The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-06-2011, 01:12 PM
MattProle MattProle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Are News Sources Inherently Biased?

Recently I've developed an interest in acquiring a general understanding of world events. The immediately suggested source for such information would supposedly be programs developed from one of the major news networks. My experience watching such programs has left me skeptical of the quality and relevance of the information presented by such networks.

Somehow I've gotten it into my head that all news sources, particularly those that are funded by large organizations, are inherently biased. Is such an idea unfounded? If not, what sources do you recommend? Why?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-06-2011, 01:29 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,700
People and news sources are biased by tons of things from geography to culture to social status. It's not possible to be free of all of those influences even though it's worthwhile to try to be as unbiased as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-06-2011, 01:43 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Marley23 has pointed out that everyone is biased. But you mention news sources funded by large organizations. Are you talking about media outlets or non-media enterprises providing information for those outlets? In either case, the answer is yes they are biased. Biased to the point where they lack credibility on their own. You have to pay attention to all news source, use reasoning and do your own research to seperate fact from fiction, and follow this old adage:

Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-06-2011, 02:03 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,700
If the question is "are news outlets funded by major corporations or other big organizations inherently more biased than those that are not," I'm not sure what the answer is.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-06-2011, 02:05 PM
Llama Llogophile Llama Llogophile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Yes, they're all biased toward doing whatever best draws an audience for their advertisers.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-06-2011, 02:16 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach Tuck View Post
Yes, they're all biased toward doing whatever best draws an audience for their advertisers.
That's not true, since some news sources do not have advertisers, e.g., ABC News, Reuters. There are other sources of bias than advertising.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-06-2011, 02:17 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattProle View Post
Somehow I've gotten it into my head that all news sources, particularly those that are funded by large organizations, are inherently biased. Is such an idea unfounded? If not, what sources do you recommend? Why?
Define unbiased. There is so much raw data, and so many interview sources, and so much of the data is conflicting, that any winnowing of it down to something that will fit into a newspaper or broadcast will introduce bias. CSPAN showing a Congressional hearing uncut is unbiased - any reporting on that hearing will be biased in some way.

It is not clear to me that large organizations are inherently more biased than small ones. A small local paper is usually terrible about giving real facts about a town, because the publisher and editors are too close to the power structure. Anyone who has lived in a small town knows what is really going on and what the paper says is going on are totally different.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-06-2011, 02:18 PM
Icarus Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 2,803
It is axiomatic that all human endeavors are inherently imperfect. Therefore, it would follow that news sources are inherently imperfect also. Many interpret this as bias. Accepting the imperfections as bias - the important questions for me are:

Are they intentionally biased (as in - promoting a definable agenda) vs. unintentionally biased (attempting to present neutral information and somehow failing).

If I believe they are unintentionally biased, I then try to examine if it is simply that they are not reflecting back on me my own biases.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-06-2011, 02:30 PM
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
They all have some bias I don't even know what unbiased reporting would look like other than a string of numbers. That doesn't mean that some are not more biased than others. For example NPR is more likely to respectfully include both liberal and conservative views, than is Fox News.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-06-2011, 03:42 PM
Llama Llogophile Llama Llogophile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles View Post
That's not true, since some news sources do not have advertisers, e.g., ABC News, Reuters. There are other sources of bias than advertising.
That's funny, at the bottom of the Reuters page you linked is a section called "Advertise with us".

But I take your point that there can be exceptions. However, my point is that funding needs have a big effect on hows news is presented. Even news sources without according-to-Hoyle advertisers generally have to make money. NPR has sponsors, and other outlets get funding through subscriptions. This means they are theoretically beholden to somebody. The issue then becomes finding out to what degree, and what direction this takes their coverage of news.

Forget conservative / liberal bias. In my view, most media entities will simply go with whatever is entertaining. They'd drop their pants or take a pie in the face if it would bring in money.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-06-2011, 03:48 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 38,442
[Mod mod]Changed "Sourced" to "Sources" in title.[/Mod mod]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-06-2011, 04:15 PM
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17,342
There are biases inherent in any system of gathering and distrubting information. What are your sources? How much weight do you assign to opposing viewpoints? (Is it bias if you try to give equal weight to all arguments, even if 95% of your agree and the other 5% are nutjobs at one or the other end of the spectrum?) Is it bias if you focus on one-of-a-kind visual events and downplay boring subjects?

What you want to look for is news outlets which make an effort to seek out more than just one point of view on an issue. In my experience, the "large organizations" make a far greater effort to do that than smaller ones.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-06-2011, 04:48 PM
Icarus Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
What you want to look for is news outlets which make an effort to seek out more than just one point of view on an issue. In my experience, the "large organizations" make a far greater effort to do that than smaller ones.
It's also helpful if the news source doesn't try to conflate every subject into an "issue" that requires opposing viewpoints. (Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.)

Also, there is bias inherent in legitimizing which viewpoints will be considered in opposition to each other. (Only white hats and black hats can discuss an issue, no green hats, or brown hats, etc.)

Last edited by Icarus; 01-06-2011 at 04:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-06-2011, 06:46 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 68,843
Media organizations have a "liberal" bias in the culture of journalism, to the extent that a hero in journalism is one who plays Jack the Giant-Killer, exposing the crimes and follies of the mighty -- the mighty of any kind, whether governments or businesses or labor unions. This is actually a consideration completely independent of the quest for ratings-share; it is part of the values journalists imbibe in j-school. (I've been.)

However, they also have a "conservative" bias because journalists are not their own masters; they answer to their editors, who answer to suits with MBAs, who answer to directors who often will happen to be major shareholders in the corporations you might expect the journalists to hold to the fire.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 01-06-2011 at 06:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-06-2011, 10:57 PM
godix godix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Of course there are biases in all sources, but some strive to be as fair as they can.

Rather than find a news source without bias, which you will not find anywhere, pick a couple news sources with different biases. I'd recommend these three:

The US news is nothing but reprinting AP articles, so just use google news. It gives an overview and you have a wide variety of that AP article with different companies masthead slapped on it. This lets you keep up with which celebrity is sleeping with who, what cute white girl has gone missing today, what Bristol Palin is up to today, and so on.

The BBC, while it has gotten worse, still occasionally does real news. It's from a western world perspective so while it does tilt left from an American perspective, it doesn't come at you from left field.

Al Jazeera is actually a good news source, assuming you ignore any article about Israel. It covers a lot of stuff you'd never hear about from the BBC or US sources. Since it comes from a non-western perspective, occasionally you'll see something that seems completely from left field because it's a different worldview sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:33 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Even the attempt to provide balanced reporting of events, and especially very complicated sets of facts can become biased.

Someone decides that measles/mumps/rubella vaccines cause autism. Case studies of seven kids who showed symptoms of autism four months after getting vaccinated are collected and reported. The guys who publish the report are doctors, and the studies are published. Now that is factual reporting. Slim facts, and lots of reporting, but no intent to mislead.

Someone else looks into it. They find that a statistical analysis of people who did get vaccinated over one decade show the same rates of autism as people who did not get vaccinated. This guy is a doctor too, he publishes. Folks who sell vaccines push the publication of this data, because it supports their long held belief that their product doesn't cause autism. Now, is that a bias in reporting?

A bunch of folks who have autistic children get together on the Internet and collect reports of their children's experiences, reaffirming the contention of the original doctor. There are several hundred of these folks, and some of them have pretty carefully kept records. Is this biased reporting?

A statistician examines records from eight countries, and finds that countries which have higher rates of autism have much more standardized testing and diagnostic standards for autism, and coincidentally also have higher rates of implementation of vaccination programs. His report says the statistical facts reflect reporting far more than they reflect facts about the disease. Is that biased reporting?

California passes a law requiring that the element of vaccines most often cited as a possible cause of autism are withheld from all vaccinations used for children. That law is implemented primarily because of the intense public interest in doing something to help the children. A few years later, another doctor, another published study, and it turns out that there is no statistical evidence that the absence of the ingredient caused any change in the rate of autism. In addition, a separate study shows many more children not being vaccinated than in previous years, and those children have the same rates of autism as well.

All of this is reported in the media, although the original study of seven children is referenced equally in all the subsequent media reports, not mentioning that all but one of the original doctors listed in the first report have withdrawn, and repudiated the conclusion. Yet in every major report of the controversy, the original conclusion is repeated. Is this biased reporting?

A group of doctors in Denmark make use of the forty years of records available in their country, following 40,000 children included in that database, twenty thousand who are recorded as being diagnosed with some syndrome currently defined as part of the "Autism spectrum" and another twenty thousand chosen because they have no such diagnosis. A thorough analysis shows that vaccinations occurred at the same rates, and over the same times in the children's lives in both groups. On a television special, data from this report is presented by a television commentator, followed by an interview with the remaining author of the original report, who reiterates his study, and is not even asked if he did any follow up on his original data. Is that biased reporting?

A report is filed by a doctor from the World Health Organization based on a three thousand case study done in several countries in Europe. The study finds that populations that forgo the use of vaccines do have fewer children who are diagnosed with Autism spectrum diseases. The doctor points out in his conclusion that the number of cases in unvaccinated children is less than among vaccinated children but the actual number is lower than the difference between the number of children in the unvaccinated population who died of measles, mumps, and rubella, and the numbers in the vaccinated group. This report is published on the Internet, without the death statistics. Is that bias?

A television investigative reporter reports on the air that the Doctors who repudiated the original study had all done business with the company that provided the vaccines both before and after the report was created. The sole holdout was not doing business with the company either before or after the report. He does not mention that the holdout doctor was not a pediatrician, and never gave immunizations as a part of his practice. The other doctors were all pediatricians, and most of them continued to practice after participating in the report. Was that bias in reporting?

The drug companies paid many thousands of dollars to support and publish the studies after the first one. Was that bias in reporting?

You don't need a villain, you don't even need an idiot. People don't want to hear a dry statistical report that a forty year old medical practice actually does what it was intended to do, and doesn't have any risks that were not understood forty years ago when it was decided that seven deaths a year from vaccinations was better than 15,000 deaths a year from measles, mumps, and rubella. But tell them that doctors are knowingly killing seven children a year, and you can get some viewers.

Tris (a highly biased reporter.)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-07-2011, 01:44 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 19,839
All news sources are biased. They depend on human reporters who are biased. Different news sources have different biases, and sometimes news sources have different biases in different sections.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-07-2011, 05:18 AM
Baboonanza Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
All news sources are inherently biased when they involve any sort of filtering by humans, which they all do. Only raw data can possibly be unbiased, and in the real world even raw data is frequently biased by the methods used to collect it and present it. There also a question of relativity, your own cultural background forms a basis for your own biases and a trully objective report is not actually what you want. For instance, should western news outlets report the stoning of a women for adultery in Suadi Arabia completely objectively or should they start from the premise that it was a bad a thing?

Quality journalism can do a lot to avoid undesireable bias but as you note, most large media conglomerates (especially ones owned by that wanker Murdock) have their own adgendas.

Last edited by Baboonanza; 01-07-2011 at 05:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-07-2011, 05:26 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by godix View Post
The BBC, while it has gotten worse, still occasionally does real news. It's from a western world perspective so while it does tilt left from an American perspective, it doesn't come at you from left field.
I'm a big defender of the BBC so I'm not sure what you mean here. Worse than what? in what way? why do you say it only "occasionally" does real news? I'm genuinely interested to know your thoughts on that.

And lets face it, the US is so heavily skewed to the right that pretty much anything else in the western world is going to feel like it is coming from the left.

If you want a news resource free of commercial bias and government interference and available world-wide. the BBC is pretty good. Every political party in the UK accuses the BBC of bias against them. That's a pretty good indication of impartiality.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-07-2011, 05:34 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triskadecamus View Post
You don't need a villain, you don't even need an idiot. People don't want to hear a dry statistical report that a forty year old medical practice actually does what it was intended to do, and doesn't have any risks that were not understood forty years ago when it was decided that seven deaths a year from vaccinations was better than 15,000 deaths a year from measles, mumps, and rubella. But tell them that doctors are knowingly killing seven children a year, and you can get some viewers.

Tris (a highly biased reporter.)
I think you are right, this paragraph nails it. The public are interested in the interesting (no surprise there) where there is no "story" there is no story.

For the vaccination debate we have to refer people to the trolley problem . It lays out the issues perfectly well but because there is no comforting solution to this we shouldn't be surprised at some people's reaction to it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:58 AM
Baboonanza Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I'm a big defender of the BBC so I'm not sure what you mean here. Worse than what? in what way? why do you say it only "occasionally" does real news? I'm genuinely interested to know your thoughts on that.

And lets face it, the US is so heavily skewed to the right that pretty much anything else in the western world is going to feel like it is coming from the left.

If you want a news resource free of commercial bias and government interference and available world-wide. the BBC is pretty good. Every political party in the UK accuses the BBC of bias against them. That's a pretty good indication of impartiality.
In the last 20 years the BBC has slowly been dumbing down it's news content, presumably in a bid to drive up ratings. The main news programmes (6, 10 o'clock) in particular are pretty vacuous these days. Newsnight is still very good, but even there the change is visible.

Channel 4 News is by far the best serious news programme available in the UK, and some of it's other output is also excellent, such as Unreported World. It's a shame they fill the rest of their schedule with risible shit like Big Brother (happily missed!) and Famous and Fearless really.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-07-2011, 07:27 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baboonanza View Post
In the last 20 years the BBC has slowly been dumbing down it's news content, presumably in a bid to drive up ratings. The main news programmes (6, 10 o'clock) in particular are pretty vacuous these days. Newsnight is still very good, but even there the change is visible.

Channel 4 News is by far the best serious news programme available in the UK, and some of it's other output is also excellent, such as Unreported World. It's a shame they fill the rest of their schedule with risible shit like Big Brother (happily missed!) and Famous and Fearless really.
I'd agree to a certain extent. A lot of TV is dumbing down but I don't think the BBC is the worst example of this, after all......it isn't GMTV is it? And the big stories still do get reported "straight" with the heavier detailed covered by newsnight etc.

And yes, Channel 4 news is pretty good but I rarely catch it for the reasons you mention. I mostly DVR everything and don't keep it on Channel 4 for fear of accidentally seeing "how to look good as a celebrity werewolf on ice" or similar cack.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-07-2011, 07:29 AM
godix godix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I'm a big defender of the BBC so I'm not sure what you mean here. Worse than what? in what way? why do you say it only "occasionally" does real news? I'm genuinely interested to know your thoughts on that.
Over time, I have noticed the BBC is shifting towards a superficial coverage of a story. It's almost like a European AP or something. There is zero attempt at context or depth. Perhaps I'm overly picky, but I'd like a news story that is more informative than the intro paragraph to a wikipedia article.

As an example, this is a story on the front page of BBC news right now. Now tell me the answer to the following questions using only that article:

What is the fundamental dispute in the election, and why has the international community take the side it has?
What is Ecowas? Who are members in it? Why might it get involved to begin with?
Why is Ghana's reaction to something not in Ghana even news anyway?
Why are there UN troops in the Ivory Coast?
The 2002 conflict was briefly mentioned, what is it and does it influence current events?

See what I mean about it being superficial now? If you don't know what is going on, there's not enough info in the article that you'll learn anything. If you do know what's going on, then there isn't enough NEW information in the article that you'll learn anything. Basically, no matter who reads the article, they're going to come away with nothing from it. That is fairly typical of US news sources, but it's increasingly becoming more true of the British sources too (not just the BBC, The Economist has gotten really bad recently as well).

The fact the BBC at least has links below the story that explain who the players are, what the situation is, etc is why I say it 'occasionally' does real news. Because, occasionally, it actually provides information if you look around the site enough.

Quote:
And lets face it, the US is so heavily skewed to the right that pretty much anything else in the western world is going to feel like it is coming from the left.
Fairly true. Which still means that, from a US perspective, the BBC tilts left. I'm not saying it's a horrible thing, nor am I saying it's good. It just is. US readers should be aware of that.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-07-2011, 07:47 AM
Baboonanza Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by godix View Post
As an example, this is a story on the front page of BBC news right now. Now tell me the answer to the following questions using only that article:
Ugn, what a terrible article. It's like they got 40 interns together and said 'I want you all to come back in 10 minutes with a single sentence about the Ivory Coast crisis.' and then just put the results into a sembalence of order and posted them.

That is not journalism.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-07-2011, 08:06 AM
shiftless shiftless is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,884
At the very least reporters are biased toward the novel and unusual. They are magpies indiscriminately gathering shiny objects. That is if fine as long as actual unusual events happen every news cycle. I await the headline "Every one is fine today! Noting to worry about. Carry on."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-07-2011, 08:22 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by godix View Post
As an example, this is a story on the front page of BBC news right now. Now tell me the answer to the following questions using only that article:

What is the fundamental dispute in the election, and why has the international community take the side it has?
What is Ecowas? Who are members in it? Why might it get involved to begin with?
Why is Ghana's reaction to something not in Ghana even news anyway?
Why are there UN troops in the Ivory Coast?
The 2002 conflict was briefly mentioned, what is it and does it influence current events?

See what I mean about it being superficial now? If you don't know what is going on, there's not enough info in the article that you'll learn anything. If you do know what's going on, then there isn't enough NEW information in the article that you'll learn anything. Basically, no matter who reads the article, they're going to come away with nothing from it. That is fairly typical of US news sources, but it's increasingly becoming more true of the British sources too (not just the BBC, The Economist has gotten really bad recently as well).

The fact the BBC at least has links below the story that explain who the players are, what the situation is, etc is why I say it 'occasionally' does real news. Because, occasionally, it actually provides information if you look around the site enough.
Fair criticism, you do have to dive into the links to gain the wider perspective (but at least it is there).

Maybe our expectations are too high now. How can a global news service hope to cover everything to that level of detail?
I think if we wind the clock back 30 years I'm not sure we would have heard anything at all at the Ghana situation, we certainly wouldn't have had it at our fingertips and so wouldn't have been in a position to criticise the lack of detail or article layout.

I'd suggest that today, it is far easier to gain a quick overview of what is happening in the world. And what is more........we expect it. The price to pay for that may well be a lack of depth.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-07-2011, 08:24 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
At the very least reporters are biased toward the novel and unusual. They are magpies indiscriminately gathering shiny objects. That is if fine as long as actual unusual events happen every news cycle. I await the headline "Every one is fine today! Noting to worry about. Carry on."
Ask and you shall receive!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-07-2011, 08:35 AM
godix godix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Maybe our expectations are too high now. How can a global news service hope to cover everything to that level of detail?
Funding. News used to be not really considered part of the bottom line. It was done for the prestige it'd bring, not the money it'd bring. Over the last 20 years or so, it's switched to where it must be profitable. Actual coverage costs money, it's much easier to have some intern just grab a few facts from wikipedia and slap them together with a few easily found quotes from an interview (which is exactly what my example article was). These days, being a good reporter is less important than being a cheap reporter. The US is further along this trend than British media is, but British media is heading that way too.

I strongly suspect in the future, most news will be gotten from the web. And people will need REALLY good bias detection skills, because god knows most sites are proud of their bias. I'd absolutely love to find a political site that isn't Daily Kos/Red State insane, or Politico trivial.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-07-2011, 08:36 AM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post

Are they intentionally biased (as in - promoting a definable agenda) vs. unintentionally biased (attempting to present neutral information and somehow failing).
A point well made.

Of course merely deciding what is important to report and what is not is a function of bias, but bias is not the same as partisanship. Trying to spin the facts in order to promote a particular agenda is a different matter than failing to achieve the impossible standard of complete "objectivity".

I am also however concerned over the errors made trying to be "fair", especially in areas relating to science and policy: the immunization "controversy" has already been brought up as a case in point in the context of pandering to the sensationalism that the public will tune in to watch (although Wakefield does qualify as a villain) but it also illustrates this separate error. Trying to be "even-handed" media outlets will present the wacko idea presented by the starlet with no expertise, or the one out of a thousand doctor who shares the wacko belief, with at least equal time to the information provided by all the expert panels. When present thusly some in the public try to split the difference between the beliefs, since "the truth" must be somewhere between the two "poles" presented. And thus the middle gets moved towards the minority wacko.

There should be some bias in reporting.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-07-2011, 12:35 PM
shiftless shiftless is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Awesome! Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-07-2011, 12:56 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Media organizations have a "liberal" bias in the culture of journalism, to the extent that a hero in journalism is one who plays Jack the Giant-Killer, exposing the crimes and follies of the mighty -- the mighty of any kind, whether governments or businesses or labor unions. This is actually a consideration completely independent of the quest for ratings-share; it is part of the values journalists imbibe in j-school. (I've been.)
That is a weird notion of what "liberal" journalism is.

Off hand Shirley Sherrod and ACORN come to mind as distinctly right-wing attempts at pulling down those they disagreed with.

I think you are conflating the notion that "truth has a liberal bias" with liberals wanting to dethrone the powerful.

As for the corporations that run the media being conservative they do tend to be but then they are generally happy if they are making money. If the thing making them money is an overtly liberal journal they'll be fine with that.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:10 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by godix View Post

Al Jazeera is actually a good news source, assuming you ignore any article about Israel. It covers a lot of stuff you'd never hear about from the BBC or US sources. Since it comes from a non-western perspective, occasionally you'll see something that seems completely from left field because it's a different worldview sometimes.
My reaction to this:
"Al Jazeera is actually a good news source"
Say WHAT?!
"assuming you ignore any article about Israel."
Oh....
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-08-2011, 06:20 AM
godix godix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
My reaction to this:
"Al Jazeera is actually a good news source"
Say WHAT?!
"assuming you ignore any article about Israel."
Oh....
Haha. Yeah. Their coverage of Israel is only one step above The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and not all that large of a step at that.

Where they really shine IMO is third world coverage. First world news sources sometimes cover those types of stories, but never as well or as often as Al Jazeera. Tou'll see something about an African country daily there, while the western news sources generally won't cover Africa until words like 'genocide' are applied.

Their coverage of issues affecting Muslims in the US and Europe is interesting as well. That's where the different worldview thing is really noticable.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.