Media Bias

[nic]

Can’t find this on CNN. Front page on FOX. Capital police and protesters injured.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/protesters-take-over-inside-interior-department-demonstration-against-fossil-fuels-1639138

[nic]

Didn’t fit for liberal icon to criticize anthem protests.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088027/Katie-Couric-admits-editing-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-interview-protect-late-justice.html

 

[nic]

Call to throw away an objective press, but that was done long ago. No reason to pretend anymore.

 

Reporters from several outlets supported calls to end "both-siderism" in media with even harsher treatment of Republicans after another columnist decried covering Democrats too critically.

Los Angeles Times columnist Jackie Calmes published an opinion piece titled "Why journalists are failing the public with ‘both-siderism’ in political coverage." Calmes, a New York Times reporter before joining the Los Angeles Times, called out "journalistic pressure" to produce seemingly balanced stories that prevents journalists from reporting what she referred to as "the new truth."

[funhusker]

On 10/15/2021 at 7:47 PM, nic said:

Can’t find this on CNN. Front page on FOX. Capital police and protesters injured.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/protesters-take-over-inside-interior-department-demonstration-against-fossil-fuels-1639138

Anyone that assaulted a police officer or vandalized the buildings (looking at the lady pumping oil all over the place) should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

I would stop short of calling them traitors though.  

[nic]

9 hours ago, funhusker said:

Anyone that assaulted a police officer or vandalized the buildings (looking at the lady pumping oil all over the place) should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

I would stop short of calling them traitors though.  

I read a different article. Did Newsweek call them traitors? That makes no sense. Rioters works for me.

[nic]

Not sure if this was discussed when it happened, but Bari Weiss was in the news again recently so it made me think about it. 

She was hired by the Times to bring alternative viewpoints to the opinion pages, but ultimately resigned.

Interesting insight into part of today's media. Intro below. 

 

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

 

"I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

[Dr. Strangelove]

6 hours ago, nic said:

Call to throw away an objective press, but that was done long ago. No reason to pretend anymore.

 

Reporters from several outlets supported calls to end "both-siderism" in media with even harsher treatment of Republicans after another columnist decried covering Democrats too critically.

Los Angeles Times columnist Jackie Calmes published an opinion piece titled "Why journalists are failing the public with ‘both-siderism’ in political coverage." Calmes, a New York Times reporter before joining the Los Angeles Times, called out "journalistic pressure" to produce seemingly balanced stories that prevents journalists from reporting what she referred to as "the new truth."

Agreed, after the GOP destabilizing democracy by spreading unfounded claims about voting, causing untold harm to its main voting bloc with their rhetoric on masks and vaccines, and destroying the planet by dismissing science on climate change. 

 

Nobody should treat them seriously. 

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, nic said:

I read a different article. Did Newsweek call the, traitors? That make no sense. Rioters works for me.

Maybe I read too much into it.  I figured you were comparing these people to the people who invaded the Capital on Jan. 6th.  Those people are traitors, IMO.

[nic]

3 hours ago, funhusker said:

Maybe I read too much into it.  I figured you were comparing these people to the people who invaded the Capital on Jan. 6th.  Those people are traitors, IMO.

I was showing how different media outlets cover stories. I could do the same with Jan 6th. everyone did report on it, all with different opinions, and some let the story go. Others still report on it. I think media bias is not only shown by how a story is covered, but also when a news outlet decides not to report on it. I suppose every news organization has to decide what is news worthy and how much time to give the story, but I think news organizations make those decisions through bias.

[nic]

3 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Agreed, after the GOP destabilizing democracy by spreading unfounded claims about voting, causing untold harm to its main voting bloc with their rhetoric on masks and vaccines, and destroying the planet by dismissing science on climate change. 

 

Nobody should treat them seriously. 

At the risk of ignoring when the other side messes up?
 

I think the news media (all of it) is complicit in reporting favorably for whatever side of they are on and ignoring or downplaying unfavorable news. I was hoping for them to be government watchdogs, no matter who is in charge, but that ship has sailed. I will say that the Afghanistan withdrawal was fairly covered. Some snarky opinions, and lame excuses, but in general I was able to get the story and make my own call. 

Oh, and nobody should take any politician seriously. 

 

 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

12 hours ago, nic said:

At the risk of ignoring when the other side messes up?
 

I think the news media (all of it) is complicit in reporting favorably for whatever side of they are on and ignoring or downplaying unfavorable news. I was hoping for them to be government watchdogs, no matter who is in charge, but that ship has sailed. I will say that the Afghanistan withdrawal was fairly covered. Some snarky opinions, and lame excuses, but in general I was able to get the story and make my own call. 

Oh, and nobody should take any politician seriously. 

 

 

 

Well, the problem with wanting news media to report "accurately" is that this is based on perception. To some, Newsmax is the only "accurate" news source, to others it's MSNBC.

 

My point is that when it comes to comparing both sides of the political rhetoric, one is CLEARLY more harmful than the other. Is Biden, Newsome, or other Democrat politician ignoring mask mandates annoying? Absolutely. Looks dumb too. But are people dying as a result? No.

 

Is the Republican rhetoric on vaccines/masks dumb and annoying? Absolutely. Are people dying as a result? Yes. 

 

Do you see how these are different? Let's not act like the actions of "both sides" are equal. They are not. One is annoying, the other is actively bringing harm to people. 

[nic]

On 10/19/2021 at 6:35 AM, Dr. Strangelove said:

Well, the problem with wanting news media to report "accurately" is that this is based on perception. To some, Newsmax is the only "accurate" news source, to others it's MSNBC.

This is a good example. I would add that when politicians ignore their own mandates it adds fuel for those who do not want to follow them.  

I do not know much about Newsmax except I heard a person once say that FOXs is now liberal so they turned to Newsmax. 

If there was a news organization out there the actually investigated a story, backed it up with credible (not anonymous) witnesses and just presented the facts without opinion or bias, they would be the #1 on TV and it wouldn’t be close. Real journalism is on life support, and the ideas presented in this opinion piece aren’t going to help.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, nic said:

If there was a news organization out there the actually investigated a story, backed it up with credible (not anonymous) witnesses and just presented the facts without opinion or bias, they would be the #1 on TV and it wouldn’t be close. Real journalism is on life support, and the ideas presented in this opinion piece aren’t going to help.

No, they wouldn't. Investigating and real journalism takes time, which is the opposite of what people watch for news. Getting eyeballs and clicks means going with the fastest, most "breaking news" regardless of accuracy.

 

And even if there was news that was fast and accurate, many people want the news to reinforce their existing beliefs and not have to have their views challenged.

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, nic said:

If there was a news organization out there the actually investigated a story, backed it up with credible (not anonymous) witnesses and just presented the facts without opinion or bias, they would be the #1 on TV and it wouldn’t be close. Real journalism is on life support, and the ideas presented in this opinion piece aren’t going to help.

 

That's not true at all. There's a reason Fox is #1 - people eat up the sensationalism. They're being fed the outrage they feel in their hearts and it's a ratings bonanza. 

 

There actually is a news organization that meets the criteria you describe. Problem is, it's labeled "left-wing" and dismissed entirely by conservatives. It's called NPR.

[Dr. Strangelove]

30 minutes ago, nic said:

This is a good example. I would add that when politicians ignore their own mandates it adds fuel for those who do not want to follow them.  

I do not know much about Newsmax except I heard a person once say that FOXs is now liberal so they turned to Newsmax. 

If there was a news organization out there the actually investigated a story, backed it up with credible (not anonymous) witnesses and just presented the facts without opinion or bias, they would be the #1 on TV and it wouldn’t be close. Real journalism is on life support, and the ideas presented in this opinion piece aren’t going to help.

If by reporting facts you mean talking about a scientific consensus that humans cause Climate Change, masks are safe and effective at mitigating the spread of disease, vaccines save lives, etc?

 

Would you consider a news source with that reporting liberal or conservative?