1 Finish Profile

Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

Locked

This is just my rant for the day…

IS there such a beast as a totally unbiased media source? I live in the good ole U S of A and though I do love my country and the people in it (for the most part) I’d like to know if there is really such a thing as a completely unbiased media source. I suspect that reporting from outside the country may be less biased than whatever comes from the purchased mouthpieces inside the country, as outsiders [i]usually[/i] have less stake in what’s going on INSIDE the country.

I just want to get the WHOLE story for once, instead of getting just enough from the left or the right to support whatever point their side is trying to make.

Actually, I’ve found that Comedy Central’s Daily Show with John Stewart seems to be somewhat less biased than other media sources, mainly because they’re a comedy show, not “real” news, and they’re not afraid to piss off either side in the political arena. Even NPR seems to have their own agenda to peddle.

I’ve completely given up on reading a newspaper, or G_d forbid watching the local news, or what passes for news around here, as TV news seems to be more into pushing their own agenda, than reporting the true happenings.

Any thoughts? Any sources?

Topic

IMHO….

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

There are two problems:

1). For the most part, news agencies are in the business of selling advertising; and not reporting the news. This means that their best interests and the public’s best interests aren’t necessarily aligned.

2). Most of what is covered in modern newscasts is subjective, and not imperical (hell, even the weather…same day is ‘Partly Cloudy’ on CBS and ‘Partly Sunny’ on ABC). This means that imperative #1 takes precedence: generate ad revenue!

When I watch the news, I pay attention to the commercials: If I see Buick, Depends, Smith-Barney, it is probably a conservative-slanted newscast, and Bush walks on water. If I see Pontiac, Tampax, Girls gone Wild, it is probably liberal, and Bush is inching his way towards the 7th level of Dante’s inferno.

Like I said…most of it is subjective, so you’re going to have to take out whatever info they give you, and piece together your own ‘truth’.

In terms of external news outlets, I prefer (as a traditional male) Galavision. I’m not always sure what they’re talking about, but the hosts have ‘good geometry’ going! 🙂

Nope!

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

In a word, ‘No’. I am doubtful there are such things as unbiased media sources. Most stations have their political slant, and external sources (though not having as much at stake) seem to take an opportunity to bash the US.
I personally use yahoo and google to catch up on the news. That way I get a lot of sources.

I’ve always had a soft spot for the BBC

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

They are legally required to be balanced. They probably don’t completely fit the bill for you because the first B, obviously, is “British”.

The website http://www.bbc.co.uk is pretty well regarded in the UK and it’s always worth a look for a reasonably unbiased (if alien) perspective on World news – and a laugh at us over here.

You don’t HAVE to read about “Helen Abbott, 46, from Stalybridge, Greater Manchester, was taken to court because her garden is messy.”

You can even get the US weather!

Neil

They are legally required to be balanced?

In reply to I’ve always had a soft spot for the BBC

.
That’s interesting. Who’s the monitor and makes that determination? How do they achieve that “balance”? If they write a scathing story about President Bush, for example, do they have to also write a flattering one of the same length and page position? Just how do they do it?

(Serious question, by the way.)

Max, (serious answer), I do suspect

In reply to They are legally required to be balanced?

that they don’t have to be fair to GWB as he’s not British.

Also, I don’t believe that the web site HAS to be balanced but I suspect they wouldn’t stray too far from what is considered reasonable over here else we would complain theat “it’s not the BBC”.

The TV and radio, however, does have to be pretty much balanced in that if they push one mainstream political view then they HAVE to give pretty close to equal time to the opposition view. That really gets strict towards election time when political parties are allotted time according to the electorate size – you can’t buy TV time on any channel.

My one caveat is it’s OUR balance and not yours, though.

Despite this “balance” they are always criticised by the government of the day and the fact that this is so and yet no government has attempted to radically change the BBC probably suggests that they’ve got it about right.

It doesn’t always work, however, and resulted in the BBC downplaying the anti-Iraq protests because both main parties in Westminster supported the war.

The difference between our Public Service Broadcasting and yours is that the BBC is a mainstream news and entertainment channel watched by many millions and fully funded by the “licence” that has to be paid yearly for every TV set(Tax, really!). The budget for TV and radio is around $10billion pa which also includes the website and world wide broadcasts.

I’ll try and find out some more about this and get back to you if you want more as it’s past my bedtime.

Have a browse – I’d be interested in what you think.

Neil

I understand the Director GEneral of the BBC

In reply to Max, (serious answer), I do suspect

has stated that the website should be as much value for money as the channels that we pay for, and as such it is a fantastic resource, for more than just news.

When over in the states last (during the election actually) I gave the bbc.co.uk link to a few colleagues -they were shocked at the content, how unbiased it was, and straight to the facts.
I think its great anyway – the In Pictures section is worth 1 month of license fee alone!

BBC versus NPR

In reply to They are legally required to be balanced?

Max,

I end up hearing most of the daily BBC newshour on weekdays.

On a US political scale, I would rate the BBC at least 10 degrees to the left of NPR.
Perhaps 20 degrees left when the story makes GWB look bad.

On stories that pertain to global warming and the environment, BBC news is to the left of any US news source.

Then again, as we have discussed before, Europe in general is far left of the US.
I suspect that in Europe, NPR news would be considered nearly as far to the right as Fox News is in the US.

Chas

Fox news is mad

In reply to BBC versus NPR

You’d be in court and bust inside of a day if you tried that in the UK.
The BBCs, particularly the world service is justly regarded as fair in the main, they have however fallen extremely badly on occasion in ways that would make Foxx look as innocuous as Sesame Street.
Perhaps it’s just the contrast, but as they are a non-profit organisation who do not depend directly on advertising, the only thing that stops them being considered a government funded mouthpiece such as pravda used to be is their reputation for fairness.

NPR is WAY left

In reply to BBC versus NPR

This is run by manily professors that are all hard-core democrats, and have no concern showing the “right” side of a discussion in a favorable light.

Look at who runs this, and their agenda.

If it wasn’t so far left, it wouldn’t have the primary liberal following that it has. Of course they don’t cater to the mainstream, and are not held accountable like other stations as they don’t have to be commercially competitive. Instead of freeing them to be able to show every view it is used as a license to thrill to push their agenda.

While I don’t care if they have an agenda and push it hard, the fact that a lot of their funding comes from FEDERAL funding does bother me. If it was all private funds, say what you want and anyone who doesn’t like it can change the channel. But once you get money from the government there should be some equality standards they are held to. Unfortunatly, that isn’t the case.

NPR Funding

In reply to NPR is WAY left

I took a look at the 2003 annual report for NPR.

While Federal funding was not broken down as a line item, they do state that less then 2% of NPR’s revenues come from Federally funded sources.

The sources include:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
The National Academy of Arts, and
The National Science Foundation.

Funds from the Art and Science foundations likely cannot be used for general news reporting.

Still, the “large” amount of US tax dollars distributed to NPR is less than $2.5 Million.

As to political view, what do you use as a reference for the political center?

I will concede that NPR has few if any right leaning commentators.

However, the factual news coverage is reasonably balanced. I have not seen any other news source spend as much time on presenting details from multiple points of view.

I did not find stories about the good deeds of US troops in my local paper, CNN, or the major network news.
I did hear numerous stories of how the US presence has been making life better for the people of Iraq on NPR.

For a comparison, look into the FULL details of nearly every story that Rush Limbaugh reports. You will find significant details left out of Rush’s version of the story.

I can deal with the bias of commentators. I cannot accept so called news coverage that leaves out facts that are not convenient for the reporters point of view.

Chas

Rush Limbaugh

In reply to NPR Funding

.
Rush Limbaugh is not a reporter, nor does he claim to be. He is an opinion commentator. Moreover, he admits his conservative and right-leaning bias, and he openly and proudly wears that badge.

You can’t compare to Rush Limbaugh to another who purports to only “report” the news. You can’t really compare what rush Limbaugh does, for example, to what Peter Jennings does.

To accurately compare Rush Limbaugh to someone else in the media, that person would have to also be an opinion commentator AND admit his or her liberal and left-leaning bias. Who might that be?

How people take Rush

In reply to Rush Limbaugh

Max,

I do understand that Rush is a commentator. I would go even further and place his show in the entertainment category.

However, far too many people in the US view Rush as a reporter of the news. They take everything that Rush says as the truth of what is going on.

I can’t think of any left leaning commentators that are as far to the left as Rush is to the right.

Even the unabashed Al Franken is not so far left to balance Rush.

I also think that Franken is in it for the fun he is having more than any serious political agenda.

The same cannot be said for the people looking to push this country back to Victorian times.
Rush and the other right wing pundits on talk radio and Fox News desire no less than the extinction of progressive thought in the US.

Chas

Chas – Define “progressive thought”

In reply to Rush Limbaugh

.
Some people might take Rush Limbaugh as a reporter of the news, but other people actually listen to him and know otherwise.

And on Franken, I’ve listened to him quite a bit, and he definitely has a political agenda. He also sees himself as the Limbaugh alternative, and the consummate anti-Rush, as evidenced by his book.

You said, “The same cannot be said for the people looking to push this country back to Victorian times….Rush and the other right wing pundits on talk radio and Fox News desire no less than the extinction of progressive thought in the US.”

You know, those are the kinds of comments that lose me. Victorian times? Be real. It shows where emotion has overtaken reason to the point of absurdity. Victorian Times?

What policy positions has Rush Limbaugh espoused that would result in pushing this country back to Victorian times?

And will you please define “progressive thought”?

Chas – The “political” Al Franken

In reply to Rush Limbaugh

.
If anything, Al Franken is MORE political political than Rush Limbaugh. Where Limbaugh’s popularity was built by way of a pure business endeavor, simply filling a void in the market place, Franken’s position on Air America was designed exclusively as a political tool of the Democrat party. Moreover, Limbaugh derives ALL of his revenues from advertising, while not only Franken, but the entire Air America radio network are bought and paid for by Democrat party sources, including the king of political dough, George Soros. (So much for the notion that the Republican Party has a monopoly on “big-money” donors.) And where Limbaugh is also an entertainer, Franken is just a political bore.

fair if you take away all programming?

In reply to NPR Funding

First, balanced is having someone RESPECABLE to address issues.

This isn’t just a right vs left issue as there are lots of issues that aren’t a political issue. Sure, they are turned into them by people that are looking for votes, but that doesn’t make them left vs right.

NPR does not even attempt to address anything from this alternative point of view.

News reporting. just what percentage of their total “on-air” time is just reporting of the “unbiased news”?

Does down playing funding by percentages remove that fact that they are getting this money?

There is also local government money that goes into NPR that does not show up in the stats listed, which increases the total intake.

And how much GOVERNMENT funding goes into any of the programs that help support NPR?

Unlike you, I am looking at GOVERNMENT funding instead of trying to split hairs and talk about FEDERAL.

No one has EVER accused Rush of being unbiases. Not even him that I am aware of.

But then, how does compairing NPR to Rush add validity to being unbiases?

I don’t listen to Rush thank you anyways.

I DO watch Hannity and Colms. One from each side of the fence and always have big players from BOTH sides to support their points. They don’t drag some trash KKK member out of his trailer park to represent one side or the other.

Political issues being discussed. Jounalism? Look at the guy that wrote for the NY Times that was just making stories up and laughed at how stupid everyone was that he could get away with it for so long.

The fake papers “proving” that Bush was AWAL. There are still loons out there that support that story even if all the evidence was fake. Facts don’t matter, because we “know” it is true. And the fact that the supporting information was fake doesn’t make the story fake. That is pathetic.

Used to be a time when “reporters” had to actually verify that a story was true before running it.

Corp for Public Broadcasting

In reply to NPR is WAY left

Looking at public funding of broadcasting another way.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets .02% of the $1.8 Trillion Federal budget.

Of the resultant $385 Million, 75% goes to PBS related programs.

All CPB funding for radio is $85 Million.
Looking over the CPB report, it looks like most of this money goes to support our local public radio stations.

While 2.5 million, 85 million, and of course 385 million are significant sums to you or I, on the scale of US government spending, the CPB outlay is little more than pocket change.

Chas

Max the same applies here with the

In reply to They are legally required to be balanced?

Australian Broadcasting Commission they can not play party favorites but have to remain neutral. What that effectively means is that one show can bag the hell out of a political party/person and there is another show that tells everyone just how great they are.

A complaint can be made and it is treated by an independent body which can impose penalties and the like. The most recent case was with a 4 Corners show that dealt with the death of Allied forces by friendly fire. While it was considered as news in the public interest 4 Corners producers where taken to task over they way it was presented and there where penalties imposed. This however only applies to the ABC and not the commercial stations where it is anything goes in an attempt to get the ratings and more for advertising.

As far as complaints go anyone who is offended by something can make a complaint and even the commercial broadcasters have their own complaints division mainly this is about inappropriate advertisement content and the like or a Government member or the actual Government can make a complaint as well as the Opposition so it is basically an anyone offended by something is welcome to make a complaint.

The organization who handles the complaints is an independent body who has the finial say and is politically neutral in its makeup I think they call it the Australian Film and Telecommunications Review Board which while funded by the Federal Government isn’t controlled by them and any attempt by the Government of the day to influence the Board would have adverse consequences upon the Government as it would be bound to be reported by someone.

Col

No Such Thing

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

.
No, there’s no such thing as a totally unbiased media source. The answer, I believe is twofold. First of all, you have to see through the bias and/or recognize it for what it is, and then take it through the appropriate filters. And second is to get a good balance of information from a variety of sources.

Sure, read what the New York Times or Washington Post has to say, but ALSO read the Washington Times. Read Time and Newsweek, but also read the Weekly Standard and National Review. Watch CBS or ABC one day, but watch FOX News the next. And I’ve yet to see a local “newscast” that wasn’t dripping with enough fluff to fill a mattress.

Also, it’s important to separate news from opinion, and know the difference — AND separate BOTH from entertainment. (John Stewart?)

And media outside the USA is just as biased — or perhaps even more so. They’ve certainly got a dog in our hunt, and all one has to do is look at the Iraq situation and/or their take on President Bush over the past few years to see the foreign news bias.

It would be interesting to see opinions on the one and only MOST balanced and/or unbiased news source in the USA. However, people would only be showing their own bias in the process. For example, I’ve heard people say that NPR is “balanced”. Yea, right. If NPR is “balanced”, then apotheon is “logical”. Either they would be extremely far left to suggest such a thing or I am extremely far right not to see it. But NPR ain’t “balanced”.

There are three kinds of journalists:

1. Someone who sees an event and only reports on what he sees.

2. Someone who sees an event and reports on what he sees and what he thinks about it.

3. Someone who DOES NOT see an event and reports on what he doesn’t see and what he thinks about it.

Number 1s are few and far between. (And then you have to wonder if his “selective reporting” might be how the bias comes through.) But whatever you do, watch out for the number 3s. And they’re the ones who populate the majority of the media, at least in my estimation they do.

Right on all counts

In reply to No Such Thing

We’ve covered this topic in previous threads on this board, so I’ll be brief.

Among a plethora of reasons, there are two big ones that stand out as to why there’s absolutely no such thing as unbiased media:

1. The news business is exactly that…a business. The media is not in the business of reporting the news, they’re in the news business. Their raison d’etre is to get you to buy the newspaper, watch the newscast, listen to the radio, purchase the magazine. If they happen to actually get a fact or two straight, that’s cool…but not what they’re trying to accomplish.

2. The news media is composed of humans, not robots. Since we’ve not yet made contact with the Vulcans, every single word produced by a member of the news media goes through a human emotional filter. It’s not possible to eliminate bias in that context.

So, what should we do about this? Giving up on accessing the news media is not the answer. Be cynical, question everything, access as many sources as possible, synthesize the material you gather, and decide for yourself what’s true. It’s the best any of us can do.

NPR and Balance

In reply to No Such Thing

Max,

While I generally agree with what you posted, I do believe that NPR is the most balanced and least biased news source in the US.

So long as one looks at the news reports and ignores the commentary and talk shows. The talk shows in particular have a strong lean to the left.

There are a number of issues where NPR does report with a strong bias.

The NPR staff is strongly:
Pro Choice
Anti Death Penalty
Environmentalists

They do lean toward the left on most issues.

Still, I firmly believe that NPR is the least biased and most balanced of the US media sources.

There are 2 things we need to keep in mind about the media in general:

Traditionally, news reporters have come from the left. News gatherers were not as interested in making money as they were in informing the people. As the country grew, exposing scandal and corruption became a sure way to make ones mark as a reporter.
This trend was exacerbated in the early 70’s by the success of Woodward and Bernstein in bringing down the Nixon administration.
Since then, we have been cursed with a string of wan-a-bees looking to break the big story.

The US commercial media has always had a bias.
Back when most cities had more than 1 daily paper, one leaned to the left, and the other leaned to the right.
Now, most US commercial media sources are owned by conservative businessmen. The slant of the news coverage is chosen by either corporate ideology (Fox News and Clear Channel) or by what style generates the highest ratings (CBS, NBC, ABC).

There is a third factor for US commercial media.
Ratings and the resultant price they can charge for advertising is the primary goal. That is why the US mainstream media work so hard to make a major scandal out of every story.

Scandal leads to ratings.

Simply reporting the facts leads to the unemployment office.

Chas

unbiased media??? where?

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

what country doesn’t censor what gets broadcast?
( not the usa, as I have watched satelite feeds for bbc&cnn, and never seen the same footage shown in the us. )

literally no country doesn’t censor the meadi.
so even if an agency wasn’t biased to get the sales/ratings for use in advertising sales, they would have biased reporting.

Radio

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

Never watch the news unless what I’m watching is ‘interupted to bring you…..’ & I very seldom read a newspaper.

I get my news on the radio. Not so much because it’s unbiased…………but because they have a time limit.

Just the facts in 5 minutes or less LOL

then you

In reply to Radio

are getting headlines from local newspaper.
that is most often where all but news radio stations are getting the morning news.

That’s the only part that’s usually ‘truth’

In reply to then you

I’ve been to several press conferences.

What is said to the press and later presented is so distorted…………….it’s incredible.

The truth is (usually) nowhere to be found in the newspaper article or the ‘TV Show’.

Only if …

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

you can find one person who is both completely unbiased and wholly self-sufficient.

It’s a jig-saw-puzzle

In reply to Only if …

You won’t find unbiased information. Rather you’ll find bits and pieces of information everywhere around. It’s up to your own biases how uyo put the picture together. (I would like it if I could say I have an open mind, but I’m just as biased as anybody else) There isn’t ONE big fat THRUTH, there are 6 billion of them.

Tribute goes to Groucho Marx

Data vs Information vs Knowledge vs Understanding

In reply to It’s a jig-saw-puzzle

Oh, what a tangled web.

Even the best of us, with the fullest intent to be “un-biased,” oft times stumble by making the unconcious decision that we possess all of the relevant data, that said data represent real information rather than artifact, that we are reviewing the information within the proper context so as to constitute knowledge, and/or that our body of knowledge is sufficient toour understanding this new knowledge.

There is an ancient American Indian adage – As grows the circle of light, so grows the circle of darkness – which nicely describes the fact that to increase one’s knowledge is to also increase one’s awareness of an even greater ignorance.

No such animal

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

Either the reporter has a bias, the editor, the publisher or the owner. Usually all four.
Don’t trust any of them not even the dear old BBC. Watch all the ones that have news on them(excuse to skip fox), Learn what the bias is and hows it’s shown. If you’re going to use foreign news, remember the National bias as well. You won’t get a balanced view from Al Jazerira or CNN on Iraq, the shape of the truth will be somewhere in between, though you’ll be better off asking Proteus when he comes back, course you’ve got to remember his bias.
Should think some of mine might have slipped through in the above as well.

Unbiased media??? You’re kidding right???

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

Everyone has bias to one degree or other; you’re just bothered because you haven’t found a source yet in agreement with your particular bent. Cynicism is the order of the day. You cannot believe anything you read, see or hear unless you can determine what their interests are in the outcome. For example: many folks drink designer waters like “Evian” in the belief that it is healthier than tap water. The true cynic will tell you to spell “Evian” backwards.

Dawg ]:)

Wish i could award you 50 points for that…

In reply to Unbiased media??? You’re kidding right???

Wish i could award you 50 points for that…
But I’m a noob, so i don’t know how to do that.

Tribute goes to Steve Wozniak, hero of 8 bit computing

MSNBC

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

I was unfortunate to see this channel while in Chicago the other week. Having read around the same stories from other sources, and already being aware of some of the stories, I have come to this conclusions.

MSNBC = Total and complete b**ocks.

And what is it with news in the USA? I realise its a big country, but the proportion or news items relating to ‘the rest of the world’ is verging on non-existant!

Vacuum

In reply to MSNBC

The US is a vacuum, and therefore we are oblivious to any happenings outside. You mean you weren’t aware of this?

You mean we suck?

In reply to Vacuum

:0) This is exactly why Americans have NO idea what’s going on in other countries. Only those who take the time to SEARCH for information on global issues get anything. Our news agencies apparently don’t feel like we really need to know what’s going on in the rest of the world.

We’re not really arrogant, just clueless.

Speak for yourself

In reply to You mean we suck?

.
You said, “This is exactly why Americans have NO idea what’s going on in other countries.”

You said, “We’re not really arrogant, just clueless.”

Speak for yourself, please. Don’t include me with you in that that regard.

Now now…

In reply to Speak for yourself

Don’t get your panties all in a twist Maxwell. :p I was speaking of Americans [i]as a whole[/i] not necessarily you or myself. The vast majority of Americans TRUST their major news organizations to spoon-feed them the news that’s “most important” for them to know. They do NOT go LOOKING for news.

Why you always gotta be so dang LITERAL?!?!

Clueless – correct

In reply to Now now…

Jessie has to be correct – how else do you explain the unflinching beliefs and voracity of debate over in that evolution/creation thread eh?

But seriously, when I’ve been out there, I’ve found the news to be nothing short of disturbing. More so when things that were reported quite seriously in the UK (Fathers for Justice, was front page headline, big security implications for the Royal Family, what were the police doing, how could this happen etc etc) got played down as an ‘and finally’ report over there (“Look what those crazy Brits are doing now, some crazy would be Batmans trying to join the Queen for afternoon tea! No doubt he’ll be flying away to join Robin before long!”).

The evolution/creation thread

In reply to Clueless – correct

.
You’ll notice that I didn’t post any messages in that thread.

Max it was FUN in the beginning

In reply to Clueless – correct

But now it is totally out of hand and is getting scary. 🙂

What is worse now is that it is getting more contributions than it was when a lot more people where involved and they do tend to leave a lot to be desired. But what the HELL I’m breading up the “White Mice” so I can drown them all out. 😀

Col ]:)

Col

In reply to Clueless – correct

I have to assume it’s a typo and you’re “breeding” the white mice.

If you really are batter-coating and deep frying them then they will DESTROY you.

Neil

p.s. I’ve really, really stopped on the Evol thread. It’s just that MrMiami came back and I couldn’t resist the wind-up.

Actually Neil

In reply to Clueless – correct

I’m breeding the White Mice and then sending them away with cooking instructions. That will get the receivers into some much needed trouble when their creators come after them asking just why they are doing this. 😀

Col ]:)

A Recent Study

In reply to Anybody ever heard of an unbiased media?

.
(This message consists of excerpts cut and pasted from the linked source.)

By Claudia Parsons

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. media coverage of last year’s election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.

Source (And for the whole article):

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050314/2005-03-14T150130Z_01_N11229264_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MEDIA-REPORT-DC.html

Therefore. . . .

In reply to A Recent Study

.
Let’s break this down and look at it:

X = ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS.

Y = Fox

If the following is true:

“The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.”

Then 2X = Y

AND

X = Negative Bush stories

Y = Negative Kerry stories

And IF: “36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry”

Then 3Y = X

Where am I going with this?

Well, how can we mathematically compare the variables X and Y in the two different mathematical conclusions?

Okay……thinking out loud……therefore Y = X/3 and Y = 2X …..oh heck, that doesn’t make sense. I’d have to use different variables for one of the conclusions, I suppose, and them compare them.

Anyway, since I’m not a mathematics major, it appears to me that FOX might really be more “fair and balanced” than ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS.

Comments?

Can a conclusion be drawn from all this?

(Just having a little fun, of course.)

EDITED PART:

No, no, no – that’s not right. To be consistent with the variables, X would have to equal Negative Kerry stories, and Y would have to equal Negative Bush stories.

So

Y = Negative Bush stories

X = Negative Kerry stories

And IF: “36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry”

Then 3X = Y

Nope, that’s not right either. How can X equal both Y/3 AND Y/2…..

Maybe I’ll try it with A and B.

Joy of Simultaneous equations

In reply to Therefore. . . .

Max,

If I took a hard look at the numbers, I think I could work it out.

It would be much easier if we had the raw numbers from the study.

Anyhow, even with logic, we cannot conclude from the data that Fox news was more fair.
The data only proves that Fox News was more willing to show GWB in a positive light.

In order to draw any rational conclusions about bias from the studied media sources, we would need to know the substance and facts of the specific stories and features.

Look back at the news stories at the time of the campaign.
For that matter, look back at any campaign with an incumbent President.

By and large, it is much easier to report a negative story about the incumbent than it is to build a negative news story around the challenger.

No President in our lifetimes (well maybe Reagan) has been able to avoid negative views for their second term election.

There are very few things that any lawmaker can do that will not have a negative impact on someone.

As Harry Truman but it so well, “The Buck Stops Here”
Whether or not the President was directly involved, any negative story that can be tied to his administration becomes the President’s responsibility.

Chas

Chas – Just Having Some Fun

In reply to Joy of Simultaneous equations

.
Since the perception of media bias, whether it exists or not, and whether it’s biased one way or the other, is always, at best, subjective, it’s unlikely any consensus can ever be drawn.

If only there was a precise way to measure it….hmm…..mathematics is an exact science….hmm…..let’s put it to an equation and solve for X. (X is for Xtremely biased, of course.)

If only it could be so easy.

FOX News least biased?

In reply to Chas – Just Having Some Fun

http://www.umich.edu/~newsbias/institutional.html

Excerpt: [i]Upon further examination of FOX News it can be found that the owner of this media outlet News Corporation all of which is owned by K. Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is commonly associated with conservative politics and is often criticized for using his media outlets as a way of promoting his own political agendas. In a recent interview with Murdoch by MSN, Murdoch noted his favor for President Bush and the Iraqi war (citation). This exact viewpoint is the one often reported at FOX News. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that much of what is reported on at FOX News has a conservative slant.

Ownership of a media company does not necessarily mean that the owner?s political viewpoints are the same as those reflected in the media source; however, given Murdoch?s reputation and history it is reasonable to link FOX News and other Murdoch owned entities with the conservative political affiliation.[/i]

The fact that Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative toward GWB, when combined with the political leanings and reputation of the owner, proves the point that THEY are biased, not that everyone else is.

The mathematic equation for this one, would be better represented with $$$$.

Compare FOX and CBS

In reply to FOX News least biased?

.
Compare the “bias” shown by FOX with the “bias” shown by Dan Rathar and CBS.

Double Post – Ignore

In reply to FOX News least biased?

.
I knew you would look!

Yep, I looked.

In reply to Double Post – Ignore

I’ve never been one for blindly trusting what anyone says.

A silly statement

In reply to FOX News least biased?

.
You said, “The fact that Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative toward GWB, when combined with the political leanings and reputation of the owner, proves the point that THEY are biased, not that everyone else is.”

That’s your assertion, no more, no less. And it’s “proof” of nothing except what it stated as fact.

“reasonable to assume”?

In reply to FOX News least biased?

And you know what happens EVERYTIME you assume something.

Ok, lets take your example and apply it to the “other” outlets.

The fact that ALL OTHER News was twice as likely to be negative as positive toward GWB, when combined with the political leanings and reputation of the owner, proves the point that THEY are biased.

What about newspapers that announce support of Kerry? But that is different, right?

You cannot even claim that the other news outlets weren’t pro-Kerry and anti-Bush can you?

I saw more pro-Kerry stories on FOX than I saw pro-Bush stories on ANY other broadcast. And yes, during the election I was flipping non-stop to try to get a fuller picture of what everyone was saying about both of them. Sounds fair to me.

Which single network gives more equal time than FOX? Or do you just watch the channel that says what you like to hear?

Comedy Central

In reply to “reasonable to assume”?

Mostly I listened to NPR. BBC was very informative. It’s always good to know what other countries think of America’s policies.

The channel I ‘watched’ to get most of my political info (other than the debates, which were highly informative) was Comedy Central. Comedians are very good at poking fun at whomever is being an idiot… and it can be very informative. Of course, you don’t get the full story there either, but I think you get MORE of the story about BOTH sides, than from most other media sources.

The Daily Show with John Stewart, during the campaigns had both Republican and Democratic guests and the questions for either side were not just “fluff” to fill up a 5 minute time slot. Whoever was on, from either side, was allowed to get their point across, and the commentator (John Stewart) didn’t allow either side to get away with an attempt at pulling the wool. “Come on now, you can’t really say that [i]yada yada yada[/i] is the full story of what happened.” was heard frequently from him no matter the political affiliation of the guest.

Obviously media outlets that are going to back ANY candidate are NOT going to give you the full story of either candidate. What I’d REALLY prefer during a presidential campaign, is MORE debates. I want to know what each side’s plan is, where they truly stand on the issues, and how their records have backed that up. I do NOT want to hear name calling, “my opponent is against the war, therefore my opponent is anti-american” (para-phrasing Bush) or candidates turning the questions around trying to make their opponent look bad. If I ask YOU what YOUR plan is, I don’t want to hear, “My opponents plan is junk and it’s not going to work.” (paraphrasing Kerry) I want to hear what your ACTUAL plan is!!

In other words Jessie

In reply to “reasonable to assume”?

You want to see Honest Politicians? 😀 😀 😀 😀

Sorry it will never happen and never expect any Politician to answer a question that they don’t want to either at best you’ll get a 25 minute tirade of speech about nothing at all that the question that was asked was related to. 🙂

Col ]:)

Only SOME comedians

In reply to “reasonable to assume”?

Yes, John Stewart is a good job because he made fun of BOTH parties.

There were way too many aledged comedians that were rabid one way or the other and it was just hateful and sorry but hate is never funny to me (even when it was against someone I didn’t support).

I do get so amused when people go on about how biased FOX is, because they don’t agree with what is being said. These same people turn around and give a pass to every other news channel. Why is that?

Tell me your opinion of cspan and cnn. Are they unbiased?

If you listen to NPR for a full day, how balanced and unbiased is the broadcast? Do they give equal time to the other side of the story?

NOTE about Bush paraphrase. Bush NEVER questioned his patriotism or Amaricanism. He stated Kerry was WEAK on the international stances only.

Did others come out and openly question Kerry? Yes.
Was there ever more than a “We know Bush had them do it”? No.
The darn facts seem to be unimportant sometimes. Senator Kennedy was and is a disgrace. People like him will continue to make sure that the Republicans will win next time around.

Well, going to meet with my lawyer now. Have a great weekend all! I am out of here! (12:30 and out the door. I love it!)

The only unbiased source

In reply to “reasonable to assume”?

is me myself and I. When I discover something for myself, THEN I know I’m getting a completely unbiased view… and really not even then, because even if the information itself has no bias, my own past experiences will color how I interpret the information.

Even how I interpret bias, is biased… I’m more likely to see something as unbiased if it agrees with my own perceptions. If you tell me the sky is purple, and I can CLEARLY see that it’s red, my VIEW would be that you are biased, when one or the other of us may in fact be color blind…

Or Jessie

In reply to “reasonable to assume”?

The other person who is telling you that the sky is purple with pink polka dots is just trying to mess with your mind. 😉

Col ]:)

Or

In reply to “reasonable to assume”?

they are the ones that have learned to party better.

Don’t knock the purple haze.

[Author]

Replies