posted
Does anyone here think that -regardless of who ends up getting elected- we are better off without a free and unbiased media?
Regardless of the truth of the situation, if the public perception alone is that -right or wrong- Obama may only have won the presidency because of the overwhelming support of the hard news establishment, haven't we lost what is perhaps the largest element of what makes us an independent nation?
Isn't this true even if the media as a whole gives one political party/candidate any degree of advantage whatsoever, especially considering how narrowly our elections are decided?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whatever their faults - and they are plenty - a free and open media is often the only thing that catches malfeasance, shines light on shady doings, and fact-checks political claims. The alternative is to blindly believe whatever anyone in government tells us, and that is plainly nonsensical no matter what the party.
Also? I don't think that "public perception" is that the media was in the tank for Obama. I think many McCain supporters have that perception. There's a difference. Me, I think some reporters were, some weren't, and some reported on what they saw. McCain ran a lousy campaign, plain and simple. To report otherwise would be to distort the truth. And I say this as someone who respected McCain, liked him a great deal, and was really looking forward to this campaign before he decided that winning was more important than his own integrity.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I have often been frustrated with the media, but not because they seem to prefer one political candidate to the other. Sometimes the facts create a clear divide and to try to represent two sides as if they have equal merit would be a lie. I think this is such an election.
My problem with the media is that they are controlled by a small number of very wealthy people who don't always report all the badness that's happening in our country....they don't always question our leaders enough...they certainly don't question their buddies in power hard enough. I actually want MORE truth which, might make them seem MORE biased. Whatever happened to serious investigative journalism?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you guys see that you are arguing my point? Christine, if the media are "controlled by a small number of very wealthy people," then that means they are lacking some degree of independence. Chris, I agree that "a free and open media is often the only thing that catches malfeasance, shines light on shady doings, and fact-checks political claims," and that *one* "alternative is to blindly believe whatever anyone in government tells us, and that is plainly nonsensical no matter what the party."
Re-read my original post. Nevermind that I mention Obama; it could be anyone. Whoever is responsible, however it might have happened, if the media is viewed as being in the tank for a certain candidate and may have some responsibility for swaying an election in one direction or the other, then haven't we lost what is perhaps our only true resource of independence?
To anticipate possible responses: yes, we have unprecedented access to information via the web. But don't we require an independent filter of information to ensure that we get the whole picture? Leave it to me, and I'm only going to find Ann Coulter-ish viewpoints.
I need someone to show me alternative viewpoints, presented without an agenda. When was the last time I got that? Certainly not while watching O'Reilly. I get plenty of alternative viewpoints, but they come from the likes of Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, and most of my professors and classmates. And I'm not looking at those viewpoints objectively because I know of the biased view from which they originate.
I read papers, magazine articles, and online reports. On rare occasion, I find myself finishing a politically charged report with an indeterminate and possibly non-existent slant. When this happens, it is like moisture in a desert. We need this. Without it we are dying.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, the perception is not the media's fault (at least, not when it's undeserved).
And there has never, in the history of media, been an unbiased media. It's not like we had a golden age of slant-free reporting that's suddenly gone away. Read some newspapers from the Civil War era and you'll think CNN and FOX News are the height of genteel fairness. Your best bet is to do what you're doing, and read from as wide a source as possible to try and distill some sort of truth.
If we were to accept your premise, what would you have us do?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Re-read my original post. Nevermind that I mention Obama; it could be anyone. Whoever is responsible, however it might have happened, if the media is viewed as being in the tank for a certain candidate and may have some responsibility for swaying an election in one direction or the other, then haven't we lost what is perhaps our only true resource of independence?
No! The media is supposed to be biased. I was trying to say that their lack of bias is really my problem with them. So they favor Obama over McCain. That's not a hard viewpoint to take and the only way to make both of those candidates sound even would be to completely ignore reality. Part of the problem here is that we've internalized the two parties to be equal and opposite. They are neither one of those things.
How about this for media bias? The assumption that the two major party candidates are the only option. If the media ever decided an independent or third party candidate was viable, they'd have a real shot. There were 3 other candidates on my ballot -- Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. Why doesn't the media give them equal credence and access time? They don't even get the time of day.
quote: I need someone to show me alternative viewpoints, presented without an agenda.
I like alternative viewpoints, but I'm going to assume that those viewpoints come with an agenda. How could they not? We've never had an unbiased media nor should we.
No, the only problem with our media is the monopoly -- NOT the bias. I'd like to see more viewpoints -- more extremely biased viewpoints. I'd even like to see someone, sometimes, throw their voice behind a little known issue or candidate. That's the way it's supposed to work.
So I guess I agree with you that the media is broken. I disagree with you about bias being the problem.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And there has never, in the history of media, been an unbiased media. It's not like we had a golden age of slant-free reporting that's suddenly gone away."
Bias cannot exist without ignorance. It would be like a human existing without air. Ignorance is natural. It takes centuries if not millennia for it to be dispelled. We are not perfectly knowledgable now, but we are more so than during the Civil War. The more connected the world is, via media like the internet, radio, television, etc., the less ignorance is possible, all other things being equal. "The media" isn't separate from you or me. Its members went to school with us, grew up in our neighborhoods, breathe our air, watch the same tv shows, in many cases, etc., etc. If we are ignorant, they will be too. As far as I am concerned, there are no big shortcuts to an unbiased media, because bias can only exist to the degree that ignorance allows. IOW? When you are perfectly aware and unbiased, they will be too, right around the same time.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I agree that the media in general has never been completely bias-free. But there was a time when at least the representation of objectivity was perhaps the most highly prized trait of a journalist, and a media institution as a whole. Taking sides was strictly reserved for the editorial page. Moreover, it was believed that the best way to achieve that appearance was to actually strive for objectivity. They still teach it in schools today; recognize you own biases and make efforts to keep them in check. When this was in effect, slanted reportage stood out like a sore thumb.
The media landscape looks nothing like that today. Not only are the major news outlets blatant about their slant -with practically a winking allusion to objectivity- but you have people like Christine who think this is a good thing!!! Only because they slant the right way, of course. Those media outlets out-and-out favoring Obama are doing it because they are correct to do so, because Obama is the good candidate. But those nasty right-leaning outlets are trying to scam the American people into buying the lies that McCain is selling. Right, Christine?
This is what I'm talking about.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Isn't this true even if the media as a whole gives one political party/candidate any degree of advantage whatsoever, especially considering how narrowly our elections are decided?
No. Give me the keys, you're not safe to drive.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm blowing up your words, Christine. You say that the media "favor Obama over McCain. That's not a hard viewpoint to take and the only way to make both of those candidates sound even would be to completely ignore reality." So correct me if I'm wrong in taking that to mean that they favor Obama because to do otherwise would be to ignore the fact that Obama is simply a better candidate, pure and simple.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Isn't this true even if the media as a whole gives one political party/candidate any degree of advantage whatsoever, especially considering how narrowly our elections are decided?
No. Give me the keys, you're not safe to drive.
I must be drunk to even propose a thought, Orincoro? Do you think you're part of the conversation when you say things like that?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ok, I agree that the media in general has never been completely bias-free. But there was a time when at least the representation of objectivity was perhaps the most highly prized trait of a journalist, and a media institution as a whole. Taking sides was strictly reserved for the editorial page. Moreover, it was believed that the best way to achieve that appearance was to actually strive for objectivity. They still teach it in schools today; recognize you own biases and make efforts to keep them in check. When this was in effect, slanted reportage stood out like a sore thumb.
The media landscape looks nothing like that today. Not only are the major news outlets blatant about their slant -with practically a winking allusion to objectivity- but you have people like Christine who think this is a good thing!!! Only because they slant the right way, of course. Those media outlets out-and-out favoring Obama are doing it because they are correct to do so, because Obama is the good candidate. But those nasty right-leaning outlets are trying to scam the American people into buying the lies that McCain is selling. Right, Christine?
This is what I'm talking about.
What evidence to you have to back this sweeping claim? And just where in hell do you think the media comes from? Planet Bipartisan Objectivius? They're all people. You're just sore because things aren't working out the way you want them to.
Newspapers, at one time the primary source of national news, were at one time owned and operated by the political parties, with a very clear political bias. I personally don't think that has changed much, or will ever change. But neither will the fact that there will be armies of whiners like you from now until the end of time, talking about the way thing used to be in this country. God forbid we should see those who agree with us as being more reliable than those who don't... there's NOTHING in our daily experiences that would EVER lead us to make that kind of conclusion.
But I have a suggestion. Pick the reliable and trustworthy sources that you prefer. Recommend them to friends. Buy their products, and quit moaning about everyone else.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media landscape looks nothing like that today. Not only are the major news outlets blatant about their slant -with practically a winking allusion to objectivity-...
Dude, the whole country is like that today, most especially including politicians. Politics became noticeably more partisan in the 90s. Blame it on what you want, but it definitely did. Stop separating yourself from the media. You are them. They are you. Do you somehow come from a different culture? We all have access to approximately the same info. Nobody reads/listens to it all, but it's available.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anything my problem is with the media striving too hard for objectivity.
If McCain were to say that the sky was orange, and Obama were to say the sky was blue, they'd say "Today the candidates traded fierce barbs and rhetoric over aerial composition."
They wouldn't just come out and say that Obama was right and McCain was wrong. It works the other way too. Their overwhelming need to present both sides as if they were automatically balanced out of fear that it'll look like they are supporting one side over the other is really robbing us of something. Instead of slapping down the most vile attacks from either side, they solidify them and lend them credence.
Regardless Resh, I don't grant the premise that the media is in fact "in the tank" for Obama. I really don't. I think coverage of him has been more favorable because he's run a better campaign, and I think coverage of McCain has been bad because he's run a truly awful campaign. If anything the media has helped McCain to a ridiculous degree by making the election about Obama's useless connections to people like Ayers when it should be about policy issues. Without that, McCain would be even further behind.
When you cover something that sucks, you're under no journalistic obligation to portray it as not sucking. Doing so is precisely what I was complaining about at the top of this post.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just even more ironic for people do continue making this claim in the internet age- in which any resourceful and interested person can publish all the news, of any kind, he or she could ever want. It's nobody's fault if they don't attract readership. Republicans want to be capitalists with a communist press. That's deliciously ironic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Isn't this true even if the media as a whole gives one political party/candidate any degree of advantage whatsoever, especially considering how narrowly our elections are decided?
No. Give me the keys, you're not safe to drive.
I must be drunk to even propose a thought, Orincoro? Do you think you're part of the conversation when you say things like that?
You must be drunk to believe that everyone is going to sit and deal carefully with the stupidest and least effectual attempts at political spin anybody can muster. Honestly, your level of insight is disturbing. But, I suppose Hatrack should be fair to all your poorly thought out claims and prescriptions for the nation.
Honestly, I'm starting to feel like McCain is training everyone in America on the art of whining ineffectually about nothing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The media landscape looks nothing like that today. Not only are the major news outlets blatant about their slant -with practically a winking allusion to objectivity-...
Dude, the whole country is like that today, most especially including politicians. Politics became noticeably more partisan in the 90s. Blame it on what you want, but it definitely did. Stop separating yourself from the media. You are them. They are you. Do you somehow come from a different culture? We all have access to approximately the same info. Nobody reads/listens to it all, but it's available.
Which is why media bias is starting to matter less and less. As access to information/communication becomes greater, the biases will actually become narrower. As stated somewhere above, we're basically all working with the same notes.
Actually, this concept is the basis to my argument that elections matter less and less every term. Do you think there are as many differences in candidates today as there were in say, the 1800s? I sincerely doubt it.
The things that the parties disagree on are becoming far more arbitrary as we gain more information as a nation/species. Think of all the rights that we have today and couldn't imagine life without. Women suffrage, for instance. Now remember that at one point, that very subject was hugely debated and arguments against it were seriously considered. Now think of the things they debate about now?
I think a politician from the colonial days would look at today's elections and scratch his head wondering what all the fuss is about... I mean hell... they agree on everything that MATTERS.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You anr Christine appear to be on the same page, Lyrhawn. Imagine you are a journalist. You look at the two, and it is readily apparent that Obama is simply running a better campaign, is more gracious than McCain, is all kinds of things good where McCain just isn't up to snuff. If you consider yourself a good journalist, you're gonna report it like you see it, and so it's not your fault that your reporting favors Obama and not McCain.
You'd be one of a very large majority who see this obvious truth and are just trying to be honest reporters. It's too bad that all this clamor for equal presentation is forcing some to make absolutely ridiculous concessions just for the sake of balanced coverage. I mean, these reporters are sacrificing their own integrity because of some misguided notion of fairness, and really, they're doing a disservice to the people because the people end up thinking that the two candidates are actually comparable in quality, political differences notwithstanding.
That's the arrogant, elitist attitude that permeates the media today. The journalists don't feel like they need to be balanced because balance is a myth when it comes to these candidates. But that's their opinion, and they are no more qualified than you or I to make such a judgment. There job should be to report the objective facts. To make a claim as to who is better is a subjective belief, and reporting anything with the attitude that one's subjective belief is an objective fact is conceit of the highest order.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Isn't this true even if the media as a whole gives one political party/candidate any degree of advantage whatsoever, especially considering how narrowly our elections are decided?
No. Give me the keys, you're not safe to drive.
I must be drunk to even propose a thought, Orincoro? Do you think you're part of the conversation when you say things like that?
You must be drunk to believe that everyone is going to sit and deal carefully with the stupidest and least effectual attempts at political spin anybody can muster. Honestly, your level of insight is disturbing. But, I suppose Hatrack should be fair to all your poorly thought out claims and prescriptions for the nation.
Honestly, I'm starting to feel like McCain is training everyone in America on the art of whining ineffectually about nothing.
Orincoro, you are as self-aware as a ferret. You're blind to your own ignorance. Just go away and don't talk to me anymore.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Which is why media bias is starting to matter less and less. As access to information/communication becomes greater, the biases will actually become narrower. As stated somewhere above, we're basically all working with the same notes.
Actually, this concept is the basis to my argument that elections matter less and less every term. Do you think there are as many differences in candidates today as there were in say, the 1800s? I sincerely doubt it.
The things that the parties disagree on are becoming far more arbitrary as we gain more information as a nation/species. Think of all the rights that we have today and couldn't imagine life without. Women suffrage, for instance. Now remember that at one point, that very subject was hugely debated and arguments against it were seriously considered. Now think of the things they debate about now?
I think a politician from the colonial days would look at today's elections and scratch his head wondering what all the fuss is about... I mean hell... they agree on everything that MATTERS.
Aside from the last statement, I think everything you say here is true. I mean, at one point we had one side for slavery, and one side against. Now we have one side for cutting taxes on everyone, and one side for cutting taxes on everyone except for 5% of the population (if you believe that nonsense, which I don't.)
One exception: Abortion. If... if the right is right on that issue, then what is at stake here is potentially more monstrous than slavery.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now we have one side for cutting taxes on everyone, and one side for cutting taxes on everyone except for 5% of the population (if you believe that nonsense, which I don't.)
In what sense don't you believe it?
You put up abortion as the strongest difference, and maybe it is, if there could be some sort of official determination made that the right is correct on it. But we'll never be able to come up with any true answer, it's all opinion. But there are several other issues of extreme disagreement. A lot of liberals think conservatives are either actively, or through their negligence, trying to destroy the world we live in, either through aggressively destructive foreign policy or through an utter lack of care for the environment around us. Personally I don't assign active intentions that often; I think it's pure negligence. And if you think those are small things, then maybe you should try harder to understand the other side as much as you'd like others to understand yours.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware that Abortion was really a huge debate anymore. It's legal, and that isn't likely to change. They're just arguing over the details now, such as when and how you can do it.
I think the only way it's likely to change would be if the US/Humanity faced a major crisis that wiped out a large majority of the human population. Otherwise, it just doesn't directly effect enough people to advance higher than the Political level via religion.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'll never be over so long as people believe it to be as evil as it might possibly be. I find the mere possibility of its evil enough to be vehemently opposed to it. It's legal, but it isn't Law. Legislation was never enacted making it legal; it was mandated by judges overstepping their jurisdiction.
I don't believe Obama only wants to raise taxes on the top 5% because the first thing he will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts. Whether you agree with the fairness of those cuts or not, the fact is that they were cuts for a lot more than just 5% percent. Phrase it however you like, a lot of people will be paying higher taxes once Obama takes office.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: How self-aware is a ferret? I just want to know the degree to which your trying to insult.
I did a little google-fu about ferrets. They're kind of cute. I'd kind of like one. They're also good for hunting rabbits. Not a bad pet after all!
Can I buy you another beer Resh?
More self-aware than an ant, but less so than a moose.
Actually, I think I'm comparing three different animals here with varying degrees of zero self-awareness. So it really doesn't matter.
The degree to which I'm trying to insult? Nowhere near as much as you have been insulting me. So buy yourself a beer and take comfort in your ignorance and internet anonymity.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've posted my name and location many times on this forum. Have you? (honest question).
It wouldn't take much work at all for you to find out who I am and where I live. In fact, I might tell you if you asked me.
Now, "varying degrees of zero" is an interesting turn of phrase. We can use it to describe the amount of sense you have been making.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about using it to describe the amount of interest I have in you right now? Leave me alone, please. You and I have nothing to talk about.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: And there has never, in the history of media, been an unbiased media. It's not like we had a golden age of slant-free reporting that's suddenly gone away. Read some newspapers from the Civil War era and you'll think CNN and FOX News are the height of genteel fairness. Your best bet is to do what you're doing, and read from as wide a source as possible to try and distill some sort of truth.
No words more true have ever been spoken.
That fact of the matter is that the consumer of the news still has the burden...or the privilege IMO...of determining which account of events to believe. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased opinion, and hot button topics such as religion and politics often come down to personal beliefs and moral choices.
The media has a responsibility to present as objective view as possible, but I don't expect them to spoon feed me, and I don't let them make my choices for me.
That is why the individual gets to vote, not media organizations.
AS far as the abortion issue...not about the right or wrong of it, just about the political ramifications....it is VERY much an issue, and it could be decided for the next 50 years by the judges who will be appointed by the next President. I disagree with Resh (big surprise there, huh? ) in that I don't think the judges were overreaching at ALL, but it was the Judicial branch that allowed it, and as a number (I think 3) of Justices are about ready to retire it could be overturned within the next 10 years. IIRC the margin is pretty close since the 80's.
quote:I don't believe Obama only wants to raise taxes on the top 5% because the first thing he will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts. Whether you agree with the fairness of those cuts or not, the fact is that they were cuts for a lot more than just 5% percent. Phrase it however you like, a lot of people will be paying higher taxes once Obama takes office.
He has never said that he wants to repeal ALL the tax cuts, just those for the upper class.
Where are you getting information that says otherwise? And/or, from where do you divine your mind reading powers?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not reading minds. That's a part of his tax plan. He'll repeal all of the Bush tax cuts and then institute his own plan, which will have some paying less taxes than ever, some paying more than their bracket did since Clinton was president, and some will be getting a bit of that money as a check in hand even though they contribute nothing to the system in the first place (this is the redistribution of wealth that non-communists take issue with.)
But then there is a large component of the tax-paying population that will get a cut, but not as deep as what they were getting under the Bush model. They are the ones outside the 5% who will actually be paying more at the end of the day, and they are the ones who will experience firsthand just how disingenuous Barack Obama really is.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whatever you're describing, it's not a part of Obama's official tax plan. So you must have a reason for believing it. That reason would be...?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing wrong with a biased media as long as we know what those biases are, and know when to paint those biases as general and when to be specific.
I KNOW, for example, when I turn on Fox News that they're going to be biased to Conservatives and Republicans. With that knowledge, I can watch their programs and get a good idea of what the news actually is.
Similarly, if I watch Keith Olbermann or Rachel Madow on MSNBC, I KNOW they are biased to Liberals and Democrats. And I can use my understanding of said bias to get a good idea of where the truth actually is.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I know I'm blowing up your words, Christine. You say that the media "favor Obama over McCain. That's not a hard viewpoint to take and the only way to make both of those candidates sound even would be to completely ignore reality." So correct me if I'm wrong in taking that to mean that they favor Obama because to do otherwise would be to ignore the fact that Obama is simply a better candidate, pure and simple.
Don't worry about me...I can handle this. I don't agree, but I can even see why you would call me an elitist.
I don't think there's anything "pure and simple" about this. I happen to have really liked McCain pre-2006 as, I believe, did much of the mainstream media. There's never anything "pure and simple" about politics. But I guess what I'd like to know is how you feel they are misrepresenting Obama and how they are misrepresenting McCain. What McCain wonders are they overlooking? What Obama perils?
And for the record, I'm quire open-minded. If you can give me some decent answers to those questions, I would consider your premise that the media is biased. I just don't think they are. And it's not so much that I think Obama is somehow a better person than McCain. I think he's run a better campaign, a less negative campaign.
Would you place in law that the press should cover everything in an unbiased way?
Who determines what the bias is?
Should they report as stories everything that their opponents say is true?
Take two stories:
Obama's connection to Avery. This is one of the things that many conservatives wish the press would look into further. The press reply that they have looked into it and found it an non-issue.
McCain's poll numbers last week. He was 8-10 points behind in the polls. This was announced in the press, and many conservatives argued that it is not news and should be ignored.
Who or what should run the media and determine what is and isn't biased?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, DM, I'm just asking the question. I don't really have any solutions. I'm like a politician in that respect.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) in that I don't think the judges were overreaching at ALL, but it was the Judicial branch that allowed it, and as a number (I think 3) of Justices are about ready to retire it could be overturned within the next 10 years. IIRC the margin is pretty close since the 80's.
