posted
I've been bothered for awhile now by how the media tends to report process issues in our government. It's no secret that the media is a big part of our problem right now. They aren't the problem because they favor one side over the other, but because they're drivers of creating the "them vs. us" mentality that makes the "sides" so divisive.
It seems almost every article that involves a Republican talking about a Democrat (or vice versa) is inevitably titles something like "Senator X slams the President" or "Obama rips Congressman Y." It doesn't particularly matter what they're saying, if it's any sort of criticism at all, it's usually a "slam," or some other charged and aggressive word.
An example from today is called: "Obama Caught Slamming GOP on Open Mic." View on HULU here. This is what Obama was "caught" saying.:
quote:Obama: "I said, 'you wanna repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate, but you're not going to be able to do that by nickle and diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?...[and then in reference to Paul Ryan]...'I mean this is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for..."
At the very least, the first half certainly isn't a slam. If anything, it's responsibly measured. As for the second half, all he's doing is repeating Ryan's record. I think it's a perfectly valid point to emphasize, that Ryan's throwing a hissy fit right now over a budget he had a hand in exploding over the last ten years, then cries foul on Democrats. But even if you don't think it's a good point, that doesn't make Obama's statement any less true. I don't think it's especially conducive to solving the problem, but I don't think it's a smear. And I don't think Obama was "caught" doing anything. The whole story strikes me as trumped up sensationalism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suggest that Democrats and Republicans are almost or perhaps even exactly equal in frequency right now of this sort of baiting, as this sort of story will inevitably lead to (surprisingly having dragged its duration of marketability as news)?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this sentence Rakeesh.
Lyr...but if they titled it "Obama responds reasonably" no one would read the story. Trumped up sensationalism is the name of the game for selling news articles.
Personally, I don't watch the news. I don't trust them to be accurate, they tend to focus on the negative, lots of trumped up sensationalism and anything that is important enough will penetrate into other mediums.
I had a roommate who would watch Fox News 12 hours a day, and Fox News looped every 4 hours. I rarely stayed in the room.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Suggest that Democrats and Republicans are almost or perhaps even exactly equal in frequency right now of this sort of baiting, as this sort of story will inevitably lead to (surprisingly having dragged its duration of marketability as news)?
Your side is just as bad as minePosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pick better news sources. There are news sources that (mostly) don't resort to that kind of baiting.
CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are out, obvs. Try The Atlantic, The Economist, NPR.com, The Washington Post (sans opinion page) and The New York Times (sans the opinion page), and Real Clear Politics (regular news sources, but they do a better job with the headlines).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't notice until recently how partisan the WSJ is. They've probably always been like that but it's much more obvious to me now.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The opinion page is wildly partisan. The general news page is basically centrist. Same for the Washington Post.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Atlantic and NY Times both lean left - and not just the opinion and/or comment sections (I generally read the Atlantic online and the Times in print. That could influence my conclusions). I don't say that because I've placed all-things-liberal high on my radar. I haven't. I don't care if a news source is biased as long as it's a recognized fact. I actually like knowing where I can go to find liberal takes on current issues without going to the well known online dives.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they do. But all news sources - all of them - lean in a direction. It impossible to not lean. I'm less worried about biases than I am about honesty, method, and civilization. The NYT is often sketchy on that last bit, but they are good enough often enough to make weeding out the crap worth it. And The Atlantic is consistenly thorough and grown up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
In schools we need to add "Reality" to "Reading, Writing, and Rithmatic" the classic three R's we are supposed to be taught.
And that new R--Reality--should teach kids how to dissect a headline, a political argument, or any type of cheap advertising. They need to know that when it says in small print in the commercial "Toy robot does not actually fly" that if they buy that toy robot--it does not actually fly. They need to know that "Part of this complete breakfast" includes the 20 pounds of nutritional food surrounding the one bowl of sugar called cereal. And they need to know "Senator attacks Senator" means that they disagreed.
Of course, the people who make their money, or earn their votes on the common ignorance of the majority will refuse to allow classes that would remove that ignorance.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the past few weeks I have been making an effort to get out there and read news from other sources than Foxnews or Drudge. After reading certain stories on other websites I would go back to Fox to see how they reported it and it became clear they were spinning it. I know I have defended Fox in the past. I have to say that I now see more clearly what some of you have told me in the past.
So thank you Hatrack. I humbly admit I was wrong. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is hard to escape the spin. What I found really eye-opening was seeing how news sources from other countries report news. Check the BBC, for example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Daily Show is inaccurate, but I would say it's clearly biased. (I'm not sure whether "spun" is the right term.)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: In the past few weeks I have been making an effort to get out there and read news from other sources than Foxnews or Drudge. After reading certain stories on other websites I would go back to Fox to see how they reported it and it became clear they were spinning it. I know I have defended Fox in the past. I have to say that I now see more clearly what some of you have told me in the past.
So thank you Hatrack. I humbly admit I was wrong.
And to be fair to you, some other sources tend to spin by omission/lack of quality (I haven't been impressed with CNN.com's level of reporting in ages) and some have their own spin (Huffington Post, etc.). I thing the NYT is in a gray area, in the sense that some feel it's actual reporting is biased (like it's Op-Ed's which obviously are biased), while other do not feel the same way, or at least to the extent of a Fox News.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One issue that came up during the Wikileaks story with the NYT is that they ask the US military for permission and edits on their articles before publishing.
That introduces a level of systematic bias that has to be considered.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think the Daily Show is inaccurate, but I would say it's clearly biased. (I'm not sure whether "spun" is the right term.)
To the left? Seems a bit lefty to me at times. What I really like about the Daily Show is that no matter who you are, if you say something stupid they will point it out in no uncertain terms.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
To the left? Seems a bit lefty to me at times. What I really like about the Daily Show is that no matter who you are, if you say something stupid they will point it out in no uncertain terms.
Stewart's a liberal, and he really doesn't hide his bias. He's almost always fair, though, just like you say.
I love The Daily Show, and I'm at least as far right as he is left.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: In the past few weeks I have been making an effort to get out there and read news from other sources than Foxnews or Drudge. After reading certain stories on other websites I would go back to Fox to see how they reported it and it became clear they were spinning it. I know I have defended Fox in the past. I have to say that I now see more clearly what some of you have told me in the past.
Last time I checked Fox (a couple of hours waiting at a terminal) I noticed it's gotten .... uh, easier to recognize. By an order of magnitude. I don't know precisely when, but at some point in the past few years they seem to have decided to just dive in whole-hog on the whole partisan pandering thing.
There's probably some strategy for market share behind it, even if it's just a concession that retreats from the effort they put behind trying to maintain 'fair and balanced' as a premise, but I have no idea what it is, or what changed.
I would imagine that misinformation from the channel is even higher now than it was in the past, even though they were pretty much topping the charts.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that has something to do with the general political atmosphere. Fox News' core viewership seems to be getting more radical, so Fox shifts to stay "relevant" to them. It's a moneymaking powerhouse.
I haven't seen much of it for several years, barring clips on Colbert/Daily Show/The Soup. Are the "Headline News-like" sections of the day as loathsome as the morning talkshow parts?
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Jon Stewart, but any show that refers to the Vice President only by comical, degrading nicknames is not even remotely close to being thorough or civilized. "Civilized" is not what people go to comedy for.
Enjoy watching it, but you can't pretend that it's giving you anything other than a one-sided, deliberiately edited, non-thorough version of the story.
------
Fox is not remotely alone in its naked plea for partisan eyeballs.
If you want actual, decent news, you're going to have to turn off the television altogether and discover some longer form, in depth reporting. You'll never, ever get away from bias (not even possible) but you can find some real sources of information instead the news equivelent of Saturday morning cartoons.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I like Jon Stewart, but any show that refers to the Vice President only by comical, degrading nicknames is not even remotely close to being thorough or civilized. "Civilized" is not what people go to comedy for.
Enjoy watching it, but you can't pretend that it's giving you anything other than a one-sided, deliberiately edited, non-thorough version of the story.
Thats definately not giving the Daily Show credit, for one thing its hardly degrading Biden has been on the Colbert Report and the nicknaming and teasing to me is rather playful.
As for editing I think you wouldn't be able to find a single bit they edited out of context unless they were obviously going for a joke, which they are very good at making sure people know "this is a joke, this part isn't".
As for one sided? Ha. Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation, reality is one sided if you think the daily show is one sided.
IP: Logged |
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The Daily Show is funny, and piquant, and interesting. It is not unbiased, it isn't complete, it isn't thorough, and it picks favorites and enemies and beats a specific drum.
That doesn't mean it is bad. It does mean that if it is your only or even main source of news, then not only are you missing a lot, but you may not even know how much you don't know.
Blayne, your specific complaints make me think you don't know what "editing" actually is. I suggest some reading on communication and media awareness. Maybe this or this.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
Care to substantiate it?
quote: It is hollow.
The Daily Show is funny, and piquant, and interesting. It is not unbiased, it isn't complete, it isn't thorough, and it picks favorites and enemies and beats a specific drum.
That doesn't mean it is bad. It does mean that if it is your only or even main source of news, then not only are you missing a lot, but you may not even know how much you don't know.
Blayne, your specific complaints make me think you don't know what "editing" actually is. I suggest some reading on communication and media awareness. Maybe this or this.
They are thorough, as thorough as 30 minutes can allow them to be thorough within, especially the interviews; yes hes read your book, hes know what you've said, hes also knows what you've said or done before that and after that.
However the question of bias is a weak criticism, yes they're liberal/progressive, but it doesn't mean they don't appreciate or understand the Conservative point of view whenever its logical. They don't make claims of unbias but they also don't favor a single ideology and aren't partisan.
I'm fairly certain I do know what editing is, I think the onus is on you to find an edited segment.
IP: Logged |
posted
The Daily Show is not a news show, they are a satire of news shows, they do not generate sincere original reporting, they mock "sincere" reporting. I'm sure that Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert and staff would never suggest that people get their only source of news from their shows.
They seem a bit biased to the left, but, they do not claim to be anything but funny, which they are.
There is no question that they poke fun at right and left, at anyone who pokes their head up really.
But at the end of the day, they are trying to be funny, not unbiased.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
I agree to the extent. The narrative of The Daily Show is that Republican politicians are tools, Republican politicians are jerks, Republican supports are crazy, and Democratic politicians are wusses.
Pretty much in that order.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sure that Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert and staff would never suggest that people get their only source of news from their shows.
Stewart, in fact, repeatedly suggests the opposite. He's flabbergasted when people treat him like he's a news anchor. He's a comedian.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm fairly certain I do know what editing is, I think the onus is on you to find an edited segment. [/QB]
This means you don't.
Seriously, try one of the books I linked above. You can get a used copy of either for less than $10.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
I agree to the extent. The narrative of The Daily Show is that Republican politicians are tools, Republican politicians are jerks, Republican supporters are crazy, and Democratic politicians are wusses.
Pretty much in that order.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
In fairness, he's also been on top of the 'Obama abusing executive power' issue and I have to give him props for consistently opposing and mocking the war in Libya.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What was the point of your point, kmboots?
Just an observation. One could make any number of hypotheses regarding the nature of the Daily Show and its viewers; most of them make both look better than the average news program or voter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
