Media Bias
 

See below for footnotes*

Now, we all know the media has an extremely [liberal](1.) bias, and when we're in the middle of important presidential nominations for the upcoming election, it only makes sense that the [fair and balanced](2.) FoxNews would want to [objectively investigate](3.) into the characters of [each parties](4.) [candidates](5.)
However, it seems odd that they seem to be targeting [one of the candidates](6.) especially for [some unknown reason](7.) It seems that Barack Obama has an [intimate](8.) relation with a [known terrorist](9.) For some reason, Obama avoids this issue by [never bringing it up](10.) and [never apologizing](11.) for his behavior. Maliciously, Ayers said on the day of 9/11, that ['he wished they (Weather Underground) had done more.'](12.)
Now, after all this, you would just have to be stupid to [vote for Obama](13.)

1. conservative
2. unfair and biased
3. objectively find the most reasonable way to skew information, and make it sound believable
4. Democrats'
5. characters of people loosely associated with the candidates
6. Democratic, hmmm, that's a mystery!
7. current delegate leader, and likely candidate to rival McCain in November, Obama
8. cordial in passing
9. A member of the Weather Underground, a group of so called terrorists, who orchestrated protest bombings at the Pentagon and other government facilities never with the intention of harming another human being, but of protesting the unnecessary Vietnam War. In fact, the only people ever killed by this group were some of the bombers themselves, when trying to plant the bombs.
10. Apparently the right wing bias worn off on the mainstream media, since Obama would have no way of avoiding this subject. About 30 minutes of the Clinton/Obama debate from a week ago was spent needling into the affairs of, not Obama himself, but people he has known throughout the years.
11. Obama has renounced his relationship with Ayers, and has said that he would not support an endorsement from Ayers of his presidency.
12. This quote has been played over and over again, even by the moderator of last week's debate, and by Hilary Clinton herself. Interestingly, the quote was taken completely out of context, and what Ayers referred to was that he wishes they (Weather Underground) had done more to attempt to stop the Vietnam War.
13. Listen to FoxNews, or believe any of their crackteam rightwing writers have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

So where are you music posts? I'd like to read one.

The thread title was interesting, then it got boring really quickly. ZZZzzzzzz

after your church-porn-reagan theory, george carlin 'philosophy' drop and now blowing the lid of garbage news can your next anti-establishment hippie throwback thread have something to do with aliens? we ALL know you've got crazy alien theories. let us all see just how far into tinfoil hat land you've dared venture.

It would appear that the coverup of alien existence is yet another government conspiracy; but I don't see what that has to do with my anti-establishment ideas. Do you actually disagree with this thread or believe that FoxNews delivers news without partisanship?

i believe in my own judgment without the need for external validation. i don't see how preaching to people to change their views so they suit mine better makes me any less of a manipulative hypocrite than the people i purport to dislike.

That's a good point, but you're avoiding the question. The point I was trying to make is that FoxNews and the majority of the other media outlets have a right-wing bias, when many (right-wing) pundits claim it has a liberal bias. So, give me an honest answer to that, an answer that doesn't need external validation. You don't seem to have an opinion on this thread, rather you just want to debate my intellect. If I were going to guess, I'd say you probably think the media is just as liberal as conservative. It doesn't take a genius to know that whenever liberals start to cite their opinions and in many cases facts, the other side begins to accuse them of being unpatriotic, or just dumb. They don't want to talk politics or issues, they just want to dispute the other side's character.

where's the question? the opening post has none. as for agreeing or disagreeing with this thread how is it possible with the way you presented it?

my answer to your 'point'... that FoxNews and the majority of the other media outlets have a right-wing bias (in your view), when many (right-wing) pundits claim it has a liberal bias (in their view) = you have differing opinions / ideals. so what? i don't need to be told what to think by either side of the political spectrum, at the end of the day the only thing i really need is food and shelter.

seems to me like your 'question' is just an attempt to get people to validate your opinion.

There is no question in my original post. The point of my original post was to make some points about the so called 'terrorist' Bill Ayers, which unless people really investigated for themselves might not know. I would be curious to know whether you people agree with it or not, but I don't need my point validated. I am making a point that FoxNews constantly tells half truths, take quotes out of context, and chop up bits and pieces of quotes to suit their agenda.

The question in my most recent post was posed directly towards you, it was:
Do you believe the media is just as balanced toward the left as it is to the right?

Would you prefer that I not even voice my political opinion then? Or would you prefer that all news outlets quit expressing their opinions of current leaders and current events, just by the off chance that you might happen upon them?

i think the mainstream media has a bias. i also think so-called independent media has a bias as well.

i don't care if you voice your political opinion same goes for the news outlets. i choose to remove myself from the mess of conflicting opinions and ideals. you're the one who chooses to gripe about their opinions and participate in the endless farce of left wing vs. right wing.

i'm just trying to get you to see that you're acting like them.

That isn't true.
FoxNews doesn't sit around all day and talk about how NPR or MSNBC has a bias toward the left. If they did, then, I would be acting like them.

They constantly question Barack Obama's character, by talking about people he has known over the years.
So, if I were to rant tirelessly about how John McCain has been friendly with, and accepted an endorsement from Pastor Hagee, a man who claims that recent devastating earthquakes In Israel claiming several fatalities were due to our lax stance on the anti-homosexuality movement, for president, then I would be acting like them.

Aside from pointing out a media bias, I am also stating that I think issues are the most important thing, and I find it strange that Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity have nothing better to do on their show than talk about how much Obama's character should be in question because of his relationship with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. They never really have anything good to say about their own candidates. It's all about tearing down the other side. I haven't engaged in tearing down the R's candidates, and somehow, me simply pointing out that's what the R does to the L is engaging in childlike behavior.

No one thinks Fox is fair and balanced.
We know their partisan to the right.
And O'reilly mentions a left leaning bias all day long. You must not actually watch fox news.

Fox news is a joke.

The image Fox News has in the U.K. is pretty poor, especially since their coverage of the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq.
Propaganda disguised as news.

Yes, we're to believe that somehow, because certain media outlets cover *** right's parades, or some journalists think stricter gun control laws are necessary, gives them a left leaning bias.
The fact is that the media is a business first and foremost. We'd like to believe it's all about truth and delivering the news.
I find the general reason behind most stories, like the sentimental irrational ratings ploys on local news, to be pretty despicable.
But when you're talking about FoxNews, it delves into a whole new realm of sickness. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are the owners, and they basically have one agenda and one agenda only:
To keep Republicans in office, for the sake of lowering their own tax burdens, and the tax burdens of their billionaire friends. I doubt Rupert Murdoch even has much stake in the right wing ideology, with the exception of that one issue alone. It's clear that they will stop at nothing to bash the Democrat's, because no matter how terrible of a president Bush was, and is, they will continually heap praise on him, and no matter how great of a president Obama is-(the man could pull out of Iraq, stabilize our economy, improve foreign relations, and fight for the middle/lower class), and they would still find ways to belittle him.

I don't see reporting with a bias to be a bad thing. In fact, I'm not even sure if you can have a non-bias news report. You're bound to take sides and have a slight slant on your stance. That aside I pretty much agree with the harpooning of Fox as a right wing propaganda machine.

you're pushing your own agenda same as they are. you're just being indirect about it and changing the 'point' of your thread every time someone has challenged your views. how is it that your broad negative generalizations about news media and the CEOs that govern those outlets any different than the behavior you condemn in the above post? will you actually address what i pointed out or just move on to your 'really real for real' point?

It's not a right wing bias or a left wing bias , it's a supporting whoever Rupert Murdoch thinks will make him the most money bias.

As the Tory party found out when he instructed his media outlets to support Labour and Tony Blair after years of supporting Thatcher.

agreed. even if the journalist was completely neutral their choice of vocabulary used to report an incident will affect the personal interpretation of the event.

LOL, no I won't move on to my really real for real point, because I have already stated the point of this thread. It was to point out that FoxNews is extremely biased toward the R, and most of the media in general is biased toward the right. I found it necessary to bring this up, because they are always purporting there is a liberal bias. Also, I did a very good job of this, by saying that they're constantly attacking Bill Ayers, someone who Barrack Obama has occasionally been in the same place with, by saying he's a terrorist, when in fact he was just an anarchist at worst. They have also called him a 'killer', when he has never killed anyone, and also the only people the Weather Underground has killed have inadvertently been members of their own party.

Yeah, I think it's okay for reporters to have an opinion. I also think it's okay for celebrities, athletes, and everyone to have an opinion, and also be outspoken about it.
What I don't think is okay, is to be a news network whose motto is 'fair and balanced', when day after day, they are clearly just attacking the Democrats without ever going after Republicans. This is only MO, but I don't even think many of the newsanchors really believe what they're saying. That's what's so sad, they're parroting the opinions of their superiors. Of course, people like Sean Hannity's job security is dependent on whether R's get elected or not, so in that sense, I think it becomes their opinion.

really? i get the impression you really just want to say they're being mean to obama.

as for your public enlightenment towards foxnews maybe you should read TheBig3KilledMyRainDog's comment again. just because YOU want to believe in the ideal of truth in advertising / media doesn't mean i have to.

No, if I'd wanted to do that, I would have just called it 'FoxNews is being mean to Obama'. I was using the Obama smears as an example to show exacty how biased they are. I didn't used to watch FoxNews, but I listen to it on Sirius. Ha, I'm a realist rather than an optimist. I guess if I wanted to believe in the ideal of truth in advertising, I would find a way to believe all of their drivel. Whereas, if I was a realist, I would see a bunch of clearly false accusations flying around and cry 'outrage', whereas if they were actually fair and balanced, I might not even notice them.
Actually, I never would have cared about them, but other people have made it such a cultural phenomenon,(yes, with the movie Outfoxed, but more so the millions of viewers who make it the most watched news network in the world) and now I'm just commenting on what I see/hear from them.

why?

Probably because I'm concerned about a society that seems to have such an interest in this channel, and believe it or not, many people revere it. Doesn't that concern you at all? I mean, grant it you can't change other people's opinions. But doesn't it concern you that you're living in a society with many brainless twats who can be so easily manipulated? I think it would be dangerous to think that it can't effect you. I often think many people are much too cavalier when it comes to the issue of politics. You probably think it doesn't affect you. Well, George Bush was elected president, and that has affected you if you live in the U.S.A., and beyond that, if we are the most powerful nation in the world, then we owe it to other countries to be better informed for the next election, because it has affected them, too

people should be free to be as dumb as they please.

Right, everyone would be free to be as dumb as they please. I think we all have a capability to learn and grow, but what bothers me is the people who hold fast to a certain belief system. I think some people vote against what they know to be right many times, and it's just because they're afraid to be seen as different within a certain group of people.
Studies have been done on this, where people in a classroom have been afraid to speak up about an answer that they knew to be true, but different than what most of the people were answering. Later, when interviewed after the class, they had admitted that they knew the right answer, but answered incorrectly intentionally just not to be seen as different.
And next, you're probably going to tell me that people have the right to be as conformist as they please, right?

lol...your vote isn't exactly publically available information.

Link?

Well they do.

so they should conform to your ideals instead?

Could it be what they are voting on/against actually are their beliefs? If you're super-conservative, you're going to vote as such, not because it's cool to be a conservative..

Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conformity and a lack of ability to see things through other's perspectives has been the cause of many wars and downfalls of civilizations. Historians have quoted that before.

Heh, what are my ideals, that FoxNews is biased? Anyone who reads this is free to think that or disagree with it. I don't really give a sh*t what people think, but I wish they were dissuaded from lies. I was providing some little known evidence as to why they're lies.
For instance, that Bill Ayers quote where he said, 'I wish we would have done more,' has been used repeatedly on FoxNews to trumpet the fact that Ayers was an unrepentent terrorist. But, they took the quote completely out of context. It's my right, and my duty as an American to point out these falsities.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. You seem to acknowledge the dishonesty and blatant biased agenda Fox news has but you feel it is better to keep quiet and ignore it?

more like i just don't bother with foxnews. anyone with half a clue in their head can see that it's bogus so why even acknowledge it as remotely factual? do you get upset at tabloid headlines? does the national enquirer really grind your gears?

so yeah, i ignore foxnews and if more people did they would change because their ratings would drop. but instead we get a bunch of idealist morons tuning in so they can get pissed off about inaccuracies in their reports and then continue drawing attention to the source by whining about it all over the net. it's the same way religious groups established howard stern's early career.

it's like the old saying goes - there's no such thing as bad press. if theused2lguy really didn't give a crap what other people thought and truly believed they were free to think what they wanted then why would he complain about the views they choose to acknowledge?

That's really not a very good example. Anyone with half a clue in their head can see that the national enquirer is bogus. Only an extremely deluded person could possibly believe that some child in South America was raised in a cave by a family of bats. I would assume the people who buy it are a. extremly deluded, or b. buying it for sheer entertainment value.
Whereas, a lot of people who watch FoxNews really believe everything they say, and we're talking in the millions of people. I don't think in all cases the people are necessarily dumb, but they're extremely R wing, and hold fast to their ideas, and thus, want to believe everything they are told.
As for the last part of your post, it's hard not to be intrigued by a network that draws such huge ratings. The network doesn't just reveal that it lies constantly, but also its popularity reveals that we are becoming dumber and dumber as a society. It concerns me, but as you've made it clear: It doesn't concern you. We'll continue to become more brainless, and mind-controlled, like the society in 1984, without ever objecting. That's apparently what you would like, if I am to interpret your posts correctly.

My understanding is most people know that the tabloids are nothing but crap. With Fox you have an overwhelming population of Americans who regard it as gospel.

I've only seen Fox news once while I was traveling. I'm quite sure that if all those who consider Fox to be nothing more than a rag decided to stop watching it it would lose at most 10% of it's viewer ship.
But if no one reported these inaccuracies thn the loyal Fox viewers would still regard Fox as holy scripture. I know most still do but I'm starting to see some kinks in the armour of some FOX diehards.

Years ago not one conservative would even admit to Fox's biased reporting. Now they acknowledge it but deflect it by calling all other news sources liberal. While you chose to ignore and not give it attention others chose to chip away at the inaccuracies. No big deal.

and that generalization is different from me saying that most 'free' thinkers aren't necessarily blind idealists but they're extremely L wing, hold fast to their views, and thus want to not believe anything they say how?

how is it that tv ratings are indicative of social intelligence? broad generalizations about how things should be concern me, from both the left and right wings.

you say i want to be controlled, whatever. what's a free society supposed to look like? what's government supposed to be? I control myself, my shortcomings are my own, my wants are my own, same as my needs, and I am the one responsible for them. i don't think my crap smells good enough to go around dictating to people to open up their minds because they listen to news i don't particularly agree with.

By pointing out those biasses they're using their free speech a free society should have to make a point, which is exactly what the news does. How comes its all cool when Fox harpoons liberals, but the instant someone says something about Fox its detrimental. Why should we ignore Fox while Fox doesn't ignore us?

because fox only pays attention to us while we pay attention to it, doesn't matter if it's positive or negative attention. they just want attention (ratings). same as any other broadcaster.

You're an atrocity.

Your point is that Fox News is Bias? Who were you alerting with that rallying cry? Did anyone not know that?

Do you honestly get your world view from the back of the car in front of you?And I'm inclined to agree with mr. dave on this one. You're rapid in your need to condemn the right while nary a liberal descent to speak of.

List me 5 distinct reasons Obama shouldn't be president.