Journalism and bias?

[Adelaide]

If you saw the news at any point in the last month, chances are that you heard Barack Obama compared in some way to Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal (BuzzFeed has my favorite compilation here (http://www.buzzfeed.com/nowthisnews/is-obama-like-nixon-cable-news-anchors-think-so-749g)). A quick and admittedly unscientific Google search on the comparisons turns up 1.7 million hits, and they are not limited to right-wing media or Republican politicians. Partisan and nonpartisan journalists across the political spectrum casually and frequently linked Obama to Nixon over and over again, this publication included.

A quick refresher for those of us who weren’t around during the Watergate Era: reams of hard evidence, unearthed through some heroic reporting and independent investigation, revealed that the president of the United States had personally and repeatedly used the power of the federal government—the IRS, the FBI, the CIA—to target and destroy his potential challengers for reelection.

...

But it does not serve the public good when elected and government officials, be they Democrat or Republican, are constantly presumed guilty until proven innocent. When the American people are told that every action or decision is motivated by politics or power; when every mistake or misstatement is exaggerated into an instance of Nixonian malfeasance; when the line between impassioned advocacy and objective reporting ceases to exist, it does nothing but erode an already-fragile faith in our democratic institutions.

Many in the press have called for a national debate on privacy and security. And in the coming weeks, issues like climate change, immigration, and any number of controversial Supreme Court decisions will be added to the list. But national debates don’t just require a willing public, President, and Congress—they require a willing press that is able to report with a sense of nuance, patience, and perspective.




When Journalists Attack - Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/24/when-journalists-attack.html)

The article has some strikingly partisan excuses for some of the current scandals, but it brings up the point that journalists and publications are failing to report the news as it is and instead are choosing to assign guilt before there is sufficient evidence. Of course, it should probably be pointed out that I've personally heard many right-wing politicians and even members on forums say the media biased, particularly towards the left, and it would seem as though this sort of article is almost whining because the Democrat president is on the receiving end... but it's worth discussing.

[Mister D]

While I believe all "news" is inherently biased and couldn't be any other way there has been a decline in integrity overall. On the other hand, they make a product people want (i.e. transparently biased reporting). Is it really all just the fault of journalists or are they at least in part catering to our demands?

[Adelaide]

While I believe all "news" is inherently biased and couldn't be any other way there has been a decline in integrity overall. On the other hand, they make a product people want (i.e. transparently biased reporting). Is it really all just the fault of journalists or are they at least in part catering to our demands?

That's a good point. There are some news organizations where I fully expect catering to demands (most of the major television media outlets, if not all) but I would expect journalistic integrity from some print/web publications above catering to demands.

[Mister D]

That's a good point. There are some news organizations where I fully expect catering to demands (most of the major television media outlets, if not all) but I would expect journalistic integrity from some print/web publications above catering to demands.

I think you get that. From my limited experience I would offer The Economist as an example. Now there is no question that the The Economist is a liberal magazine (i.e. champions the free market, capitalism etc.) and that ideology comes across but overall I always had a good impression of the magazine. It was an easy way to stay current on global affairs. I also value some publications that make no pretense of objectivity.

[Mainecoons]

Agree about the economist. Their rigor and candor is unusual for liberals. One of my other favorites is Pew for the same reason.

[roadmaster]

integrity Yes, only print the facts. These people over them don't care for the facts just how much they sell. I also don't think it's any of our business what MJ or the latest person that died had for dinner.

[Chris]

This may be the source of the Nixon comparisons...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ijYF2LnGQ

It was apropos the moment.

[Adelaide]

Yes, only print the facts. These people over them don't care for the facts just how much they sell. I also don't think it's any of our business what MJ or the latest person that died had for dinner.

Agreed. It's amazing how much time and money goes into stalking celebrities, dead or alive. I actually watched a documentary about that subject not too long ago, and it was brought up that it's the public's fault for buying into that crap.

[Chris]

Has there ever really been a time when journalism wasn't politically and partisanly biased?

A Brief History of Media Bias (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/149256) points out:


...The roots of media bias go back to the nineteenth century, and complaints about bias in part reflect a questionable idea about the media’s role and purpose: that newspapers and other dispensers of public information exist to transmit objective, factual information gleaned and communicated by credentialed professionals.

In fact, the notion that reporters should possess Olympian objectivity is relatively recent. In the nineteenth century, most newspapers were explicitly linked to a particular political party and the economic interests of the publisher....

And goes on to chronicle some of it.

Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News spilled the beans on modern media bias well over a decade ago.


The phenomenon I'm seeing more recently, with media's eagerness to compete with the Internet and bloggers and tweeters, is to report the news as it happens unchecked and unverified.

[patrickt]

I don't mind biased news if the people are honest about it. Liberals insist there is absolutely no bias on their part, only the others.

[Mister D]

I don't mind biased news if the people are honest about it. Liberals insist there is absolutely no bias on their part, only the others.

Yes, that does seem to be true. It certainly explains their obsession with Fox. As for bias, I agree. As long as there is no pretence iof objectivity.

[nic34]

Fox is the GOP 24/7 propaganda outlet. Why wouldn't we be concerned with them?

[Mister D]

Fox is the GOP 24/7 propaganda outlet. Why wouldn't we be concerned with them?

Republicans and others have felt the same way about NBC, ABC, CNN etc. (no one watches MSNBC so who cares :laugh:) long before Fox existed. Sucks to have to listen to biased news especially when it doesn't confirm your bias, huh?

[nic34]

None of those are 24/7 Dem.

[Mister D]

None of those are 24/7 Dem.

They are as Democrat orineted as Fox is GOP oriented but you didn't notice, nic. BTW, Fox has progressives on their shows all the time. Considering how much you watch Fox I'm surprised you don't know that.

[Chris]

Fox is the GOP 24/7 propaganda outlet. Why wouldn't we be concerned with them?

From the posts I see so frequently here on the forum it seems the libs watch Fox.

But I agree, Fox waves the Rep flag, MSNBC the Dem flag, and CNN is just biased. I stopped watching all of them disgusted by the shows they all put on during 9/11.

[nic34]

They are as Democrat orineted as Fox is GOP oriented

Wrong.

You can't even be a little objective....

[Mister D]

Wrong.

You can't even be a little objective....

It has nothing to do with me, nic. Besides, you seem to watch Fox a lot more than I do. You do know non-progressives laugh amongst ourselves about this, right? It's truly amusing to watch you guys rant and rage over Fox. How dare they not cater to your bias! :laugh:

[Peter1469]

Fox is the GOP 24/7 propaganda outlet. Why wouldn't we be concerned with them?

Fox is really the NEOCON part of the GOP media wing. When Ron Paul came in second in the Louisiana primary the Fox reporter said X got #1, Y got number 3.... :shocked:

Now Fox Business is libertarian.

[nic34]

It has nothing to do with me, nic. Besides, you seem to watch Fox a lot more than I do. You do know non-progressives laugh amongst ourselves about this, right? It's truly amusing to watch you guys rant and rage over Fox. How dare they not cater to your bias! :laugh:

I said GOP. Nothing else. The Republican propaganda channel.

Don't let the denial hit you in the ass....

[Mister D]

I said GOP. Nothing else. The Republican propaganda channel.

Don't let the denial hit you in the ass....

Where is the GOP in this quote? How about the Republican agenda? Drunk again, Geronimo?


Wrong.

You can't even be a little objective....

Again, it really is amusing to watch you all fume over what we've long gotten used to (i.e. biased news).

[KC]

Where is the GOP in this quote? How about the Republican agenda? Drunk again, Geronimo?



Again, it really is amusing to watch you all fume over what we've long gotten used to (i.e. biased news).

Please stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks.