MSNBC is serving as the Obama PR outlet. I don't watch them, I like Fox for several reasons, they will show a police chase ending in the guy getting beat to a pulp by cops and the comment will be about how the guy endangered a lot of people when he went past the schools and through the neighborhoods at 110+ miles per hour, not some shit about how the guy's rights were violated...
Both aisles of the partisan media are guilty of spin, lies and premeditated deceit by outright omission. Real investigative journalism and hard questions will never be seen on mainstream media. Each side pushes an agenda of ignorance, Big Government and phony WWF-style animosity towards the other side. Its divide and conquer politics. Damn those evil Republicans! Those bleeding-heart liberals will ruin the Country!! They've got us hopelessly locked in this Tribal US-versus-THEM mentality for us to step outside it, and ask any real, unscripted questions. Ever notice how each topic, regardless of nature, has been "partisanized" or wrapped in the flag to short-circuit debate on its real merits - for or against? Only "evil republicans" are for Gun Rights! Its "Unamerican" to question the WAR or Government Spying! And now, if a particular agenda or policy is branded "Left" or "Right", the respective partisan hacks will blindly support it - even if its inconsistent with their traditional platform. ie. Many "Conservatives" are all for Huge Government, Homeland Security, Spying and War. When traditional Conservatism was all about fiscal shrewdness, small Government and no wars or alliances. We're about to see fawning Libs support Obamas Million-Tween Hitler Youth Brigades, even though they reviled Bushs Police-State power. See, now its created by a loving, caring, "progressive" Democrat. Its no longer Boot-Stomping Police-State Power. Its our caring Government "protecting us" from Al Queda. And then mindless Republicans will be outraged even though they had no problems when Bush sifted through all their electronic communication (phone, email and internet).
"Some People" might say that FOX would not exist if mainstream journalism wasn't biased. It is human nature to be biased toward one's beliefs. If the number of democrats in mainstream media is true, isnât some bias likely? http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp http://www.slate.com/id/92782/ I think the late Tim Russert, a democrat, was as unbiased as a reporter could get. If there were more of him in the mainstream, FOX might not be getting the ratings it gets. FOX is a reaction to market demand. Perhaps it is an over reaction because the other side of the political debate was so lacking. Now there is a choice of bias, regardless of the motives. Just like on the net.
Not exactly. It is the product of Murdoch's ultra Right Wing agenda. It can be reasonably debated whether some news channels are biased and whether they exhibit that bias excessively. However, Fox News employees have been instructed in no uncertain terms to goose step the party line with no exception. Except, of course, for the token and unbelievably meek and toothless resident "liberals" who are occasionally inserted to "balance" the programming. Fox News is a cartoon. Murdoch should be held to account.
Journalists themselves may have a liberal bias, but generally not the people who employ them. So while there may be some give and take on content and agenda (in a non-Fox environment), I wonder who wins on balance. ...Media Matters for America has also repeatedly criticized the MRC, charging that they view the media "through a funhouse mirror that renders everything--even the facts themselves--as manifestations of insidious bias." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center
Media Matters is a left wing group created to criticize conservative media. They have about as much credibility as moveon.org.
The conventional media is not liberal. They're advertised as liberal so that their positions couldn't possibly be thought of as any further left since that would just be off the map. The baseline for left is way further left than most people perceive or want to perceive.
Just to be fair - some comments from FOX etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed Although, I must say that most US media I see is biased at some point. E.g for the last 2 years most US media has run every scandal/hint of how terrible China is, and how they are cheating in production etc. There is no time left for how the US itself undermines global trade by high tarifs and sabotaging negotiations on agricultural products etc. Most national media poke at foreign leaders, nations, traditions, corporations etc. That is true about german, french, english, US, japanese, chinese, brazilian, spanish, russian, italian ... whatever ... they all distort news, twist connotations to favour themselves and vilify others. Well, it's a fairly well-known fact that USA is good at analysis - but not analysis about themselves - lacking in reflection, or maybe empathy. Europe is a little better than the US on reflecting over their own actions and seeing their place globally, although they fend for their own national goals individually. The US media seems more about how to keep the dominating role. The Israeli media is pretty varied, with extremes going in many directions. The japanese seems like they distance themselves, while trying to excel or keep pride of what they have greatest potential. In Brazil the media is flipping between mad outrage, chaos and corrupt cronies. One honest try on objectivity and being critical towards corruption is BAND-news, though. The rest of brazilian media is swamped with reports on violence, crime and outrage - or completely opposite with dancing hot women, stupidifying soaps and shows - kind of like italian TV. Reporters and presenters limit questions and guests to views and voices that they want to present, often "friendly opinions" enjoying a repeated shared limelight - many times without any value at all. It happens on Larry King to whatever other live presenter/anchor and correspondents. In all the really big countries, it seems that well founded deep journalistic insight gets drowned in all that happens and is reported from around all the corners of the country. Only a minute part of the population seem to have some well informed opinion, and many times it seems opinions is just regurgitated party policies or something they have heard elsewhere, without any shred of critical thinking. In the end - I guess that is something that most share, regardless of whether one lives in a large or small country. It seems the media-savvy in the US have come much longer in being able to manipulate and shape public opinions to build political support than in the more (naïvely?) moderate countries. The interdisciplinary field of systems theory and sociology can probably explain more - and give useful models for how the media influences perceptions and "power/support".
Shoot the messenger. wasn't that the same approach used against Mr. Clark? You are such a fine conservative AAA.
I can read a story about Abu Graihb on Fox.com and I can read it on MSNBC.com and the stories will be the same. I can read a story about US aid to Africa on both sites, and the stories will still be basically the same. After I read both stories I am informed. I will be no less informed if I only pick only one of them to read. I used to be quite a news junky, not so much anymore. There are rarely any blatant forms of media bias except for AM radio which is unabashedly conservative but makes no bones about it. I will see a slight amount of bias when Brian Williams of NBC news reports that "Bill Clinton was the only one nice enough to give us an interview", and even though his bias shows through, he still reported a fact. My gripe with Fox news is not their reporting per se as I'm sure that 1 hour and 17 minute piece of propaganda at the begining of this thread purports. My gripe is their towing the line of the White House administration on small things. A few years ago Bush's administration urged the media to stop using the term "suicide bomber" when reporting those attacks in Israel. They said the proper term is "homicide bomber". Fox news reporters actually used that term, and maybe they still do, I don't know since I rarely watch TV. The point is that no journalist should alter any part of their reporting based on what political hacks may say, even if it's something as small as that. It creates the appearance of impropriety. Besides, a lot of news organizations are simply regurgitating what the AP reports now anyway.