Media Bias

[Archy1221]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The problem is people who believe that Rachel Maddow is the left's equivalent to Sean Hannity. 

 

The left's equivalent to Sean Hannity is a bi-polar street prophet raging on a Berkeley street corner. When it comes to extremism, the far right has a far more mainstream voice than the far left. If you've ever spent any time with the far left, you know they loath Maddow and MSNBC. What we're calling the more mainstream right is a lot farther right than it used to be, and today's mainstream Democrats could have passed themselves off as Republicans in decades past. If we're talking straight up factual reporting, the facts are biased towards the liberal POV in most cases. That millions of Americans believe the stolen election conspiracy theory suggest rightwing media still prevails without the facts. Scary s#!t. 

 

Bias has always been there, but Trump really ups the ante. There are so many reasons to hate and distrust this President, and the most damning evidence is coming from former supporters who confirm his dangerous incompetence. So the anti-Trump "bias" is shared by people with the best inside information, but half of them don't say anything in public to protect themselves and their political affiliation. In two weeks the Presidents enablers will magically transform into people with grave reservations about Donald Trump. They will translate those grave reservations into book deals, and go on liberal media to promote them. 

 

Does the mainstream media simultaneously protect Biden? Perhaps more than good journalists should?  Yeah. They probably do. Proceed with caution. 

 

 

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The problem is people who believe that Rachel Maddow is the left's equivalent to Sean Hannity. 

 

The left's equivalent to Sean Hannity is a bi-polar street prophet raging on a Berkeley street corner. When it comes to extremism, the far right has a far more mainstream voice than the far left. If you've ever spent any time with the far left, you know they loath Maddow and MSNBC. What we're calling the more mainstream right is a lot farther right than it used to be, and today's mainstream Democrats could have passed themselves off as Republicans in decades past. If we're talking straight up factual reporting, the facts are biased towards the liberal POV in most cases. That millions of Americans believe the stolen election conspiracy theory suggest rightwing media still prevails without the facts. Scary s#!t. 

 

Bias has always been there, but Trump really ups the ante. There are so many reasons to hate and distrust this President, and the most damning evidence is coming from former supporters who confirm his dangerous incompetence. So the anti-Trump "bias" is shared by people with the best inside information, but half of them don't say anything in public to protect themselves and their political affiliation. In two weeks the Presidents enablers will magically transform into people with grave reservations about Donald Trump. They will translate those grave reservations into book deals, and go on liberal media to promote them. 

 

Does the mainstream media simultaneously protect Biden? Perhaps more than good journalists should?  Yeah. They probably do. Proceed with caution. 

 

 

There is no universe that would believe Hannity , Ingraham, Maddow, Reid, Lawrence, Lemon are not the same, just opposite sides of the spectrum.  We know who they are and what their angle is always going to be.  
 

People like Tucker and Cooper will actually push back on their own side from time to time so I put them in a different category.  
 

The cable daytime “news” anchors and CBS, ABC, NBC, Correspondents are the ones to watch out for.  They claim to only present the news in a non-partisan way and they couldn’t be further from the truth in not only their reporting, but their social media, and their political donations.  

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Does the mainstream media simultaneously protect Biden? Perhaps more than good journalists should?  Yeah. They probably do. Proceed with caution. 

Agree much of this, Guy (only quoted this portion for brevity's sake).

 

Biden will likely get a much more fair shake in the media overall the next four years, but it makes sense. He's not bombastic, he doesn't think the media is the 'single greatest enemy' of the U.S., and he generally speaks intelligently even if you don't agree with what he's saying. We can't say any of that about Trump.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Biden will likely get a much more fair shake in the media overall the next four years, but it makes sense.

It doesn’t make sense.  I can’t imagine any reason for the media to not be fair no matter who they are covering.  I’m not a journalist but that seems pretty basic 101 stuff.  Because Trump was a jerk, or any Republican for that matter, to the media doesn’t give them reason to report on him unfairly.  

[Enhance]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

There is no universe that would believe Hannity , Ingraham, Maddow, Reid, Lawrence, Lemon are not the same, just opposite sides of the spectrum.  We know who they are and what their angle is always going to be.  
 

People like Tucker and Cooper will actually push back on their own side from time to time so I put them in a different category.  
 

The cable daytime “news” anchors and CBS, ABC, NBC, Correspondents are the ones to watch out for.  They claim to only present the news in a non-partisan way and they couldn’t be further from the truth in not only their reporting, but their social media, and their political donations.  

They're all pretty worthless to me and I don't give any of them much attention. I think some are worse than others, but I also think cancer and heart disease both suck. I don't necessarily want to argue which one I'd rather have.

 

One of the biggest issues with mainstream television media is that blurred line between news reporting and editorialism. Much of what we see nowadays on these stations isn't "news." It's more... newsnalysispinion. And it's hard to wade through it. Furthermore, we have to take into account that this is what people want to watch and pay attention to. People aren't sitting down to read an AP article in its entirety. They're watching 90 second clips of Hannity or Lemon spot off about something while they loosely explain the news of the days.

 

There's a time and a place for editorialism. I like editorialism. But there's a time and a place for it. People would be in a much better place mentally if they read their local news sources or just actually read something once in awhile vs. scrolling through social media for some hot take with 200k likes.

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It doesn’t make sense.  I can’t imagine any reason for the media to not be fair no matter who they are covering.  I’m not a journalist but that seems pretty basic 101 stuff.  Because Trump was a jerk, or any Republican for that matter, to the media doesn’t give them reason to report on him unfairly.  

I mean, I outlined the exact reasons why.

 

The media is managed by human beings, just like any other industry. If someone important to your organization treated you like complete trash for four years and was a constant liar, and then someone new wasn't any of those things, the human condition would naturally align you more with the other person.

 

I'm not defending the situation. And there are A LOT of good journalists out there who keep their emotions at bay and report things objectively. But there are also a lot that don't.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Enhance said:

 

One of the biggest issues with mainstream television media is that blurred line between news reporting and editorialism. Much of what we see nowadays on these stations isn't "news." It's more... newsnalysispinion. And it's hard to wade through it.

Completely agree here.  Straight news is now narrated far too often instead of presented as is.  

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I mean, I outlined the exact reasons why.

 

The media is managed by human beings, just like any other industry. If someone important to your organization treated you like complete trash for four years, and then someone new didn't, the human condition would naturally align you more with the other person.

 

I'm not defending the situation. And there are A LOT of good journalists out there who keep their emotions at bay and report things objectively. But there are also a lot that don't.

One would think Professionalism would play a more prominent role for journalists rather than change their standards because their feelings were hurt. 

[JJ Husker]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

One would think Professionalism would play a more prominent role for journalists rather than change their standards because their feelings were hurt. 

Where have you been for the last 20 years (longer)? Sure, in a perfect world the media would be completely unbiased and report only facts. We don’t live in that Utopia. @Enhance explained why things are not that way and it isn’t hard to understand. People (every single one) have flaws and biases. Many do act with professionalism to mitigate their biases but some do not. The key is recognizing who is better at it and who isn’t and then consuming your news accordingly.

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

One would think Professionalism would play a more prominent role for journalists rather than change their standards because their feelings were hurt. 

Unless you're close to unlocking the secret to full human potential and perfection, I don't know what to tell you. The media is managed by human beings. Human beings make mistakes and have biases. There are a lot of good journalists and organizations out there doing the right things and reporting news objectively with consistency. There are a lot of others out there that aren't. Find me a career field that doesn't have faults and always meets its standards of professionalism and I'll find you a rainbow unicorn.

 

That's why citizens have a responsibility in this, too. It's up to the people to stay informed and make good choices, too. Only plebs listen to what's being told to them without any critical thought. People should check more than one source. They should pay attention for key words and phrases that make something opinion instead of journalism. They should turn off Facebook and TV and actually pick up a paper or a digital newspaper every once in awhile. The trouble is, a lot of people don't want to do any of that.

[commando]

the Fox news talking heads of the night showed immense bias in not calling out trump for his treasonous acts ...they actually blamed the liberals for the violence trump incited.

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It doesn’t make sense.  I can’t imagine any reason for the media to not be fair no matter who they are covering.  I’m not a journalist but that seems pretty basic 101 stuff.  Because Trump was a jerk, or any Republican for that matter, to the media doesn’t give them reason to report on him unfairly.  

 

I've been a journalist. Went to the J-School at UNL. Journalism 101 is that you get multiple sides to a story from the most authoritative source who will talk to you. Because these sources are so valuable,  you can't afford to piss them off by willfully misrepresenting them. Once you have their side of the story, you vet the claims through research, sometimes consulting  less-partisan experts on the given subject. When a passionate quote doesn't align with a verifiable fact, you're obliged to report it.  There may be two sides to a story, but that doesn't mean they are equal. That's why you're a reporter, not a stenographer. 

 

Journalists tend to be well-educated, genuinely curious, and obsessed with getting inside information. If a majority of people in this profession lean in one direction, chances are it's closer to the truth. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Where have you been for the last 20 years (longer)? Sure, in a perfect world the media would be completely unbiased and report only facts. We don’t live in that Utopia. @Enhance explained why things are not that way and it isn’t hard to understand. People (every single one) have flaws and biases. Many do act with professionalism to mitigate their biases but some do not. The key is recognizing who is better at it and who isn’t and then consuming your news accordingly.

 

What's happened in the last 20 years has been a profit model that replaces expensive boots on the ground reporting with relatively cheap talking heads. Competing 24/7 news channels changed everything. Some of that's on us. We really do consume the Good Guy/Bad Guy s#!t. 

 

But that's cable television. Forget about it. There's been plenty of outstanding reporting going on in print publications and their digital channels, and frankly Twitter out-reported CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all day Wednesday. It's a bit chaotic at the moment, but if you avoid the temptation to post breaking news before vetting it, there's a lot of truth out there.