Bias in the Media, LOL

[Nobunaga]

Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.

... Phats, I wouldn't argue with what the man says, but you have to wonder how skewed his research was in his development of that "scale" he created.

... It's similar in my mind to scientists with a vested career/financial interest supporting the global warming religion. Research strongly tends to lean the direction they wish it to, to support their own interests, and what is in their minds a foregone conclusion.

... Bias is extreme in most major media, no argument, but that scale.... I dunno'.

... Just saying.

...

[PLAYER57832]

Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.

... Phats, I wouldn't argue with what the man says, but you have to wonder how skewed his research was in his development of that "scale" he created.

... It's similar in my mind to scientists with a vested career/financial interest supporting the global warming religion. Research strongly tends to lean the direction they wish it to, to support their own interests, and what is in their minds a foregone conclusion.

... Bias is extreme in most major media, no argument, but that scale.... I dunno'.

... Just saying.

...

Interesting comparison, because when you actually LOOK at the data, it turns out that this whol global climate change idea is very strongly based by evidence and not belief at all.

[Nobunaga]

Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.

... Phats, I wouldn't argue with what the man says, but you have to wonder how skewed his research was in his development of that "scale" he created.

... It's similar in my mind to scientists with a vested career/financial interest supporting the global warming religion. Research strongly tends to lean the direction they wish it to, to support their own interests, and what is in their minds a foregone conclusion.

... Bias is extreme in most major media, no argument, but that scale.... I dunno'.

... Just saying.

...

Interesting comparison, because when you actually LOOK at the data, it turns out that this whol global climate change idea is very strongly based by evidence and not belief at all.

... So you keep saying. Save it for the suckers and the stupid, eh?

...

[PLAYER57832]

Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.

... Phats, I wouldn't argue with what the man says, but you have to wonder how skewed his research was in his development of that "scale" he created.

... It's similar in my mind to scientists with a vested career/financial interest supporting the global warming religion. Research strongly tends to lean the direction they wish it to, to support their own interests, and what is in their minds a foregone conclusion.

... Bias is extreme in most major media, no argument, but that scale.... I dunno'.

... Just saying.

...

Interesting comparison, because when you actually LOOK at the data, it turns out that this whol global climate change idea is very strongly based by evidence and not belief at all.

... So you keep saying. Save it for the suckers and the stupid, eh?

...

Since you apparently feel nobel laureates and similar acclaim are just for suckers and the stupid, I consider that a compliment.

[Nobunaga]

... Obama appoints wife of Univision owner to UN diplomatic post

... That's one way to curb criticism about Fast & Furious I suppose...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/26/3 ... ision.html

... Does this bother anybody besides me?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... er-up.html

...

[Nobunaga]

Sen. Paul: "Voters want to round up immigrants", says Philly.com News:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/polit ... rants.html


AP has retracted same article - knowing it to be a fabrication they can't get away with:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 9A.twitter

[Phatscotty]

LOL indeed. This thread wreaks of licked boots. I almost had to put this is the Zimmerman thread....

Both ABC and CBS presidents have SIBLINGS that work for Obama at the White House

http://www.therightscoop.com/richard-gr ... ite-house/

[Woodruff]

LOL indeed. This thread wreaks of licked boots. I almost had to put this is the Zimmerman thread....

Both ABC and CBS presidents have SIBLINGS that work for Obama at the White House

http://www.therightscoop.com/richard-gr ... ite-house/

It's interesting in my mind that the only "scandals" you ever seem to find are related to Democrats. Why is that, Phatscotty?

And I put "scandals" in quotes because it's not really a scandal so much as it is standard cronyism.

[Juan_Bottom]

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously

Also google Amber Lyon, the former CNN anchor.

[Woodruff]

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously

Do you have something that's not four years old?

And as I mentioned to Phatscotty, the only "scandals" you seem to ever find are ones that involve Republicans. Why is that?

[Juan_Bottom]

That definitely involves all the networks. Fox won the lawsuit, but it definitely involves every major American network.

And the name I dropped speaks specifically about CNN cleaning up storys to make the government look better, so that they wouldn't lose government subsiding.

[Ray Rider]

Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.

... Phats, I wouldn't argue with what the man says, but you have to wonder how skewed his research was in his development of that "scale" he created.

... It's similar in my mind to scientists with a vested career/financial interest supporting the global warming religion. Research strongly tends to lean the direction they wish it to, to support their own interests, and what is in their minds a foregone conclusion.

... Bias is extreme in most major media, no argument, but that scale.... I dunno'.

... Just saying.

...

Interesting comparison, because when you actually LOOK at the data, it turns out that this whol global climate change idea is very strongly based by evidence and not belief at all.

... So you keep saying. Save it for the suckers and the stupid, eh?

...

Since you apparently feel nobel laureates and similar acclaim are just for suckers and the stupid, I consider that a compliment.

Speaking of suckers, stupid, and nobels...how about that nobel that Obama received eh?

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously

Do you have something that's not four years old?

And as I mentioned to Phatscotty, the only "scandals" you seem to ever find are ones that involve Republicans. Why is that?

I rarely agree with Woodruff, but on this I gotta hand it to him. Funny how the bias in both is hardly perceived by the individuals themselves, however.

Mirror reflections on opposite ends of the spectrum, them two.

[Woodruff]

I rarely agree with Woodruff, but on this I gotta hand it to him. Funny how the bias in both is hardly perceived by the individuals themselves, however.
Mirror reflections on opposite ends of the spectrum, them two.

That isn't even what bothers me about the two of them.

I mean, Night Strike and PLAYER are both pretty "opposite ends of the spectrum" themselves, and they both also tend not to see their own bias (hell, that's a problem for all of us). But at least the two of them will engage in dialogue and discussion most of the time. The lack of that willingness is what bothers me most about Phatscotty and Juan (though Juan didn't used to be that way, as I recall <sigh>).

[Juan_Bottom]

Neither of you dummies read the link. Fox's lawsuit opened up the way for all the news agencies.

So, Fox and the other gladiatorical cable news channels were given the okay to legally lie right around the time of the Iraq War’s birth – when media lies coincidentally hit a peak in both frequency and severity.

I did a Google search related to this story. Here’s what I came up with.

A Google search involving the words “Court of appeals + Fox News + Jane Akre” came up with 1,050 results. The first ten results spoke of this specific story, but of those results, not one was a mainstream media organization. The results included FoxBGHsuit.com, InjuryBoard,com, ThirdWorldTraveler.org, CeaseSPIN.org, Purefood.com, Relfe.com, SourceWatch.org, OrganicConsumers.org, TheCorporation.com, and DailyKos.com.

A Google search involving the words “Fox News + Jane Akre” brings up almost the same results, the only difference being a Wikipedia page for Jane Akre. On the “External Links” section on Jane’s Wikipedia page, we find an InjuryBoard.com article, as Jane is now editor-in-chief of the website. We also find an interview with Jane and her husband, from a documentary titled “The Corporation,” in which they detail what happened during the ordeal.

A Google News search brings up one article – written by Akre for InjuryBoard.com.

The closest hit to a mainstream media news site is a Baltimore Sun reader/commenter named “gonzoliberal” who has copy-and-pasted the CeaseSPIN.org article into a comment thread. Huffington Post has mentioned the case as well in a series of articles about tainted milk.

No mainstream news organizations – not even Fox television competitors – have reported on Jane Akre’s case for suspected reasons, which won’t be elaborated on.

Putting aside the fact that studies linked the hormone to cancer, the case is likely one of many just like it – especially since Akre and her husband, according to their own accounts, were initially offered a bribe to go away and never speak of the case again.

Also google Amber Lyon, the former CNN anchor.

In March 2013, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency reported that Lyon had been directed by CNN to report selectively and falsely in order to sway public opinion in favor of direct American aggression against Iran and Syria, and that this was common practice at CNN.

So Fox sues to keep it's right to lie, and wins. Then along comes the NDAA, that sends subsidies to the networks to persuade them to clean-up stories and make the administration appear more capable. Since Fox cleared the way, everyone else is on-board for this. Amber Lyon goes along with it, until she leaves CNN and then once CNN isn't paying her bills anymore, she opens up about it.
The saddest part is that the freedom of the press was originally meant for those who could prove that what they were saying was true.

[Woodruff]

That's why I basically just pay serious attention to Al Jazeera, the BBC, Russian Television and NPR (basically in that order, with NPR a distant fourth). Most of the good media comes from outside of our country.

[Phatscotty]

You would think, on a playing field where 12 tv media networks are left of center, and 1 is right of center, it would be the 1 that might have the problem. It says a lot that it's the 12 and their viewers who are constantly bitching.

well, now right of center is going to have 2 networks. It's going to be even MORE unfair to the 12! The Blaze is being picked up by cable providers all across the country, I think they have 11 out of 17 now. (Any Wilkow fans out there? )

And just wait until Ala-cart cable takes over. Where subscribers have the freedom to choose only the networks they want, and are not forced to pay for a bunch they don't want. It will be the end of all the bullshit channels like Al-jazeera, and the continuation of the revolution (which started last night btw)

We are taking over the media

[BigBallinStalin]

That's why I basically just pay serious attention to Al Jazeera, the BBC, Russian Television and NPR (basically in that order, with NPR a distant fourth). Most of the good media comes from outside of our country.

You probably know this, but here's some advice.

Al Jazeera is great, but it's totally one-sided on issues with Israel.
Can't say much about BBC. Never found it interesting enough.
RT does host some greater commentators on the US, but the podium is also open to some crazy Americans, so filter with caution.
NPR is boring. With political economy, it's hardly critical, doesn't address fundamental issues, and usually paints a glossy, rose-tinted picture of government (but their quality really varies).

[BigBallinStalin]

That definitely involves all the networks. Fox won the lawsuit, but it definitely involves every major American network.

And the name I dropped speaks specifically about CNN cleaning up storys to make the government look better, so that they wouldn't lose government subsiding.

Right on, JB,

and regarding the underlined, not only that, but they also want to be on good standing with the government in order to get exclusive access to the speeches of spokepersons and in general 'the hot shit'.

[Gillipig]

TV, newspapers, radio, blogs they're all biased. They are written by humans, and we humans are incapable of escaping our biaseness. Some newspapers, tv stations, radio shows and blogs hide their bias better than others, or the things they show blatant bias about is almost universally accepted as objective truth, in which case most people don't even think of it as indoctrination. I often find myself wondering what future generations will be thinking of us and our society. How will they view our media? What will they think of our democracy? Is it a crude version of what they are themselves several hundred years later employing, or will we define why democracy can never work? Will our dream of eventually settling other planets be viewed as moronic and impossible, or will they have completed what we were only fit to dream about?
I wish I could pop in, just for a day, in the 26th century and see what has happened, and how they view us and our society.





And..............let's stop the rambling here lol.

[Woodruff]

You would think, on a playing field where 12 tv media networks are left of center, and 1 is right of center, it would be the 1 that might have the problem. It says a lot that it's the 12 and their viewers who are constantly bitching.

The right (and this definitely includes you) NEVER STOPS BITCHING about the "left-dominated media", so I think you can go ahead and drop that tack, hypocrite.

And just wait until Ala-cart cable takes over. Where subscribers have the freedom to choose only the networks they want, and are not forced to pay for a bunch they don't want. It will be the end of all the bullshit channels like Al-jazeera, and the continuation of the revolution (which started last night btw)

The bullshit channels like Al Jazerra? I'm sorry you think that a center-oriented independent media is bullshit. I'm not surprised in the least...only disappointed.

We are taking over the media

It's funny that you keep saying "we" like it's a team thing. You mouth the words "freedom and equality" without being serious about them.

[Woodruff]

Al Jazeera is great, but it's totally one-sided on issues with Israel.

I wouldn't call it TOTALLY one-sided (there is an occasional anti-Palestine article), but yes there is definitely a strong bias there. Not surprising when you think about it.

Can't say much about BBC. Never found it interesting enough.

I'm actually surprised to hear you say that.

RT does host some greater commentators on the US, but the podium is also open to some crazy Americans, so filter with caution.

Certainly. It should be noted that they were the primary televiser of the third-party candidates.

NPR is boring. With political economy, it's hardly critical, doesn't address fundamental issues, and usually paints a glossy, rose-tinted picture of government (but their quality really varies).

The quality absolutely varies, which is why I have them listed so low.

None of them are perfect, of course...and I didn't mean to intimate that they are. But they're far and away better than anything else available here in the United States.

[BigBallinStalin]

Al Jazeera is great, but it's totally one-sided on issues with Israel.

I wouldn't call it TOTALLY one-sided (there is an occasional anti-Palestine article), but yes there is definitely a strong bias there. Not surprising when you think about it.

Can't say much about BBC. Never found it interesting enough.

I'm actually surprised to hear you say that.

RT does host some greater commentators on the US, but the podium is also open to some crazy Americans, so filter with caution.

Certainly. It should be noted that they were the primary televiser of the third-party candidates.

NPR is boring. With political economy, it's hardly critical, doesn't address fundamental issues, and usually paints a glossy, rose-tinted picture of government (but their quality really varies).

The quality absolutely varies, which is why I have them listed so low.

None of them are perfect, of course...and I didn't mean to intimate that they are. But they're far and away better than anything else available here in the United States.

Agreed, and that's sad. Ever seen CNN in any European country? It's a completely different station. It's magically less retarded.

[Woodruff]

Al Jazeera is great, but it's totally one-sided on issues with Israel.

I wouldn't call it TOTALLY one-sided (there is an occasional anti-Palestine article), but yes there is definitely a strong bias there. Not surprising when you think about it.

Can't say much about BBC. Never found it interesting enough.

I'm actually surprised to hear you say that.

RT does host some greater commentators on the US, but the podium is also open to some crazy Americans, so filter with caution.

Certainly. It should be noted that they were the primary televiser of the third-party candidates.

NPR is boring. With political economy, it's hardly critical, doesn't address fundamental issues, and usually paints a glossy, rose-tinted picture of government (but their quality really varies).

The quality absolutely varies, which is why I have them listed so low.

None of them are perfect, of course...and I didn't mean to intimate that they are. But they're far and away better than anything else available here in the United States.

Agreed, and that's sad. Ever seen CNN in any European country? It's a completely different station. It's magically less retarded.

Absolutely. It's what we watched when we lived in Germany.

[Phatscotty]

Of course.....media bias is much more prevalent and relevant to the party in power.....Should go without saying

Democrats have been in power since my day 1 here. That's just the way it is. I was the same person when Bush was president and criticized the same way and just as often (I voted for Ralph Nader for f*ck's sake!). It's not me who always breaks things into left vs right.

Of course that doesn't mean, to fast post your next fabulous point, that no left vs. right can exist in any area in the rest of all discussion in the world. Just that I did not do it here.

Media bias is media bias. If the son or sibling of Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes served on the security council of a president, it would be exactly as newsworthy and biased in the exact same way. But I'm not talking about something that didn't happen, as you prefer, I'm talking about the siblings of the presidents of ABC and CBS working on Obama's "national security council" which is something that did happen.

[Phatscotty]

You would think, on a playing field where 12 tv media networks are left of center, and 1 is right of center, it would be the 1 that might have the problem. It says a lot that it's the 12 and their viewers who are constantly bitching.

well, now right of center is going to have 2 networks. It's going to be even MORE unfair to the 12! The Blaze is being picked up by cable providers all across the country, I think they have 11 out of 17 now. (Any Wilkow fans out there? )

And just wait until Ala-cart cable takes over. Where subscribers have the freedom to choose only the networks they want, and are not forced to pay for a bunch they don't want. It will be the end of all the bullshit channels like Al-jazeera, and the continuation of the revolution (which started last night btw)

We are taking over the media

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... Ws.twitter

White House press secretary Jay Carney confirmed that a “background briefing” was held with members of 14 news organizations, as is done “periodically,” but specifically disputed that it was “off the record.”

The White House held an off-the-record meeting with certain reporters on Friday to discuss the recent developments about the Benghazi assault

The meeting was conducted on "deep background," according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest, but sources told POLITICO that the existence of the meeting was "off the record." The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing until mid-afternoon.

The session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.