Article on CNN.com

[Angry Tele]

I like the guy with the Bowtie, and the girl that dresses like a dude.

 

But, FOX has the hottest chicks on TV except for Natasha Curry shes smokin'

[backtoblue]

Out of all of them you likely get the most neutral scoop from CNN. Both the hard right and left wingers hate them. Must mean that they report it just about right. Oh yeah, homemade guitars.

 

Try NPR...

[Spudro]

Everyone...

 

Broadcast media; "News", sitcoms, documentaries, dramas, talk shows, whatever is ALL ABOUT COMMERCIALS.

 

The stuff between commercials is "filler" to keep you tuned in till the next serving of commercials.

 

Ratings mean everything. If your news show (or whatever type of show it is) has higher ratings than other shows in that time slot, you will easily be able to charge more for advertisement. Corporations who have something to advertise want the most people possible to see their ad, so they gladly pay extra to advertise on the show that has the most viewers at a given time.

 

News channels will fan the dying flames of a story FOREVER till another hotter source of flame presents itself.

 

Do you remember the murder of Chandra Levy and the implication of Congressman Gary Condit? The media tarred and feathered Condit because he was having a consensual affair with Chandra before she went missing.

 

The Chandra Levy/Gary Condit story was the main course for every national news broadcast until the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001. Levy/Condit was a juicy story. Corporations were EAGER to have their ads show during a news broadcast that would have Levy/Condit news and views take up 20% or more of the show's broadcast time. This of course influences the "News" networks to continue to include juicy story coverage. Ad time and ad revenues. That is the real bottom line. Do you recall the media reporting when Chandra's actual killer was later identified as Ingmar Guandique, an illegal alien from El Salvador who had been previously convicted of assaulting two other women in the same park where Levy's remains were found? No? That's because then there were bigger flames to fan. Reporting on Guandique was not exciting news.

 

The news corporations, every one of them, puts profits first. They do whatever they can to excite you or make you angry and to keep you believing that there is "the big story coming up after we return from this commercial break".

 

Anything they can say to keep you from channel flipping during the commercials. THE COMMERCIALS are why they are on the air!! Their whole purpose is to serve the commercials... CNN Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, HLN and the locals too.

 

That's really all there is to it.

[larryguitar]

I agree with this, if you personally agree with most everything you see and hear on your favorite news program then you are most likely watching a pretty biased news network. I find the whole claim that all main stream media has a huge liberal bias laughable. Max

 

Then you need to check the factual data that's been collected on the political orientation of the media in general; something like 70-80% self-identify as 'liberal', but contend that their reporting is 'unbiased.'

 

You know, like how prosecutors are only after the truth, and won't actually twist things to convict the person their case is against, or how colleges are also politically neutral.

 

The overall liberal bias exists; if you're not seeing it, it's just because you're agreeing with it.

[Jkater]

Does the rake one qualify as semi-hollow?

[soundcreation]

Well first off this whole debate (cnn bias) has to be predicated on your beginning view point. To a republican/right of course CNN will seem biased left. To a democrat/liberal of course CNN will be considered middle to right biased.

 

But what happens in a society like the USA, with such an amazing propaganda system...is that nearly everyone fails to see the truth. That being, that CNN is CORPORATE biased. Which basically means it pretty much doesn't deviate that far from the opinions of dems/libs or repubs/cons. It is a mirror that shows the political spectrum of acceptable thought in the US is extremely narrow, and EXTREMELY right...and that INCLUDES "liberal/dems".

 

So from that narrow perspective you can then argue within those parameters. And hence the "CNN is left.." "Fox is right..." arguments keep people distracted from the real issue that all media is HEAVILY biased in favor of corporatism and wealth. In short the elite in America. "Right" and "Left" for the VAST majority of Americans is simply two sides of the same pro wall street coin.

 

It's only when you clear this fog of propaganda can you begin to see the real bias and how it affects your life.

 

[YOUTUBE]KYlyb1Bx9Ic[/YOUTUBE]

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

 

If you have ever had a major story reported by CNN International that is near enough to you for you to know the truth, you may find that hard to believe. As with all prime-time media, their reporters are now driven by programme editors who limit item on-air time to the attention span of the average viewer and want to excite them. There is little time for, or interest in, showing something factual and the cult of presenter personality and personal opinion has overtaken factual reporting. Its all about eyegrabbing infotainment soundbites. Offending everyone is not a yardstick for accuracy or acceptabilty. If CNN really is the most unbiased you have, then the others must be something to behold.

 

 

Oh {censored} yeaahhhhhhhhh!!!

 

I was in the Med and watched their coverage of the Filipino hostage saga.

 

The {censored} suckage was off the scale

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

 

Well first off this whole debate (cnn bias) has to be predicated on your beginning view point. To a republican/right of course CNN will seem biased left. To a democrat/liberal of course CNN will be considered middle to right biased.

 

 

Quite apart from the bias, it's just plain {censored}in bad, maybe I just measure all news organisations from a BBC yardstick, but still

[soundcreation]

 

Quite apart from the bias, it's just plain {censored}in bad, maybe I just measure all news organisations from a BBC yardstick, but still

 

 

Well yeah..there is that too....as spudro mentioned...the "news as entertainment" thing. If you really want a book that will give you a mental kick in the ass, read, Amusing ourselves to Death by Neil Postman.

 

BBC, is quite good I will admit...along with CBC out of canada, and ABC out of Australia. But even with those sources you have to watch out for bias. All three provide decent realistic coverage of America...cause each of them don't need to pander to an American audience...therefore the truth is more evident in their coverage. But they do tend to exhibit bias when covering their own countries.

 

I find america bashing (sometimes with very good reason) in these terms is quite common from the other English speaking countries but many of these same people are just as propagandized about their own countries and fail to look critically about the places they are from. This can be reflected in their media.

[Doctor49]

 

Oh {censored} yeaahhhhhhhhh!!! I was in the Med and watched their coverage of the Filipino hostage saga. The {censored} suckage was off the scale

 

 

Sadly as you know I was in Bangkok and watched the BBC World Service {censored} it up here in every way possible - beaten by CNN by a nose.

 

The BBC guy tried to justify his biased coverage and that of his colleagues by blaming editorial policy and thats what prompted my piece. Who needs truth when there's the chance to show a revolution first-hand!!!

[Jersey Jack]

Well first off this whole debate (cnn bias) has to be predicated on your beginning view point. To a republican/right of course CNN will seem biased left. To a democrat/liberal of course CNN will be considered middle to right biased. But what happens in a society like the USA, with such an amazing propaganda system...is that nearly everyone fails to see the truth. That being, that CNN is CORPORATE biased. Which basically means it pretty much doesn't deviate that far from the opinions of dems/libs or repubs/cons. It is a mirror that shows the political spectrum of acceptable thought in the US is extremely narrow, and EXTREMELY right...and that INCLUDES "liberal/dems". So from that narrow perspective you can then argue within those parameters. And hence the "CNN is left.." "Fox is right..." arguments keep people distracted from the real issue that all media is HEAVILY biased in favor of corporatism and wealth. In short the elite in America. "Right" and "Left" for the VAST majority of Americans is simply two sides of the same pro wall street coin. It's only when you clear this fog of propaganda can you begin to see the real bias and how it affects your life.

 

A very wise post. Thanks.

 

The very question of bias as it's commonly discussed assumes the truth of the center position--i.e., to the degree that a news organization moves to the right or to the left, its bias becomes visable.

 

But there's no reason--other than habit and lazy minds--to believe that the center holds any lock on the truth. That's an unquestioned assumption (a platitude right up there with "the wisdom of the American people" ) and in the current context of American culture, it screams for some critical thought. Bias may indeed be understood as distance from the truth, but the truth itself may in many cases stand outward toward one of the wings.

 

Since truth is such a abstract term, let's take a specific issue. The left turned out to be correct about the decision to invade Iraq. But in the prelude to the war, this position was seen in the media as biased, extreme, etc. But in fact the centrist position (say, dems who supported the war) turned out to be biased. Conversely, the right was correct about the reformulation of welfare that took place under the Clinton Administration.

 

The political center in the US is very clearly (measured against n the context of the world community) tilted toward the right. This is why the charge of liberal bias in the media seems ridiculous to people on the left. The mainstream media is built on the premise that the center is always correct. It's not.

 

Let me revise my earlier statement. Organizations like CNN and the New York Times are the best of the mainstream media, but they certainly are too cozy with Wall Street money and power. NPR and PBS are the most reliable sources for news and opinion.

[soundcreation]

A very wise post. Thanks. The very question of bias as it's commonly discussed assumes the truth of the center position--i.e., to the degree that a news organization moves to the right or to the left, its bias becomes visable. But there's no reason--other than habit and lazy minds--to believe that the center holds any lock on the truth . That's an unquestioned assumption (a platitude right up there with "the wisdom of the American people" ) and in the current context of American culture, it screams for some critical thought. Bias may indeed be understood as distance from the truth, but the truth itself may in many cases stand outward toward one of the wings. Since truth is such a abstract term, let's take a specific issue. The left turned out to be correct about the decision to invade Iraq. But in the prelude to the war, this position was seen in the media as biased, extreme, etc. But in fact the centrist position (say, dems who supported the war) turned out to be biased. Conversely, the right was correct about the reformulation of welfare that took place under the Clinton Administration. The political center in the US is very clearly (measured against n the context of the world community) tilted toward the right. This is why the charge of liberal bias in the media seems ridiculous to people on the left. The mainstream media is built on the premise that the center is always correct. It's not. Let me revise my earlier statement. Organizations like CNN and the New York Times are the best of the mainstream media, but they certainly are too cozy with Wall Street money and power. NPR and PBS are the most reliable sources for news and opinion.

 

Yours as well.

 

Have a listen to what happened to Chomsky on NPR...

 

[YOUTUBE]7h6VETOkXpU&[/YOUTUBE]

 

The thing is, looking critically at the information you are getting requires work. It's an effort most don't really want to take the time to do, therefore it's easy for someone to come along and put on a trusting facade and convince people to look no farther.

 

Until people everywhere want to put the same kind of effort and analysis into the news they get as they do talking about their favorite sports teams/players, or heaven for bid....GUITARS! :poke: (thats a strong poke to me as well!!)....then they will continue to be easy to propagandize.

[kulardenu]

 

Try NPR...

 

 

+1