Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2020, 04:34 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,180

Could a supportive media source be just as bad as a non supportive one?


Lets say you have a political candidate.

We also have media sources like tv channels or newspapers that cover the candidate.

One media source is against that person and often lies, uses half truths, and definitely has a slant against that candidate.

Another media source LOVES the candidate. Every report about them is glowing and they will cover up anything negative that they find and will even lie about them.

In both cases people watching them usually pick up on the slant pretty quick. The slant will probably not affect supporters or opponents but what would be the effect on those in the middle?

So what I'm asking is could a media source that shows a supportive bias do just as much harm as one that doesnt?
  #2  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:29 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,605
Lying is lying, including lying by omission. An informed voter will have morvthan one source of news to cross check.

(Did you have examples in mind? I can think of only one major news outlet which acts as in your hypothetical, actively lying about its preferred leader's opponents while ignoring its preferred leader's crimes. )
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #3  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:45 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Lets say you have a political candidate.

We also have media sources like tv channels or newspapers that cover the candidate.

One media source is against that person and often lies, uses half truths, and definitely has a slant against that candidate.

Another media source LOVES the candidate. Every report about them is glowing and they will cover up anything negative that they find and will even lie about them.

In both cases people watching them usually pick up on the slant pretty quick. The slant will probably not affect supporters or opponents but what would be the effect on those in the middle?

So what I'm asking is could a media source that shows a supportive bias do just as much harm as one that doesnt?
It depends on which part of the population the base of candidate in question belongs to. Here in the US a Republican candidate would benefit while a Democratic candidate wouldn’t. Why? Because as a whole the Republican base prefers to hear favorable lies and doesn’t want to hear the unfavorable truth. The Democratic base is the opposite. This doesn’t necessarily apply to every single individual, but if it his trait was present equally on both sides the Democrats would have their version of Fox News and conservative “news” people who care more about biased and outright false favorable news than they do about the truth (Hannity, Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Breitbart, Bill O’reilly, Tucker Carlson, etc.). Those names are just off the top of my head. I can’t think of a single person who I would say is a member of the “liberal” (meaning they present news in a false manner favorable to the left) media, despite what Trump and his base might proclaim otherwise. Why can’t I think of such a journalist? Because if they exist they’re on some no name YouTube channel or Facebook page with maybe a few hundred followers. They’re not at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, 538, or any other serious news outfit that I can think of.
  #4  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:48 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,526
LOL. Fox News is a cancer and done a million times more damage to this country than any other modern force.

I guess you could argue that their damage is mostly done by their negative coverage of Democrats instead of positive coverage of Republicans, but that's splitting hairs.
  #5  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:52 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 775
So a neutral voter is reading about a moderately flawed candidate they’re unfamiliar with, and the flaw isn’t related to one of the voter’s hot-button issues? I think the biggest factor is going to be the piece of media that the voter views first. Whichever item creates the first impression is probably going to be the most influential, as it’s easier to establish an opinion than to change one. Beyond that, I think that people will expect a regression to the mean to indicate where the truth is. So the voter will probably assume that the politician is better than as described in the article that’s excoriating him, and worse than as described in the article that’s lauding him. I think most people are generally skeptical about political candidates, so the regression to the mean away from the positive article will have the stronger effect. An overly negative article about a political candidate generates an opinion like “What else would you expect? They can’t be that bad.” An overly positive article creates a view of “What a load of bullshit. They must be worse than I thought.” So my opinion is that yes, a media source that shows a supportive bias can do just as much, or more, harm as one that doesn’t.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 01-22-2020 at 07:55 AM.
  #6  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:53 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
(I can think of only one major news outlet which acts as in your hypothetical, actively lying about its preferred leader's opponents while ignoring its preferred leader's crimes. )
The Guardian?

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 01-22-2020 at 07:55 AM.
  #7  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:56 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396
Absolutely. The Huffington Post is every bit as bad as FoxNews in terms of how they spin things. Even the headlines give me - former political reporter - the heebie jeebies. No one who works there can consider themselves non-biased.
  #8  
Old 01-22-2020, 07:58 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The Guardian?
I was thinking Daily Mail.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #9  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:36 AM
phantom lamb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 436
As someone mentioned, it depends on the candidate's party affiliation because the mindset of voters is completely different. An obviously biased, supportive media source for a progressive politician is bad, for someone like Trump it's good.

Last edited by phantom lamb; 01-22-2020 at 08:36 AM.
  #10  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:00 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Lying is lying, including lying by omission. An informed voter will have morvthan one source of news to cross check.

(Did you have examples in mind? I can think of only one major news outlet which acts as in your hypothetical, actively lying about its preferred leader's opponents while ignoring its preferred leader's crimes. )
In terms of people I cant give any names but I'd say CNN and MSNBC support Hillary quite a bit.

And although I know its not "the media" look at how Saturday Night Live and the people on the late night talk shows barely touch her. Oh their might be a tiny joke but never enough to draw blood.
  #11  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:20 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
In terms of people I cant give any names but I'd say CNN and MSNBC support Hillary quite a bit.



And although I know its not "the media" look at how Saturday Night Live and the people on the late night talk shows barely touch her. Oh their might be a tiny joke but never enough to draw blood.


Trump gets picked on a lot because he does large amounts of laughably stupid shit, not because he’s a Republican.

Not to mention that a sitting president will pretty much always have more coverage (good and bad) than a former presidential candidate.
  #12  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:45 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
In terms of people I cant give any names but I'd say CNN and MSNBC support Hillary quite a bit.

And although I know its not "the media" look at how Saturday Night Live and the people on the late night talk shows barely touch her. Oh their might be a tiny joke but never enough to draw blood.
Let's try to be objective here.

On one hand you have a twice-divorced reality show host with a ridiculous hairpiece and bad fake-tan, known for bankruptcies, wrestling cameos, and squabbles with Rosie O' Donnell, hawking steaks and get-rich-quick scams, whose entry into politics involved leveling racially-charged birth certificate conspiracy theories at the (then)current elected president right before riding a golden escalator down to his own presidential bid.

On the other hand you have a former US senator, secretary of state, and first lady.

You're a serious news outlet. Are you obligated to treat each candidate with equal positive/negative coverage?

You're a late night comedy show, filled with a whole bunch of writers age 25-35, with known target demographics that skew younger/liberal. Are you obligated to make fun of both candidates equally?
  #13  
Old 01-22-2020, 03:03 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,586
For sure it can be. I mean, the most supportive, positive-sounding news sources are generally those in despotic regimes, like North Korea. If it's all sunshine and daisies, it's an all-but-certain sign that there's important, bad stuff being omitted.
  #14  
Old 01-22-2020, 03:11 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
In terms of people I cant give any names but I'd say CNN and MSNBC support Hillary quite a bit.



And although I know its not "the media" look at how Saturday Night Live and the people on the late night talk shows barely touch her. Oh their might be a tiny joke but never enough to draw blood.
What has she done lately to deserve being lampooned on a current sketch comedy show?
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #15  
Old 01-22-2020, 09:09 PM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
In terms of people I cant give any names but I'd say CNN and MSNBC support Hillary quite a bit.
But I'd say the Washington Times definitely favors President Reagan over Walter Mondale.
  #16  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:20 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Absolutely. The Huffington Post is every bit as bad as FoxNews in terms of how they spin things. Even the headlines give me - former political reporter - the heebie jeebies. No one who works there can consider themselves non-biased.
But respond to the OP's question: How do you think this affects the candidates (or more to the point, the potential voters for those candidates) who are being thus spun?

(And have you seen the incendiary headlines at Raw Story?)
  #17  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:26 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,180
Some funny videos from 2016: Hollywood leftists such as Stephen Colbert, Lagy Gaga and others, crying, whining, and generally going nuts, to Trump winning.
BTW, whats interesting on this video is the feeling that all the liberal celebrities pushing Clinton might have actually hurt her. exactly my point in the OP.

Another with the news media: News media complaining about Trump winning.


Heres another one: Hollywood has-beens trying to persuade delegates to switch their votes to Hillary.

Michelle Obama was on the cover of 12 leading magazines while in office.Time. Redbook, Vogue, etc... while Ivanka Trump - zero.

Also look at some of the major newspapers. Some have not endorsed a republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.
  #18  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:39 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,180
After Trumps election, this was totally worth it:

Top SJW reactions to Trump winning. This includes media personalities, Hollywood, and ordinary people.

Incidentally at 5:16 a British reporter being interviewed on CNN calls out that networks pro Hillary bias and calls CNN the "Clinton News Network".
  #19  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:10 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Michelle Obama was on the cover of 12 leading magazines while in office.Time. Redbook, Vogue, etc... while Ivanka Trump - zero.
Sure, and Sasha Obama also had zero covers of Redbook and Vogue. Ditto Roger Clinton. What's your point?
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 11:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017