Six Reasons the Media Are Biased (But Not The Way You Think!)

[Peter1469]

Good, thought provoking link. I'd put a little spin on this that if both sides are upset the media is probably being fair. Kind of like the fans on both sides at a sporting event thinking the ref is a homer for the other side. To be human is to be biased to one degree or another. It is incumbent on us as media consumers to look at multiple sources and not just the ones that may support our point of view and then draw our own conclusions. To do anything less is to be intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately most people aren't interested in doing such.

I agree with your conclusion that people should get their news from many different sources.

[Peter1469]

Pete you keep tossing the word "statist" around but I truly believe that most people wouldn't know what a statist was if you beat them about the head and shoulders with one.

I don't disagree.

I often ask this question: if the answer to the majority of issues is to have the government solve it, you are most likely a statist.

It is more of a catch all term to capture all together who believe the individual should be disempowered and the state empowered for whatever reasons. Totalitarians, authoritarians, fascists, communists (as practiced not theory), social democrats, socialists, etc. (Social democrat arguably covers most American democrats and moderate republicans). For the most part the left and right in Europe and America are not really interested in smaller limited government, rather they argue over who can better manage the welfare state.

[Truth Detector]

Six Reasons the Media Are Biased (But Not The Way You Think!)

I don't agree with the article. But it is interesting. The "media" is controlled by major corporations. But those corporations lean Statist. So do 90% of the "reporters."

Read more at the link.

You need hip waders to read this pile of bovine bile. I am glad you didn't believe this crap; I would start getting worried about you.

[Truth Detector]

Statism is an easy word to throw around. It's often used to imply that the person supports totalitarianism. That's rarely the case.

Some so called statists believe in the bare minimum government intervention and involvement in our lives. Those people would be considered libertarians (and statists).

When you are dimwitted enough to believe in BIG Government solutions peddled by dishonest professional politicians, you're definitely a believer in totalitarianism. Many on the left are simply to ignorant to comprehend that much.

When you are dimwitted enough to argue that BIG Government is entitled to more of the citizens hard earned wealth and that we should be grateful for what they allow us to keep, you're definitely a believer in totalitarianism. Many on the left are simply to ignorant to comprehend that much.

When you are dimwitted enough to believe that more citizens should become dependent on Government handouts, you're definitely a believer in totalitarianism. Many on the left are simply to ignorant to comprehend that much.

[Truth Detector]

Good, thought provoking link. I'd put a little spin on this that if both sides are upset the media is probably being fair. Kind of like the fans on both sides at a sporting event thinking the ref is a homer for the other side. To be human is to be biased to one degree or another. It is incumbent on us as media consumers to look at multiple sources and not just the ones that may support our point of view and then draw our own conclusions. To do anything less is to be intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately most people aren't interested in doing such.

One can only buy into this farce suggesting that the media is fair and balanced by holding one's eyes tightly shut while clamping their hands around their ears.

[Truth Detector]

Actually the public controls the media; just they don't realize it; all you have to do is not watch/read any and all programming from the media, they'll change their tune since they are in business to make their money based on ratings/advertising dollars. little or no ratings will grab their attention immediately and force change.

Yep; just look how much MSNBC has changed while their ratings tank.

[donttread]

Considering the ratings of some of the majors, then they are failing.

We can only hope that mainstream news is made irrelevant by the internet as long as we can keep bigdaddy.gov's hands off the internet that is.

[donttread]

Actually the public controls the media; just they don't realize it; all you have to do is not watch/read any and all programming from the media, they'll change their tune since they are in business to make their money based on ratings/advertising dollars. little or no ratings will grab their attention immediately and force change.

All we have to do is either not watch or watch and not buy the products advertised during the show. Better yet deliberately buy from their competitors. But to badly para-phrase Tommy Lee from MIB "A person is smart, people as a group are panicky and mindless"
In other words the public seems incapable of acting with purpose. Just scared herd animals running about. This explains a lot about our political situation

[nathanbforrest45]

Statism is an easy word to throw around. It's often used to imply that the person supports totalitarianism. That's rarely the case.

Some so called statists believe in the bare minimum government intervention and involvement in our lives. Those people would be considered libertarians (and statists).

Its easy to discredit any opposing viewpoint when you are allowed to change the meaning of words to suit your agenda.

[nathanbforrest45]

Pete you keep tossing the word "statist" around but I truly believe that most people wouldn't know what a statist was if you beat them about the head and shoulders with one.

Well, by all means, please enlighten us with your superior knowledge and define the word for the illiterate masses.