche audience of rightwing voters.
Considering the last presidential election was 53% for Obama, you can make a fair assumption that the vast majority voting against him all watch Fox news.
So if you take another look at the PQ scale where apparently removing just the Liberal bias will make Americans jump to the right (because it will just contain conservative bias). If you removed all media bias, especially of that of the conservative bias partisan machine of Fox News, everyone will take a significant jump to the left becoming more in-line with other nations within the Anglosphere and in Europe, requiring a complete overhaul of the scale.
As the saying goes "Reality has a Liberal Bias" as America is so artificially conservative that everything simply looks "liberal" in comparison.
Centurion1
08-19-2012, 16:14
You kind of have to remember that out of all the nations that compose of the "West", America is pretty much the most conservative. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc are all "Liberals" by American definition even when they have "Conservative" parties in power.
I was reading something a few years back and Fox claimed that 50% of Americans used their channel and resources as their primary news source. I cannot find this actual source, but I remember it was Bill O'Reilly saying it but another source from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/27/fox-news-most-popular) supports this notion.
The most mainstream media source is conservative, in comparison to the larger numbers of "not-so-conservative" mainstream media, which in reality is not all liberal, it is simply not as right-wing as Fox. This one source is world renown for its right-wing conservative bias, quoting from the Guardian source:
Considering the last presidential election was 53% for Obama, you can make a fair assumption that the vast majority voting against him all watch Fox news.
So if you take another look at the PQ scale where apparently removing just the Liberal bias will make Americans jump to the right (because it will just contain conservative bias). If you removed all media bias, especially of that of the conservative bias partisan machine of Fox News, everyone will take a significant jump to the left becoming more in-line with other nations within the Anglosphere and in Europe, requiring a complete overhaul of the scale.
As the saying goes "Reality has a Liberal Bias" as America is so artificially conservative that everything simply looks "liberal" in comparison.
Fox News serves the unique position of providing the only mainstream conservative news. Obviously most conservatives watch fox. 50% of the nation roughly is conservative so obviously it will have the largest viewership. Conservatives don't want to watch msnbc and see their positions be trashed.
Basically Rupert Murdoch made one of the wisest media decisions in the history of mass media.
Furunculus
08-19-2012, 17:01
I just read the BBC. Its easier.
lol:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9475479/Heres-how-we-counter-the-BBCs-liberal-bias.html
Fox News serves the unique position of providing the only mainstream conservative news.
The point is funnily enough, not reality.
I will give an example, I will translate political compass 2012 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012) into the "Left-Right" scale.
https://i.imgur.com/iNYcb.png
Everyone who supports Barrack Obama is not left-wing liberal socialist pinko commie, though he is the only actual real alternative to the republican/foxnews lead conservative dominance, which weakens the democrats significance as the "Party-of-not-them" as the Demoncrats cannot ideologically please all their posters due to the broad spectrum they come from. Then you got the amusing notion from many posters that Romney is a "moderate candidate that can please voters" as some notion he is a centralist.
Plus if you look at the scale, you have the person from Prauger in the OP placing the average American inbetween Obama and Romney as the "centre point", which shows real naivety when it comes to real positions and politics.
Centurion1
08-19-2012, 17:12
The point is funnily enough, not reality.
I will give an example, I will translate political compass 2012 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012) into the "Left-Right" scale.
https://i.imgur.com/iNYcb.png
Everyone who supports Barrack Obama is not left-wing liberal socialist pinko commie, though he is the only actual real alternative to the republican/foxnews lead conservative dominance, which weakens the democrats significance as the "Party-of-not-them" as the Demoncrats cannot ideologically please all their posters due to the broad spectrum they come from.
Plus if you look at the scale, you have the person from Prauger in the OP placing the average American inbetween Obama and Romney as the "centre point", which shows real naivety when it comes to real positions and politics.
Funnily enough I don't care about the rest of the worlds conceptions of left/right. I care about the US' conceptions of left/right.
Fox News should have been closed down in shame years ago. That anyone can still watch it with a straight face boggles the mind.
Yes, the US Government should definitely get in the habit of closing down news sources that it doesn't agree with. Great for freedom of speech and all that.
Montmorency
08-19-2012, 20:45
Yes, the US Government should definitely get in the habit of closing down news sources that it doesn't agree with. Great for freedom of speech and all that.
Why would you think he meant by the state?
The gubment is conspiring with the mooslims and leftists and Joows against us all, of course. Ain't it obvious?
Why would you think he meant by the state?
Because individuals cannot legally shut down a business. They can boycott it and help make it go bankrupt, but only the government or an illegal mob can shut it down. Maybe you think he meant that?
The gubment is conspiring with the mooslims and leftists and Joows against us all, of course. Ain't it obvious?
Hax man, get a life. When you resort to cheap leftist tactics of insinuating racism because you are mad at someone, it makes you look really desperate.
I think you're taking me way too seriously here. Like I care what's going on what's going on halfway across the globe, right?
Montmorency
08-19-2012, 21:21
Because individuals cannot legally shut down a business. They can boycott it and help make it go bankrupt, but only the government or an illegal mob can shut it down. Maybe you think he meant that?
What? If I start up a business, I can't subsequently close it down? This ain't France*.
*Or whichever mainland European state(s) it is difficult to do so in
Strike For The South
08-19-2012, 23:28
I feel like the media is conservative
Sure, 93% may be liberal by the narrow metric that the study used but in the same vein, they are part of the same power structure they represent. Personally they may have some sympathy to a few baby boomer liberal causes but that kind of liberalism is dated and harmful at this point. Causes or viewpoints that don't fit the narrow metric are demonized and given little time to be explained. Mind this isn't some sort of rant against, say, the Koch brothers. It is only natural that monied interests would take an active role in deceminating information, as they have a rather large stake in the presentation and outcome
So it's not who is presenting the information that bothers me, most bias can be sifted through with a keen eye
My real issue is how things are presented in a vacuum, as if this event is wholly independent of those that preceded it. This is intertwined with the whole news as entertainment thing, which is another topic in and of itself
Hooahguy
08-19-2012, 23:34
I really wish there was a news source that had very little bias to either side of the spectrum, and reported the news and that was it.
I really wish there was a news source that had very little bias to either side of the spectrum, and reported the news and that was it.
Point A: The "spectrum," whatever that means, probably has way more than two sides.
Point B: Pony up and buy yourself a grownup news magazine (http://www.economist.com/).
-edit-
Seconding a completely inoffensive name below, NPR is about as non-partisan as any news you can get on this continent. More importantly, they often broadcast BBC World News while I'm driving, which makes life much less dull.
a completely inoffensive name
08-20-2012, 04:00
I really wish there was a news source that had very little bias to either side of the spectrum, and reported the news and that was it.
NPR is pretty decent. It's not at all the liberal pet project that people smear it as. It's about as far from MSNBC as it is from FOX. The exact amount of bias differs a lot from host to host, whether you are watching All Things Considered or Fresh Air and etc.
I really wish there was a news source that had very little bias to either side of the spectrum, and reported the news and that was it.
You probably would still think it's biased because you are also biased, just like everybody else. I don't think a slant is necesarily intentional
Kralizec
08-20-2012, 09:02
lol:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9475479/Heres-how-we-counter-the-BBCs-liberal-bias.html
I've heard the accusation before (that the BBC is an europhile establishment) but I've never actually seen examples. Got any?
Furunculus
08-20-2012, 10:39
I've heard the accusation before (that the BBC is an europhile establishment) but I've never actually seen examples. Got any?
http://biased-bbc.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100164971/the-bbcs-left-wing-bias-isnt-in-its-news-coverage-its-in-everything-else-that-it-does/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/15/leftwing-bias-bbc-myth
http://bbcinstitutionalbias.blogspot.co.uk/
take your pick.
Dennis Prager (born August 2, 1948) is an American syndicated radio talk show host, syndicated columnist, author, and public speaker. He is noted for his conservative political and social views emanating from conservative Judeo-Christian values
Yeah, I trust their "research" now.
Also two other points:
1. That the media reports more from liberal sources might be because they're more scientific than conservative sources, as the video in the OP nicely demonstrates.
2. Why is the right whining about most of the media being liberal? It's a market and it regulates itself, so there's obviously a demand for a lot of media with a liberal bias. Which incidentally also completely destroys some of the arguments made later on in the video about Americans naturally tending to the conservative side.
Furunculus
08-20-2012, 11:10
Why is the right whining about most of the media being liberal? It's a market and it regulates itself, so there's obviously a demand for a lot of media with a liberal bias. Which incidentally also completely destroys some of the arguments made later on in the video about Americans naturally tending to the conservative side.
taken from my article:
The BBC places three quarters of its staff recruitment advertisements in the Guardian. You quickly learn, in politics, that putting a story in those pages is the surest way to get it on air.
Fair enough. After its fashion, the Guardian is a very fine newspaper: high-minded, articulate, a touch self-righteous, but no less readable for that. The trouble is that it gives only a partial view of events. All newspapers, like all people, have opinions; all newspapers, like all people, subconsciously assume that their opinions are facts.
The Guardian takes a number of assumptions for granted: police are racist, businesses are corrupt, Israel is wrong, US Republicans are extreme, the welfare system is ungenerous, immigration is desirable, austerity and growth are antonyms. All newspapers have prejudices, of course: they would be extremely dull if they didn’t. The difference is that the BBC is taxpayer-funded and obliged by its Charter to be neutral.
Kralizec
08-20-2012, 12:25
Thanks for the links; I'm not going to read them all right now (I'm supposed to be working)
I get the impression that there are genuine incidents where the BBC crossed the line, but they're often cited in conjuction with BS charges. Like Norman Tebbit's complaint that the BBC reported the Falklands war in a neutral, and not patriotic way (lol). The part about their drama productions is pretty irrelevant, IMO.
I took issue with this part, which is about Geert:
The truth of the matter is that, within the context of a discussion on banning the sale of Mein Kampf in Holland (a measure that was passed into law at the instigation of the Left), Wilders remarked that, if the Left were to be consistent, the logic of its arguments for banning Hitler’s book should lead it also to seek a ban on the Koran, which contains passages that it should find just as odious as the passages in Mein Kampf that were so objectionable.
This is a little disingeneous. Wilders does, in fact, want to ban the Qu'ran. He did use this argument once in parliament.
One of our ministers at the time, a leftist and an intellectual, responded by saying that if it were up to him alone Mein Kampf could also be freely circulated.
Wilders response: only a sick mind would say something like that (that's an almost literal translation of his words)
Not exactly, he said the Qu'ran should be banned for the same reasons as Mein Kampf. The stupidity is in the fact that Mein Kamf isn't banned in the Netherlands. If it was he would have had a point though.
Kralizec
08-20-2012, 18:54
Indeed it's not, technically.
The government once stopped someone from publishing a translation of Mein Kampf under the argument that the state possessed the copyright for any Dutch translation, allthough that was rather dubious. That was in the 60'ies if I recall correctly; I have no doubt that if a court didn't follow them in their reasoning the government would have just enacted a law explicitly banning it. The book is simply so controversial that publishing it in any way or form would have been unthinkable until fairly recently, and it would have been stopped one way or the other.
There's no explicit ban on publishing it, but the content of the book is undeniably hateful, and because of it publishing it could very well end in a conviction - unless, so goes the reasoning, you publish it for educational reasons or whatever.
You can find it in any library. Publishing it, I wouldn't, not because of the content but because nobody is going to buy it.
rory_20_uk
08-21-2012, 09:52
Not exactly, he said the Qu'ran should be banned for the same reasons as Mein Kampf. The stupidity is in the fact that Mein Kamf isn't banned in the Netherlands. If it was he would have had a point though.
No book is deadly, it is the intolerant... morons. In the West, it should be expected for individuals to place the laws of the state and societial norms above the baggage they bring with them. There is still plenty of room to preserve one's roots.
If this is too much trouble, go and live abroad. Pakistan is a great choice for many of the Islamic lot - but they are really spoiled for choice in terms of intolerant states that victimise everyone who doesn't follow the right interpretation of Mohammed and every following person.
I guess Mid-West America is a good place for Christian nutters, and might even be OK for white supremacists. Otherwise Russia, perhaps?
~:smoking:
SoFarSoGood
08-21-2012, 11:31
I heard some classic BBC pro Islam reporting this morning. It was reporting about some French Muslim woman ('Sonia') who was complaining that because she wore 'hejab' (covering here hair and face etc) she felt discriminated against at work... Well it is against the law in France no?
So our trained and 'unbiased' reported (called Razia Iqbal) "Is it your faith that gives you courage to fight on?" Sonia at one point replies "If they (ie French natives) don't like it they can leave France".
So Islam gives you courage to break the law and if the French don't like it they can get out of their own country. Nice reporting... email is on its way to the BBC and several MPs.
Podcast of this programme is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/onetoone
Turns out that wearing 'hejab' is only illegal in French State buildings and is legal in private companies. Doesn't stop me thinking that the interview is vastly one sided. When do you hear Iraqi Christians being asked if their faith gives them courage? They get bombed not a few suspicious looks.
No book is deadly, it is the intolerant... morons.
Wilders is a political troll, he knows very well that the Qu'ran can't be banned. Another gem was a tax on wearing headscarves, everybody gets all ohhhhhhhh! and Wilders is laughing his :daisy:. off. Like him or not but he makes politics certainly more fun, he can be incredibly insulting but he is also often extremily funny at times.
Major Robert Dump
08-21-2012, 17:39
You want to talk about media bias??? Not one single news story about the annual GWARBQ, because weak petty humans fear their universal overlords of doom.
http://www.gwar.net/
classical_hero
08-21-2012, 18:22
Did anyone do the test? I got 60.7 on the test. After reading what get s done in the American congress, I can see why it is in so much trouble, since it is not doing what it should be doing fixing the economy.
Noncommunist
08-22-2012, 04:34
You kind of have to remember that out of all the nations that compose of the "West", America is pretty much the most conservative. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc are all "Liberals" by American definition even when they have "Conservative" parties in power.
While America may be more conservative than most countries in "the west", why limit it to "the west"? Then, I'd imagine the US would be more centrally located or even possibly left of centre.
While America may be more conservative than most countries in "the west", why limit it to "the west"? Then, I'd imagine the US would be more centrally located or even possibly left of centre.
Cultural similarity and perceived inclusion. The system can get very distorted. There are serious errors which can come up with various ideals and systems which are atypical and political compass does not take those in account.
Apart from the arguments which say "left-right" isn't accurate which on Political Compass is mostly represented by turning the crossed axis into a diamond shape, you can start to see that some positions are not making sense.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.