Media Bias

[Enhance]

18 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

In one of Jon Stewart's legendary conversations with Bill O'Reilly, he broke this down well. Basically, he said that of course his worldview (and the worldviews of people in journalism) will effect the way they see things. But there's a distinction between that and ideological or 'activist' news entertainment. They're different categories alltogether, which is why even if NPR is left leaning (because journalists are left-leaning folks generally) it's nowhere in the ballpark of Fox News/Breitbart/Jezebel/Young Turks.

To harken back to what a few others have said here recently, generally speaking, the most reliable form of news you find will be a text format without the words "opinion/editorial" next to it. Watching television news is generally more dicey, particularly any time monologues or group discussions are involved. At that point, you've often dissolved from "news" into opinion.

 

Not-so-hot take regarding the bolded: it's because the profession is almost entirely college educated. It is incredibly uncommon to become a professional journalist without a degree, and college graduates have been a strongly Democratic group for some time.

 

So I sometimes giggle a little about outright frustrations and claims of the 'media being liberally biased.' Like, no sh*t right? It nearly translates to me as "dammit... if they just weren't so educated!"

[Archy1221]

5 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The glacial pace around this and every other case involving Donald Trump is because the higher ups remain extremely skittish when it comes to turning findings into an actionable prosecution. 

I don’t doubt that (if they find actual evidence of a crime).  The same can be said for knapp’s concern about the pace of Hunter Biden (if they find actual evidence of a crime) 

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

To harken back to what a few others have said here recently, generally speaking, the most reliable form of news you find will be a text format without the words "opinion/editorial" next to it. Watching television news is generally more dicey, particularly any time monologues or group discussions are involved. At that point, you've often dissolved from "news" into opinion.

 

Not-so-hot take regarding the bolded: it's because the profession is almost entirely college educated. It is incredibly uncommon to become a professional journalist without a degree, and college graduates have been a strongly Democratic group for some time.

 

So I sometimes giggle a little about outright frustrations and claims of the 'media being liberally biased.' Like, no sh*t right? It nearly translates to me as "dammit... if they just weren't so educated!"

See, I think journalists are "left leaning" because it is the path of keeping a job.

 

Going against the "norm" in your profession is hard, in any profession and 99% of us just want a job and check.

 

It is sort of like punk rock bands...who hated everything "establishment" until that establishment started to pay them really well.

 

 

[JJ Husker]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t doubt that (if they find actual evidence of a crime).  The same can be said for knapp’s concern about the pace of Hunter Biden (if they find actual evidence of a crime) 

Out of curiosity, do you see any tangible difference between the POTUS committing crimes and the son of a VP/Presidential candidate committing crimes?

 

Do you think one of those should be a lot more important and worthy of more effort than the other?

[Archy1221]

25 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Out of curiosity, do you see any tangible difference between the POTUS committing crimes and the son of a VP/Presidential candidate committing crimes?

 

Do you think one of those should be a lot more important and worthy of more effort than the other?

Yes and yes.

 

I do think it’s a valid concern however to find out if Joe knew about what Hunter was allegedly doing.  

[JJ Husker]

16 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes and yes.

 

I do think it’s a valid concern however to find out if Joe knew about what Hunter was allegedly doing.  

I would agree with that but I find it somewhat amusing that so many like to pretend that they are of the same gravity and play whataboutism with the two issues.

[knapplc]

The son of a former VP potentially peddling influence for personal gain is noteworthy and should be prosecuted, if illegal. Criming should not go unpunished.

 

 

But let's focus on the fact that certain people are WAAAAAY more concerned with the potential that a former pol's kid did something illicit, and that those same people spill no ink over the literally dozens of potential criming's by an actual factual former White House office holder, or their (non-orange) children.

 

 

If you don't think Hunter is their new "but her emails" all you have to do is put your critical thinking hat on and ask yourself what would be the greater crime. What would be the greater scandal.

 

 

And when you land on the fact that the former bloated cheeto who occupied the Oval Office for four years is the greater scandal BY FAR, you don't have to ask any further why they focus on one thing and not the other.

 

 

But her his emails laptop. 

 

 

Fool me once.    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Danny Bateman]

21 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Maybe we should ask Uncle Joe why the investigation by his DOJ into his family is moving slow 

 

A bit late to the party, but man, this is such crap.

 

Compared to his predecessor, who kept installing a bunch of yes men as AG and basically asking them to do his bidding even when it ethically questionable or outright illegal, Biden picked Garland specifically because he's beyond reproach and cannot be considered in any way a partisan. And he's specifically and repeatedly stated the DOJ is independent and should operate as such - the polar opposite stance of his predecessor, who viewed it as an extension of his White House.

 

Not surprised that Garland continues getting slimed by the GOP to this day. It's not like they specialize in giving him a fair, unbiased shot.

 

@knapplc I still think it's nuts that the GOP is going full hog down the Hunter Biden rabbit hole and had absolutely nothing to say when Ivanka got a bunch of trademarks from the Chinese government in an egregiously blatant attempt to curry favor.

[Danny Bateman]

9 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

fwiw...Brietbart has taken a huge hit from its heyday but is still the #22 news and journalism website, with about 4.5 million monthly visitors. That's a fraction of CNN.com, but comparable to the WSJ, HuffPo and Forbes websites. The PBS News Hour gets about 1.2 million viewers per show. 

 

Industry analysts decline to call InfoWars a news site, but it does attract 10 million visitors a month. Alex Jones has made $165 million hawking supplements and doomsday prepper equipment. 

 

Millions of people are choosing to be absolute whackadoodle insane. 

 

Which begs the question... why? I'd be interested in learning more about the psychology behind diving into the ideological deep-end and becoming less and less tethered to factual reality. What is it that makes that appealing?

 

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

After I mentioned it a month or so ago, has anyone started watching BBC World News when wanting information on the war?

 

If so....thoughts?

 

Not so much watching but I've used BBC's website extensively for updates. They do a great job. The British media in general has a whole different tone than ours, much more objective and arguably a lot healthier.

[JJ Husker]

9 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Millions of people are choosing to be absolute whackadoodle insane. 

 

Which begs the question... why? I'd be interested in learning more about the psychology behind diving into the ideological deep-end and becoming less and less tethered to factual reality. What is it that makes that appealing?

 

Actually I think it’s pretty simple to figure out. I don’t think it requires a conscious decision to go completely bats#!t. All it takes is a predisposition to the far right and a dislike for the far left. Toss in some targeted and catered news and the brainwashing becomes complete. I’ve seen it in way too many otherwise reasonable people. I’m convinced it is brainwashing and not a conscious decision. The things they do have the freedom of choice on, their news consumption and education process has been severely distorted. Sure there is an element that just like being counterproductive dicks by choice but there is a much larger problem.

[BigRedBuster]

23 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Actually I think it’s pretty simple to figure out. I don’t think it requires a conscious decision to go completely bats#!t. All it takes is a predisposition to the far right and a dislike for the far left. Toss in some targeted and catered news and the brainwashing becomes complete. I’ve seen it in way too many otherwise reasonable people. I’m convinced it is brainwashing and not a conscious decision. The things they do have the freedom of choice on, their news consumption and education process has been severely distorted. Sure there is an element that just like being counterproductive dicks by choice but there is a much larger problem.

 

And, couple that with the fact that when someone starts going down that wackadoodle rabbit hole, many times people around them are either going down that hole also, or are uncomfortable with disagreeing or confronting the beliefs that the person is spewing.

 

So, they never really get pushback on their wacky beliefs to force them to start questioning it.

 

I've seen this a number of times.

[JJ Husker]

54 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

And, couple that with the fact that when someone starts going down that wackadoodle rabbit hole, many times people around them are either going down that hole also, or are uncomfortable with disagreeing or confronting the beliefs that the person is spewing.

 

So, they never really get pushback on their wacky beliefs to force them to start questioning it.

 

I've seen this a number of times.

Yep. I am actually guilty of this in one specific case. One of my best friends from HS, he and his wife have gone way down that rabbit hole. I’ve given them very mild pushback. Told them I actually voted for Joe this last election and they went into overdrive trying to show me the error of my ways. Their sources…straight from OAN and Fox News. More than anything it made me sad because I knew they would never be the same friends again.

 

This brain disease is also why I abhor Facebook and refuse to use it. A lot of my FB friends happen to be HS classmates and people who reside in Nebraska. A substantial portion of them have gone bats#!t far right on politics. (Ha, who woulda guessed that from middle Nebraska ). Anyway the crap a handful if them post everyday on FB just makes it not worth it for me.

[Enhance]

15 hours ago, teachercd said:

See, I think journalists are "left leaning" because it is the path of keeping a job.

No, that's not really a thing. And I can't say this without sounding pretentious, but I'm probably one of if not the only people on this board who has more than a decade of experience in the industry at varying professional levels and company sizes and can actually speak on the subject with first hand knowledge.

 

I know a prominent CNN journalist/analyst that many of you would probably recognize who is staunchly Republican. I also know several local Nebraska reporters/broadcasters that are staunchly Republican. The industry is more of a democratic bloc but there are actual, tangible reasons we can identify for why this is the case. And in the vast majority of cases, there is no initiative or movement in journalism that is in any way dependent upon political ideations. That's just speculative fodder.

 

Edit - sorry, one more thing, and it goes back to the comment about most people just wanting to collect a paycheck.

 

To be clear, I know there are movements in parts of the overall media to push certain political ideologies through coverage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that it does not happen to the degree some people seem to think, and it certainly does not influence job security for the vast majority of journalists. To your point, most journalists want to do their job and get a check. The overwhelming majority of them are not out to push any kind of agenda or stick to some pre-determined corporate ideology.

[JJ Husker]

22 minutes ago, Enhance said:

No, that's not really a thing. And I can't say this without sounding pretentious, but I'm probably one of if not the only people on this board who has more than a decade of experience in the industry at varying professional levels and company sizes and can actually speak on the subject with first hand knowledge.

 

I know a prominent CNN journalist/analyst that many of you would probably recognize who is staunchly Republican. I also know several local Nebraska reporters/broadcasters that are staunchly Republican. The industry is more of a democratic bloc but there are actual, tangible reasons we can identify for why this is the case. And in the vast majority of cases, there is no initiative or movement in journalism that is in any way dependent upon political ideations. That's just speculative fodder.

 

Edit - sorry, one more thing, and it goes back to the comment about most people just wanting to collect a paycheck.

 

To be clear, I know there are movements in parts of the overall media to push certain political ideologies through coverage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that it does not happen to the degree some people seem to think, and it certainly does not influence job security for the vast majority of journalists. To your point, most journalists want to do their job and get a check. The overwhelming majority of them are not out to push any kind of agenda or stick to some pre-determined corporate ideology.

But to teach’s point, it does appear that way from the outside. As you stated earlier, most journalists are college educated and tend to be more liberal. It’s sort of immaterial if they are just that way or if they’re trying to toe some nonexistent company line. The result for the consumer is much the same either way.

[teachercd]

44 minutes ago, Enhance said:

No, that's not really a thing. And I can't say this without sounding pretentious, but I'm probably one of if not the only people on this board who has more than a decade of experience in the industry at varying professional levels and company sizes and can actually speak on the subject with first hand knowledge.

 

I know a prominent CNN journalist/analyst that many of you would probably recognize who is staunchly Republican. I also know several local Nebraska reporters/broadcasters that are staunchly Republican. The industry is more of a democratic bloc but there are actual, tangible reasons we can identify for why this is the case. And in the vast majority of cases, there is no initiative or movement in journalism that is in any way dependent upon political ideations. That's just speculative fodder.

 

Edit - sorry, one more thing, and it goes back to the comment about most people just wanting to collect a paycheck.

 

To be clear, I know there are movements in parts of the overall media to push certain political ideologies through coverage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that it does not happen to the degree some people seem to think, and it certainly does not influence job security for the vast majority of journalists. To your point, most journalists want to do their job and get a check. The overwhelming majority of them are not out to push any kind of agenda or stick to some pre-determined corporate ideology.

This is sort of my point, it is not pre-determined.  They get hired or while interviewing they read the room and then blend in to get the job.  Once you build up enough "power", you can do what you want.

 

Not a journalist example but Howard Stern...he did it "his way" from the start and was canned all the time.  Most DJ's, at that time, just towed the company line even though I am sure many wanted to do other things.

 

I am not doubting you and what you say.  I just think people become chameleons.  I act different when I am at different schools or different coaching staffs.   I don't think it is a bad thing, it is a human condition thing.  It is why we study sociology because it is amazing to see how we change because of the world around us.

23 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

But to teach’s point, it does appear that way from the outside. As you stated earlier, most journalists are college educated and tend to be more liberal. It’s sort of immaterial if they are just that way or if they’re trying to toe some nonexistent company line. The result for the consumer is much the same either way.

You are wise beyond your years...and that is saying a lot with how old you are.