The merging of news and entertainment and the role of bias in news today

[CountArach]

EDIT: as to the overwhelming bias toward the left, just look at the # of conservative major media outlets you can count to liberal ones. You could probably count more than 20 major leftwing media outlets to the 1 conservative one. (that evil Fox News :P Personally the only guy on Fox who I like is Hannity. I think he is pretty darned good, and I like how well he researches all his things)

LOL!? Left-wing bias!? Are you joking!?

If the US media were truly left-wing I would still be reading the New York Times...

[LittleGrizzly]

I suppose it depends whose definition of left wing we use... to vuk im sure most of the major news orginisations are to the left of him... unsurprisingly they are a decent bit to the right of you... hard to get a non subjective judgement on this...

Democrats aren't really considered left wing by most outside the U.S... just less extreme conservatives...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Would I be blowing anyone's mind if I reminded them that modern US and UK "conservative" versus "liberal" values are not that different from one another, and are both very closely related brances of the overall philosophy of liberalism?

The extremes are totalitarianism and anarchy, not conservative or liberal. On the political scale, conservative and liberal are so close together, they often overlap, and I doubt very many people here can define properly either term without incorporating their own viewpoint.

[Fragony]

Would I be blowing anyone's mind if I reminded them that modern US and UK "conservative" versus "liberal" values are not that different from one another, and are both very closely related brances of the overall philosophy of liberalism?

The extremes are totalitarianism and anarchy, not conservative or liberal. On the political scale, conservative and liberal are so close together, they often overlap, and I doubt very many people here can define properly either term without incorporating their own viewpoint.

Nope, the USA left really has nothing to do with liberalism, it's completely a different place. Euro liberalism is libertarian, firmly on the republican (non-religious) right

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd pull you aside in a different thread to debate that, if you'd be willing. I think you're wrong and I can prove it using widely-recognized definitions.

[Fragony]

I'd pull you aside in a different thread to debate that, if you'd be willing. I think you're wrong and I can prove it using widely-recognized definitions.

Widely used definitions, that would be USA and European definitions which are totally different, I don't know how the American left got labelled as being liberals. American liberals are Keynians, euro-liberals don't believe in broken windows.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'll use any collegiate dictionary printed in the US or the UK. You pick.

And, this is off-topic now. Request we continue in a different thread.

[Fragony]

I'll use any collegiate dictionary printed in the US or the UK. You pick.

And, this is off-topic now. Request we continue in a different thread.

Euro-liberalism = USA libertarianism? If you want to take that on, good luck.

[Lemur]

Personally the only guy on Fox who I like is Hannity.

... and this tells us everything we need to know about where you're coming from. Down with the well-established liberal bias of Wikipedia! Conservapedia FTW!

[Vuk]

... and this tells us everything we need to know about where you're coming from. Down with the well-established liberal bias of Wikipedia! Conservapedia FTW!

A very intelligent and well thought out post that did a stellar job of tackling all my points and presenting your evidence. Thank you for your wonderous example of what a post in a debate thread should look like Sir Moderator.
*insert sarcasm here*

[KukriKhan]

There are comedy programs that have news segments. There are stripping weather girls.

NakedNews.com , a Canadian outfit with the least-biased slant on international news in their copy; o'course, who actually listens to the words?

I decided about 15 years ago that bias in news reportage being apparently unavoidable, I'd just as soon they wear it on their sleeves, so I know where they're coming from, than try to achieve some distant, never-perfect "just the facts, Ma'am", 'fair and balanced' impartiality. Especially the visual guys (TV).

That said, I still refuse to watch Wolf Blitzer, ever. After the 'Nam nerve-gas debacle, his response was: "I just read what they put in front of me". Probably true. Which gives any words coming out of his mouth Zero credibility, for me, even if he's reporting the blueness of the sky.

[Kralizec]

I personally prefer my news sources to be serious (=devoid of attempts at humour) and as unbiased as possible.

As for other people, I really couldn't care less where they get their news from. I don't see why the media shouldn't be demand-driven like any other industry. Requiring media to be 100% impartial is unworkable and more likely to result in monopolisation for one particular viewpoint. I've seen the Daily Show (wich some people seem to view as a news source) a couple of times and I found it to be extremely one-sided and generally unfunny besides, but to each his own.

[Vuk]

I would like to clarify BTW, that when I said unbiased, I meant fair to both sides, without taking things out of context, lying, etc. There is and always will be bias, which is why it is so important that news outlets tell their biases up front. The field of history learned that a long time ago. I think that the real crime is done (and they are all guilty of it) not when they are biased, but when they deny their biases. That is what misleads people. Just my thoughts...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think that the real crime is done not when they are biased, but when they deny their biases.

Say, by claiming to be both "fair" and "balanced" when actually being a puppet of the Republican Party? I notice Colmes is gone. Looks like the last lingering thread of fake token liberalism has been expelled from Fox News.

[Strike For The South]

Do your own research and stop putting so much faith in men that have a 4 year degree from some clown college.

[Askthepizzaguy]

To whom are you referring, STFS? (no war, just curious)

Minor note; if we had time to do our own research, there would be no need for news organizations. I think it should be someone's job to do fair reporting; most of us (myself excluded) are really busy. Unfortunately even though I have the time, I also don't want to get shot at in Iraq.

Kudos to real newsmen and women.

[Vuk]

Say, by claiming to be both "fair" and "balanced" when actually being a puppet of the Republican Party? I notice Colmes is gone. Looks like the last lingering thread of fake token liberalism has been expelled from Fox News.

As I said, they are all guilty of this crime. Both the ONE major conservative news outlet () and all the others. :P
I gotta agree with SFTS though. The news media is good for bringing things to your attention that perhaps you did not know about before that, but from there on in, you should do as much of your own research into it as possible, and not rely on the media for your opinion. It takes time, it takes brains, most people just do not care about. They are willing to let someone else tell them what to think. I am afraid that that is most people in the world (and I am not talking about any parties here, just people in particular).

[Askthepizzaguy]

I tune in to Fox News once in a while, because I used to monitor Hannity and O'Reilly fairly frequently, but I get tired of the constant editorials.

It's less news and more punditry, which is fine, but they should call in Fox Opinion, not Fox News.

Just like MSNBC is a liberal lapdog, and anything you get on that network has been thoroughly left-wingerized.

[Vuk]

I tune in to Fox News once in a while, because I used to monitor Hannity and O'Reilly fairly frequently, but I get tired of the constant editorials.

It's less news and more punditry, which is fine, but they should call in Fox Opinion, not Fox News.

Just like MSNBC is a liberal lapdog, and anything you get on that network has been thoroughly left-wingerized.

O'Reilly is a stupid jerk IMHO. :P Hannity is fairly good though. At least Hannity (unlike O'Reilly or Chris Matthews) makes no pretense about where he comes from. He is honest, intelligent, and well informed. That is why I like him. To be honest though, I do not watch Fox News. I have seen several of Hannity's specials on Youtube, but I don't watch even him regularly. I generally try to avoid News Channels. Too much garbage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

O'Reilly is a stupid jerk IMHO.

Stupid? I really doubt that. Egotist, jerk, rectal sphincter, dumber than he THINKS himself -- all of these might apply. The man is NOT stupid.

[Vuk]

Stupid? I really doubt that. Egotist, jerk, rectal sphincter, dumber than he THINKS himself -- all of these might apply. The man is NOT stupid.

I apologize, that was my dislike for the man speaking. :P You are quite right, he is an extremely calculating individual. That is as much as I will give him credit for though.

[Xiahou]

Stupid? I really doubt that. Egotist, jerk, rectal sphincter, dumber than he THINKS himself -- all of these might apply. The man is NOT stupid.

Depends on your definition of "stupid". Clearly he needs a certain level of intelligence to put together a show such as his, but he is often ill-informed in his statements. His shows also have a good knack for finding the latest outrage du jour that seems to account for most of his TV show's ratings.

... and this tells us everything we need to know about where you're coming from. Down with the well-established liberal bias of Wikipedia! Conservapedia FTW!

That's hardly productive.

Hannity, like the proverbial blind squirrel, does manage to find a nut once in awhile- but generally, I find him to be a bully and a blowhard who, more often than not, uses prewritten talking points and shoutdowns to try to win his points rather than logically making his case.

I had an Honors English class back in college that was rather interesting- the proff was a flaming liberal, but that was irrelevant in this case. He spent a lot of time talking about looking out for and identifying weasel words, and as he called them "smell" words in writing- particularly in the news. Certain descriptors like "democracy" or "freedom" smell good to readers, while others have negative connotations. Depending on how or where they're used, the tone and message of a supposedly unbiased news story can be substantially influenced.

Wikipedia even has an entry for "weasel words", here are examples that I've seen used widely in the news by people who are supposed to know better.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

# "A growing body of evidence..."[3] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
# "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
# "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
# "Clearly..." (Is the situation really clear?)
# "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
# "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
# "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
# "It has been mentioned that..." (Can these mentioners be trusted?)
# "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
# "It is known that..." (By whom and what method is it known?)

Bias in the news media is always going to be there. Right now, it seems to be of nauseating proportions, but even if journalists worked harder (they aren't) to remove biases, there would always be some. The trick is sifting the hard facts out of the BS when you read news.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What if the question was rephrased so that media would be held to be as unbiased as possible not 100% perfect? Seems like some people might choose the bias is ok option because 100% no bias is unattainable.

[Strike For The South]

I was referring to everyone in this thread.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The best option is stepping out and allowing the media to play to the markets it has. There will be a market for tabloids, for right and left wing news, and most importantly to this topic, there will also be a market for relatively unbiased news. Therefore, we don't need to do anything - people who want unbiased news will demand it, forcing the creation of relatively unbiased networks in addition to the biased ones.