Media Bias -- an example

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just watched the 2007 necrology on NBC news this evening.

Decent list, mostly of quick vignettes of those having past.

One item:

Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Baker) and Jerry Falwell were presented on the same screenshot, with Messner in the upper left position (with a relatively bright photo as compared to Falwell who was down and to the right.

On the surface, this is a simple linking of two individuals who died this year and who had made their "name" in the same industry. Fair enough.

However, by putting Falwell on a "par" with Messner (if anything, her shot was more noticeable and "energetic" was NBC news taking a shot at Falwell. Comparing their accomplishments would suggest that Falwell (love him or hate him he had a major impact on politics etc.) is a far more salient figure than the pitiable (or to some laughable) Messner.

So, is this bias to subtley slam Falwell (probably not a favorite at NBC) or just an instance of poor reportage?

[master of the puppets]

...link?

[Tribesman]

Slam themboth , they are both linked they were both :daisy: who used peoples faith for their own devious ends , why not link the pair of crooks .
If anything Falwell was the worse of the twoso sahould've been slammed harder than Tammy , but hey throw in a picture of Swaggatrt and hope thatjhe joins the necrology son

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Ah you're drunk. Feeney, take him home."

-- The Quiet Man, Republic Pictures (John Ford)

[Slyspy]

So, is this bias to subtley slam Falwell (probably not a favorite at NBC) or just an instance of poor reportage?

It could, of course, be neither.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Life is rarely a forced choice dichotomy.

What do you suggest as a viable third interpretation?

[Kralizec]

Tammy Faye Messner

Never heard of her :shrug:

[Vladimir]

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Intelligence-Analysis-Richard-Heuer/dp/1594546797/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199199284&sr=8-1

A really good book with an excellent section on bias. Mainly as a result of reading this book, I would say bias was definately involved.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Never heard of her :shrug:

Part of the televangelist team of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker in the 1970s and 1980s. She was known for her emotional style and excessive makeup. He subsequently went to jail for malfeasance (richly deserved). She was, apparently not only sincere in her faith, but uninvolved in Jim's embezzling and unaware of his many adulteries. Consequently, she has been looked upon more as a pitiable figure than as a crook. After her divorce from Jim, she remarried a fellow by the name of Messner.

Obviously, I view Falwell's more serious accomplishments -- and political influence -- as far more noteworthy (for good or for ill depending on your perspective) than anything she was involved with.

[Tribesman]

She was known for her emotional style and excessive makeup. He subsequently went to jail for malfeasance (richly deserved). She was, apparently not only sincere in her faith, but uninvolved in Jim's embezzling and unaware of his many adulteries. Consequently, she has been looked upon more as a pitiable figure than as a crook. After her divorce from Jim, she remarried a fellow by the name of Messner.

She was married to a crook and a liar and helped him with his business and benefitted from the frauds , she then married another crook and liar who helped her original crook and liar husband and benefitted from the frauds .She is a scumbag, she was not sincere in her faith she was a fraud who married two frauds and exploited peoples gullibility in faith .
Jerry Falwell is a scumbag crook and liar who has crooked dealings with all the others mentioned and benefitted from their frauds and exploits peoples gullibility in faith .
To link them is not an example of media bias it is linking people who are linked both in crime , habits and dodgy business dealings .

[Ronin]

a hustler is a hustler...

one being more famous than the other does not make one more "honorable" than the other.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

She was married to a crook and a liar and helped him with his business and benefitted from the frauds,

True. knowingly or not she did benefit from the monies. Nor did she lead a "crusade" to return every donation or anything of that sort.


she then married another crook and liar who helped her original crook and liar husband and benefitted from the frauds.

There are those who argue that all contractors are crooks and liars...:cheesy: ....but I'd agree hubby #2 was far from a perfect Christian.


She is a scumbag, she was not sincere in her faith she was a fraud who married two frauds and exploited peoples gullibility in faith.

You can't possibly judge the sincerity of her faith, nor can I. She certainly married one fraud/swindler and then married a chap whose business practices were -- at the least -- questionable.


Jerry Falwell is a scumbag crook and liar who has crooked dealings with all the others mentioned and benefitted from their frauds and exploits peoples gullibility in faith.

Maybe so. You'll hear lots of good things said of him and many viscious things. At a guess, probably both are true.


To link them is not an example of media bias it is linking people who are linked both in crime , habits and dodgy business dealings.

Yeah, but for me, what NBC did was equivalent to putting together Roger Maris and Babe Ruth on the same side-by-side. Sure they did the same thing for a living, but one was of much greater significance than the other. To put them side by side implies an equality of importance that just isn't there.

If you wan't to "'take on" Falwell and his legacy, than the more honorable choice is to make a statement like you did, Tribes, and then back it up (and Jerry did provide ammunition for such an attack, no doubt).

The snide cheapening of Falwell's role was, I submit, a notch tacky.

[Slyspy]

Life is rarely a forced choice dichotomy.

What do you suggest as a viable third interpretation?

Incompetence on the part of the broadcaster.

Over-analysis on the part of the observer.

[Odin]

Just watched the 2007 necrology on NBC news this evening.

Decent list, mostly of quick vignettes of those having past.

One item:

Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Baker) and Jerry Falwell were presented on the same screenshot, with Messner in the upper left position (with a relatively bright photo as compared to Falwell who was down and to the right.

On the surface, this is a simple linking of two individuals who died this year and who had made their "name" in the same industry. Fair enough.

However, by putting Falwell on a "par" with Messner (if anything, her shot was more noticeable and "energetic" was NBC news taking a shot at Falwell. Comparing their accomplishments would suggest that Falwell (love him or hate him he had a major impact on politics etc.) is a far more salient figure than the pitiable (or to some laughable) Messner.

So, is this bias to subtley slam Falwell (probably not a favorite at NBC) or just an instance of poor reportage?

In answer to your question my instinct is its poor reportage simply for the fact that sloppy work gets awards in todays media world (Michael moore as an example).

However one could view it as a slam on Falwell (though placing him on the "right" might have a subliminal value to some). Im in the camp of Tribes on this one, there both people who were opportunists of faith, and further strengthen the cynics like me when it comes to the many avenues the christian faith has taken.

[Tribesman]

You can't possibly judge the sincerity of her faith, nor can I.
Now that is true Seamus , however unless you can find a passage in the bible that has the message "though shalt worship mammon and fleece thy flock so as to live a life of opulence that would shame a columbian drug lord who joyously celebrated several bumper harvests" it is pretty safe bet to judge that she ain't sincere in her faith as a Christian , though of course the sincerity of her faith in whatever teachings it is she really follows is as you say impossible to judge .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now that is true Seamus , however unless you can find a passage in the bible that has the message "though shalt worship mammon and fleece thy flock so as to live a life of opulence that would shame a columbian drug lord who joyously celebrated several bumper harvests" it is pretty safe bet to judge that she ain't sincere in her faith as a Christian , though of course the sincerity of her faith in whatever teachings it is she really follows is as you say impossible to judge .

Well, I must admit her approach was pretty far off from the "locusts and honey in the desert" approach. :devilish:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Incompetence on the part of the broadcaster.
Always a possibility.


Over-analysis on the part of the observer.
Always a possibility.

Actually, you probably have a pretty high order of probability for this last. That Seamus character is a bit of whack job.

[Lemur]

There's a pretty good discussion about what's wrong with mainstream media here (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080102-whats-wrong-with-the-news-today-a-former-dateliner-talks.html). An even more detailed analysis here (http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19845/).

Honestly, with everything that's Gah-ed up about TV news, I don't really see the pairing of two prominent evangelicals as a major whoop, even though, as you point out, they stood for very different things and had opposite impacts. Sloppiness I'm willing to acknowledge, but the unceasing talk of "bias" makes me reach for my tinfoil hat.

Remember Lemur's Law: Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

[Vladimir]

Remember Lemur's Law: Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

You must have did time in government work.

[AntiochusIII]

here (http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19845/).I think that article shows that there is a far, far bigger problem with TV news than simple Left-Right bias to get outraged over.

I hate to admit it but he's right, The West Wing probably does a better job exploring different issues surrounding America than CNN (or, God forbid, irony intended, Fox) could.

And "emotional center" sounds like one of those cockatoo terms people put on tired old broken ideas so they'd look slightly more appealing than they actually are, not to mention an insult to the audience's intelligence. But whatever.

It's also interesting how he raises the point that, despite the incredible connectivity of today's media, America as a whole is still very much self-centered and ignorant of the world -- or even the nation -- at large, and that this can be at least partially blamed on the media's failure.

[Xiahou]

Remember Lemur's Law: Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
*cough* Hanlon's Razor *cough* *cough*
... excuse me. :beam:

[Lemur]

*cough* Hanlon's Razor *cough* *cough*
My google-fu has failed me. Yours is strong!

[Lemur]

An interesting counter-example (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004158.html) from Joe Carter, at the Evangelical Outpost:


Many bloggers (including me) have a knee-jerk reaction to the mainstream media. We "just know" they have a liberal bias and that they can't be trusted to report accurately on Republicans and conservatives. If my experience is any indication, then most of what we know is "just wrong."

My job wasn't to spin the press but to present the facts for the Huckabee campaign's side of the story. I expected that I'd have the toughest time with the professional journalists but most of the reporters that I dealt with (especially Michael Luo of the New York Times and Jonathan Martin of Politico) were quite fair and always professional. Even when their coverage was cringe-inducing I rarely could fault them for being inaccurate or putting their own biases ahead of the facts.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media.

My rapid response list included a broad range of journalists, pundits, and bloggers and variety of outlets--everything from The New York Times to HotAir. Often they would ask me to clarify statements made by the Governor, defend claims made by the campaign, or offer evidence on a point of contention. Almost always the mainstream media from the "liberal" outlets were more fair and balanced than were the ones from the "conservative" side of the media.

Some conservative outlets, of course, were notably fair and accurate. Although he never pulled his punches, Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot always let me present a rebuttal to the claims of other campaigns. The same can be said for NRO's Byron York, one of the few conservative reporter/pundits that seemed more concerned about getting the facts straight than he was in shoring up the conventional wisdom of the GOP establishment.

But while there were a few other exceptions that I could praise (e.g., Terry Eastland from The Weekly Standard, Phillip Klein and Jennifer Rubin from The American Spectator, the guys at RedState), far too many of the conservative outlets refused to present any evidence that conflicted with their typical anti-Huckabee narrative.

I even sent out personal emails to a number of prominent pundits and bloggers who had criticized Huckabee for being insufficiently conservative. I told them that if they would send me a list of their grievances I'd provide a personal response from the campaign addressing their concern. My only condition was that they would post the exchange in its entirety. Not one of them took me up on my offer.

As a campaign staffer, I found such behavior frustrating. But as a consumer of conservative media I found it infuriating. There are a number of pundits, bloggers, reporters, and radio hosts that I will never trust again to be "fair and balanced."

(To clarify my last point, let me say that I had only one expectation from my fellow conservatives: that they apply the same standard to every candidate. I had no problem with a conservative pundit bashing Governor Huckabee for raising the sales tax by a penny in Arkansas…as long as they also bashed Governor Romney for raising "fees" in Massachusetts. I had no problem with their complaints that Governor Huckabee wanted to establish diplomatic relations with Iran…as long as they hammered Mayor Giuliani for the same sin. Very few even made an attempt to be consistent in their criticism. That was what I found so disappointing.)

[Goofball]

I liked Tammy Fay because she was the first (if not only) member of the religious right to reach out to the homosexual community with compassion when AIDS first surfaced, even though the rest of her peers were jumping up down with glee preaching about how HIV was divine punishment for the faggots.

And she got even cooler in my view when she was on The Surreal Life and became good friends with Ron Jeremy. I think her appearance on that show has completely outshone anything Falwell has contributed to American society.

And no, I'm not joking.

[Lemur]

Another example (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html) of media bias: Fox News reports about a guy, claiming he's joining Hillary's campaign. They guy contacts Fox, tells them this is bull. Fox News responds that they will "take it under advisement," and continue to report it as news. Despite several calls and emails, Fox refuses to stop airing a story which they now know from the primary subject to be false. What part of "fair and balanced" am I failing to understand?

----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 14:18:37 2008
Subject: N.H.D.
Major,
I know you're swamped, and I hate to bother you on such a busy news day, but whoever told you I am joining Hillary's campaign fed you some bum info. It's just not true. Or as I say to my boys, N.H.D. Not. Happening. Dude.
I'm not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser, or as a strategist or anything else. I have contributed to her campaign, and am convinced she would be a great President. But I am not joining the campaign in any form or fashion.
Again, I know how busy you are, but I'd sure appreciate you checking with me before you go with a story about me. This email is always a good way to reach me.
Thanks a lot.
All best,

Paul Begala

________________________________


From: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:31 PM
To: Begala, Paul
Subject: Re: N.H.D.


Paul:
I genuinely appreciate the e-mail.
I will take it under advisement.
And I look forward to discussing all aspects of the campaign with you in the future.
All best,
Major

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent, Fox News


----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 15:18:16 2008
Subject: RE: N.H.D.

Major,

Just heard you say I was on a conference call with Hillary's campaign yesterday. That's not true. I was not on any conference call with Hillary's campaign - and have had no contact with her campaign for months. No one from her campaign has contacted me -- nor have I contacted them -- and I am not joining in any capacity, paid or unpaid, official or unofficial. I feel like that old Lorrie Morgan song, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"

I have a lot of respect for you, and I like you, but I've got to ask you again to check with me before you go with a story about me. Someone is misleading you, and it is not me.

Again, I know the challenges of 24-hour news, and this is a crazy environment, but you can almost always reach me at this email address.

All best,

Paul

From: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:32 PM
To: Begala, Paul
Subject: Re: N.H.D.

Paul:
You know me well enough to know I am not trying to screw you.
You also know, or should know, that I'm careful and don't have a reputation for pulling stories out of my ass.
I'm not now. The sourcing is strong, very strong, or I wouldn't go with it.
I appreciate your e-mails and I redouble my efforts with each one I receive.
Please feel free to call me at any hour of any day.

Best,
Major

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent, Fox News


----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 15:41 2008
Subject: RE: N.H.D.

Major,

Thanks so much for getting back to me. I do know you, and I like and respect you. You know me as well, and I would not lie to you, would not mislead you. And I am telling you that whoever told you I was on a conference call with Hillary's campaign was wrong. I'm quite sure that you're not making this up, so please don't misunderstand me. No doubt someone is telling you this stuff about me. It's just not true.

If my wife hears one more report that I'm joining Hillary's campaign I'm going to have to go in the Pundit Protection Program.

Thanks,

Paul

[IrishArmenian]

Although I just learned who this Tammy Messner is, I think this is favoritism. I don't see why favor her, as they both abuse religion and give the rest of us religious types quite the bad name.
I really have no respect whatsoever for either.

[Goofball]

Another example (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html) of media bias: Fox News reports about a guy, claiming he's joining Hillary's campaign. They guy contacts Fox, tells them this is bull. Fox News responds that they will "take it under advisement," and continue to report it as news. Despite several calls and emails, Fox refuses to stop airing a story which they now know from the primary subject to be false. What part of "fair and balanced" am I failing to understand?

----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 14:18:37 2008
Subject: N.H.D.
Major,
I know you're swamped, and I hate to bother you on such a busy news day, but whoever told you I am joining Hillary's campaign fed you some bum info. It's just not true. Or as I say to my boys, N.H.D. Not. Happening. Dude.
I'm not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser, or as a strategist or anything else. I have contributed to her campaign, and am convinced she would be a great President. But I am not joining the campaign in any form or fashion.
Again, I know how busy you are, but I'd sure appreciate you checking with me before you go with a story about me. This email is always a good way to reach me.
Thanks a lot.
All best,

Paul Begala

________________________________


From: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:31 PM
To: Begala, Paul
Subject: Re: N.H.D.


Paul:
I genuinely appreciate the e-mail.
I will take it under advisement.
And I look forward to discussing all aspects of the campaign with you in the future.
All best,
Major

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent, Fox News


----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 15:18:16 2008
Subject: RE: N.H.D.

Major,

Just heard you say I was on a conference call with Hillary's campaign yesterday. That's not true. I was not on any conference call with Hillary's campaign - and have had no contact with her campaign for months. No one from her campaign has contacted me -- nor have I contacted them -- and I am not joining in any capacity, paid or unpaid, official or unofficial. I feel like that old Lorrie Morgan song, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"

I have a lot of respect for you, and I like you, but I've got to ask you again to check with me before you go with a story about me. Someone is misleading you, and it is not me.

Again, I know the challenges of 24-hour news, and this is a crazy environment, but you can almost always reach me at this email address.

All best,

Paul

From: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:32 PM
To: Begala, Paul
Subject: Re: N.H.D.

Paul:
You know me well enough to know I am not trying to screw you.
You also know, or should know, that I'm careful and don't have a reputation for pulling stories out of my ass.
I'm not now. The sourcing is strong, very strong, or I wouldn't go with it.
I appreciate your e-mails and I redouble my efforts with each one I receive.
Please feel free to call me at any hour of any day.

Best,
Major

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent, Fox News


----- Original Message -----
From: Begala, Paul
To: Garrett, Major
Sent: Tue Jan 08 15:41 2008
Subject: RE: N.H.D.

Major,

Thanks so much for getting back to me. I do know you, and I like and respect you. You know me as well, and I would not lie to you, would not mislead you. And I am telling you that whoever told you I was on a conference call with Hillary's campaign was wrong. I'm quite sure that you're not making this up, so please don't misunderstand me. No doubt someone is telling you this stuff about me. It's just not true.

If my wife hears one more report that I'm joining Hillary's campaign I'm going to have to go in the Pundit Protection Program.

Thanks,

Paul

Wow. That was simply unbelievable.

[Xiahou]

Another example (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html) of media bias: Fox News reports about a guy, claiming he's joining Hillary's campaign. They guy contacts Fox, tells them this is bull. Fox News responds that they will "take it under advisement," and continue to report it as news. Despite several calls and emails, Fox refuses to stop airing a story which they now know from the primary subject to be false. What part of "fair and balanced" am I failing to understand?

Oddly enough, I remember some of that reporting. IIRC, Garrett mentioned quite clearly that Begala was denying any involvement with the campaign, but said his sources were telling him otherwise- Begala himself doesn't dispute that Garrett had what he thought was a reliable source.

Huffingtonpost though, huh? :laugh:

[Lemur]

Huffingtonpost though, huh? :laugh:
And yet when I quote from National Review you don't mention the source. Funny, that.

[Xiahou]

And yet when I quote from National Review you don't mention the source. Funny, that.
No, I'd equate the Huffingtonpost more to a Rushlimbaugh.com. The easiest comparison for the National Review would probably be something like the New Republic- still not really a good primary source for news, but at least they have some shred of legitimacy.

As for the Huffingtonpost, you may as well be linking to the Dailykos- which you are certainly free to do, but don't expect me to take it very seriously.

PS: When have you linked to the National Review?

[Lemur]

Your perspective is really interesting. HuffPo has some serious columnists, with a general tilt toward the Dems. To equate it to Kos is just ... interesting. Limbaugh is off feeding red meat to the so-called conservatives, more like Crooks and Liars. National Review, which I have linked to within the last couple of days, not that you would notice, is pretty purely Republican, with some goofballs and some serious columnists. I'd put them on a continuum with HuffPo.

As per usual, you are charitable with those who reinforce your views, and dismissive of those who do not. Carry on.

[Tribesman]

As per usual, you are charitable with those who reinforce your views, and dismissive of those who do not. Carry on.
Would that be an example of bias about media bias:2thumbsup: