Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the center around Obama was over the fact that he was the first African-American nominee, who also happened to deliver rousing speeches time and time again?
Obama made better news than McCain. That's why he made the news more often.
And yes, of course the media is biased. That's what happens in a bi-partisan system. That's why you're either supposed to listen to both sides explain their points which MSNBC, my news of choice, did. They had, as far as I could tell, a fair balance between Republican and Democrat guests. True, the big anchors at MSNBC (Olbermann, Maddow, Gregory, and Matthews) are all admittedly Democrat, but they still give people the chance to speak their opinions (except for Olbermann, but I watch him for laughs more than for facts).
Alternatively, you could watch the biased anchors like Olbermann and decide for yourself if something's bullshit or not.
You act as though it's some mortal sin for an article to be biased. Except for the Associated Press, which holds to a standard of unbiased reporting more than any other publication, it's inevitable. The author puts himself into his article, including his opinions, and the editor uses the newspaper to push his agenda. Fair and honest reporting doesn't make money, sadly enough. I think there should be a massive non-profit news organization that uses its money to support fair and honest journalists in its employ. Until then, you have to think when you watch the news or you're going to end up swallowing someone else's ideaology.
EDIT:
By the way, the article in the Wash. Times about the Post's article was biased as well. It's the pot calling the kettle black here.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I'm not shocked or astounded or anything. More like I'm offended that the media whom is supposed to be neutral as they are the ones reporting the news, admit to being biased.
When you put your own spin on the truth it is no longer the truth anymore. It becomes your opinion. So instead of getting the news we are getting opinion. Either directly by words in the report itself or indirectly by the author/reporter opting to report or not report on a piece because of their bias.
I'm bothered that everyone else around me seems to be ok with this. I am referring to the media influencing the news that is reported according to their own bias. By the time it gets to our eyes and ears it's no longer the news and we have been stripped of the ability to make our own decision on the matter. That's what irks me.
bleh, but now I'm just ranting.
Theres only one new crew claiming to be neutral and we know how "neutral" they are. Propaganda has been going on before our civilization was born, be it truthful or not it is still second or third hand info
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Is it possible to see how much money either campaign spends during the whole election process?
I wonder if Obama's campain spent more, because he did get alot of endorsments, didnt he? Or atleast, I remeber hearing more endorsments towards Obama, than McCain.
And basically all a campaign does is spend money to advertise, right?
Just a thought.. I am going to look those statistics up, now that I'm thinking about it.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
I don't actually think that the reporter used the term "biased," although the Washington Post may well be biased --- I don't know, because I don't get that paper or read their website.
Her criticism of her paper's coverage was that it focused too much on the "horse race" (polls), as opposed to issues, and the coverage was "tilted" for Obama, meaning a greater number of stories about him and a greater number of FAVORABLE stories for him.
I agree that almost all media focuses too much on the horse race, and not enough on issues. But the flip side to that is that readers are INTERESTED in the horse race. They want to know who is ahead and by how much. If you don't cover the poll standings, readers will go elsewhere to get it, so all papers spend space on it. I think that is fine, as long as they do cover issues adequately.
One of the things that you see with candidates and polling stories is that candidates love polling stories when they are reported to be in the lead and they hate polling stories if they are down. When a candidate is ahead, the reporting of polling stories can contribute to the "momentum" that candidates seek. But it would be wrong to say that reporting polling stories reveals bias. If a paper runs 10 stories in a row that report one candidate ahead in the polls, that might be counted as 10 favorable stories for that candidate versus none for the other, but it does not indicate bias. If that is what the polls are showing, then the "tilt" in the number of favorable stories for one candidate is a reflection of the reality of the race, not bias. Bias would be if the paper cherry-picked favorable polls for a favored candidate or if they only reported polls when the pollng was favorable for their favored candidate and ignored unfavorable polls.
Regarding the fact that there were more stories about Obama than McCain: I think a lot of this is due to the fact Obama generated more newsworthy stories than McCain. For one thing, McCain locked up his nomination months before Obama, so there was not much to say about the remainder of the Republican Primary --- just one uncontested and inconsequential win after another. In contrast, the Democratic Primary was an exciting nailbiter right down to the very end. So of course there was more coverage of the Democratic primary and the Democratic candidates than there was of the Republican Primaries and McCain --- it was more newsworthy. So again, the "tilt" in number of stories does not necessarily indicate bias.
Aanother factor was that Obama was a more interesting and historical candidate than McCain. There were a lot of stories about whether race would be a factor for Obama, or what it would mean for the country if a black president were elected. There wasn't anything comparable to report on McCain. The "tilt' in number of stories about Obama had more to do with newsworthiness than bias.
The reporter also mentions the number of editorial stories about Obama and the paper's endorsement of Obama. She mentioned these as FACTS, not as a criticsism. An editorial page is the one place in the paper in which the editors and publisher are SUPPOSED to say what they feel about things. You cannot say a paper has biased coverage because they make editorial comments about one candidate or because they endorse a candidate. The editorial page serves a very important function in telling the reader how the editorial staff feels so that the reader can evaluate coverage knowing the POTENTIAL for bias. If you know the paper's editor and publisher favor Obama, then you have a tool with which to judge the neutrality of the coverage. So it's very important for the editorial page to be honest about how they feel. The fact is that everyone, including reporters and editors, favors one candidate or another in an election, but that does not necessarily mean they practice biased reporting. The reporting should be neutral, regardless of how the staff feels, and reporters who go through Journalism school learn a lot about the ethics of reporting. Anyway, back to the point, opinions expressed on the editorial page do NOT indicate biased reporting in the rest of the paper.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?
The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.
This may not bother some of you but it bothers me a hell of a lot. It doesn't just happen during the presidential campaign; but I suppose since no one here cares they conveniently overlooked the fact that this happens in every day news reporting also.
I am not ok with this but to each his own.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshchrn831
Is it possible to see how much money either campaign spends during the whole election process?
I wonder if Obama's campain spent more, because he did get alot of endorsments, didnt he? Or atleast, I remeber hearing more endorsments towards Obama, than McCain.
And basically all a campaign does is spend money to advertise, right?
Just a thought.. I am going to look those statistics up, now that I'm thinking about it.
Obama had more money the McCain, spent more money than McCain and even after having a large surplus of money Obama begged his supporters to continue to donate money.
So yes Obama spent a lot of money on campaigning and advertisement.
This post was not so much about the election as it was about the news media themselves. This election just provided an example.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?
the faithful are unable to see beyond the agenda they have been fed.
Quote:
The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.
welcome to the new yellow journalism. just as hearst and his cronies perverted fact for the sake of the status quo, this latest version of the media power structure is feeding the masses just what is needed to further their latest cause. they induce fear to keep us in line, hope to keep us spending, envy to keep us at each others' throats and inject just enough truth to keep it plausible. they understand the gullibility of the masses and realize the power of the mob. it has always been this way, there is nothing new under the sun, and the people don't really want it to change. we are, for the most part, herd animals and the rigors of individuality go against our apathetic natures.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Is there anything you people don't spin to justify it and make it ok?
The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presenting it as news.
This may not bother some of you but it bothers me a hell of a lot. It doesn't just happen during the presidential campaign; but I suppose since no one here cares they conveniently overlooked the fact that this happens in every day news reporting also.
I am not ok with this but to each his own.
I am not sure if you are responding to my post with this comment, but for the record, I am NOT ok with bias in what is supposed to be unbiased reporting.
What I was disputing in my post was your putting words into the reporter's mouth saying she had said her paper was BIASED when in fact she had not done so. And I was clarifying things that are NOT bias --- reporting polls, a "tilt' in the NUMBER of stories about one candidate over another, and endorsing a candidate on the editorial page do not necessarily indicate bias.
You gave a good enough defnition of bias above, "The people who are supposed to be reporting the news.. Information/data so we can make our own assessment on a matter are instead injecting their own opinions and presented it as news."
Where in the article does it say that the newspaper "injected their own opinions and presenting it as news"?
That is exactly the definition of bias, and the article did not conlude that the paper had done that.
I'll give you an example of bias: Taking an article titled "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" and reporting it as "Media admits it's Bias toward Obama" is an example of bias --- changing facts to support a particular opinion.
By the way, if you go to the original article, there is a sidebar with a link to something called "Stumped," and the topic is why unbiased reporting does not necessarily mean equal amounts of positive and negative reporting. I was going to proivide a link, but now when I go to the Post website it wants me to sign in, which I do not want to do.
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
In order to benefit from the MSM... we have to realize that News no longer exists. All we are left with are Stories. The people we see on the television screen are responsible for feeding people... not educating people. We all still want to believe that there are intense investigative journalists that seek out the truth in the MSM... even if it risks their life and limb. The truth is, networks don't find stories... they are delivered stories. Neatly packaged, mis-dis-shit-information... that allows us to feel warm and fuzzy knowing that we are learning of a "White House information leak," or a "Secret back room deal," and we rest easy thinking.... "Yeahh, there's someone out there seeking the truth."
This is one of the most crippling elements to a society... ESPECIALLY a society with a government that requires the availability of SOUND information to function.
Any large institution, like a corporation or the government, relies on public relations and opinion. If they KNOW that something they did will become a story... THEY start writing it. Once they have their seemingly neat and precise account of the situation... they shop it around to networks.
To make a long story short... the stories we hear on television are almost scientifically crafted to spin our brains around backwards.
When a network receives a breaking story from say, a pharmaceutical company... the account of the breaking story has already been written up/summarized FOR the network, BY the pharmaceutical company. Then... the network puts their inevitable spin on it. We are essentially getting a spun story from an agenda driven institution... that is THEN re-spun to support ANOTHER agenda driven institution. From there, our brain absorbs what WE feel is most important to us... thus we may disregard some elements into the subconscious, or intensely focus on what we feel is the most important.
This is not necessarily an evil conspiracy... just the nature of the human brain in combination with the nature of an institutional agenda. As humans have primitive impulses to physically protect themselves or defend their character (even if it involves lying)... institutions are equally determined to protect and defend themselves (even if it involves lying).
We perceive the world through an endless series of filtration devices. Some of them external... but most internal.
In most cases, we are guilty of spinning ourselves...
Media admits it's Bias toward Obama
"i think you'll find that any propaganda from the right was more than outweighed by that from the left by sheer volume alone."
- i don't recall any propaganda about john mccain having a racist wife and being a secret muslim terrorist who hates america and plans to abandon israel while teaching american five year olds how to have sexual intercourse...compared to the anti-obama propaganda, the anti-mccain propaganda was quite tame
