The most consistent “bias” I see is in favor of sensationalism.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Fox is the most biased of the large media outlets, but that does not eliminate the bias from the others.
Of course the media are biased. They are in business to sell advertising (or generate donations in the case of non-profits). The more viewers/readers/listeners they command, the more dollars that come in. Since every individual has biases, people are more likely to consume media that fits their biases. The media merely try to exploit that fact to generate income.
I see them as biased, but biased towards bullshit: what white woman is missing this week, or what fake trend like the Knockout Game is terrifying communities. If anything the NY Times and CNN skew pretty conservative, falsified Times reporting helped gin up support for the invasion of Iraq and CNN is pretty actively trying to get another war started, including a reporter asking the president “why can’t we take out these bastards?” Not exactly a liberal bias in that quote.
I think the critique one often hears is that the traditional media gatekeepers of the late 20th century (NYT, WaPo, Time, Newsweek, network news) maintained a generally center-left stance, and that they excluded not only voices of the right but also those of the more progressive or radical left.
No, Salon gave a pretty good take on the interaction between politicians, voters and the media during this particular political cycle.
But I think it’s important to note that the audience consumes what it wants to consume. When the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke, I spent an afternoon of driving switching between NPR and Rush Limbaugh. Even without any particular encouragement from the hosts, callers were furiously arguing enitrely different points, as if they were discussing two different stories.
So you think Henry Luce was a liberal? That the Chicago Tribune was a liberal paper? Hell, Warren G. Harding was a newspaperman.
These outlets did not support the modern conservative view - because it did not exist. But they were more socially conservative (even the liberal ones) than any mainstream paper today. It is not like FDR had 100% of the press behind him, after all.
Remember the Dewey defeats Truman headline? An example of liberal bias if I ever saw one.
What examples of conservative-leaning major press outlets do you know of from the last 50 years or so? I think that’s what ITR Champion was talking about. The OP as well.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see the press as an entity as biased per se. I do think I can suss out the biases of individual writers/journalists based on how they write, but I don’t think too much of it 'cos I believe it’s impossible for a person to be unbiased.
I regard the media as BOTH biased AND, generally, accurate.
That is, I expect the mainstream media to go out of their way to dig for dirt on conservatives… but when they claim to have FOUND dirt, I generally believe them.
To use a specific case… I may be irritated that the mainstream media are probing for discrepancies in Ben Carson’s autobiography when they never did the same to Obama’s in 2008, but even so, if they declare “Ben Carson lied about X, Y & Z,” I generally believe that Carson DID, in fact, lie about X, Y & Z.
The problem with the media is that there is too much of a blurred line, if there is any line at all anymore, between reporting the news/facts/etc. and editorializing. Very seldom can you pick up a news story on the front page that doesn’t include some sort of eye rolling commentary or opinion based conclusions. It’s part of the business, facts are boring. Sensationalism sells.
If we got back to journalism the way it was intended, people would be better informed and could seek out the editorial pages if they wanted to get an opinion.
They also have political and social biases just like FOX. Again, not as bad as FOX, but they exist. Let’s face it, some of us would love a news source that operated on standards that did everything possible to eliminate bias, but such a news source would not do well. Most people want their news to be entertainment, and they want to hear the facts colored and filtered to conform with their opinions.
That’s true.
When Sarah Palin announced her run as VP they said over 100 reporters showed up the next day in her small hometown looking for ANY dirt they could find on her.
Even the locals “lie” or just misrepresent.
Once I was interviewed. They asked 2 questions and I gave 2 different replies.
BUT, on screen they edited it so my response was to a different question.
Also my MIL once allowed a 30 minute interview and of that, only about 15 seconds of some of the least flattering of the interview made it on screen.
This American – who has a degree in journalism – relies on BBC America for the least possible biased news I can find. I’m sort of okay with the idea of news organizations being biased IF the consumers of that news are well educated enough to discern the bias for themselves and seek alternative viewpoints. Unfortunately, I have little faith that most Americans are able to do that. There seems to be an expectation that all news is supposed to be fair and balanced. I’m not entirely sure that’s even possible, although it used to allegedly be the goal of newspapers, as I was told in j-school. We were taught how to write without bias. However, I think it’s been a long time since any news organization cared more about unbiased facts than selling advertising.
In my own experience working with magazines as an editor, I was told by the publishers to choose topics that would interest our advertisers or at least put them in a positive light. In the case of a lifestyle magazine, I was sent to various vacation resort hotels in the coverage area and told to tell them I was there to review the place. I’d be comped free rooms, meals, activities and then expected to write a nice, positive fluff piece about the resort in question. Happened all the time. I was quickly disabused of my rather naive j-school assumptions about being fair and balanced.
You raise an interesting thought. I find myself getting more and more of my national news from English newspapers. Which raises a question of its own – are they less biased because of a lack of political partisanship or more biased because of their own political leanings which are generally leftward of ours?
That’s a really good question. I suspect that could be best answered by following the money. Whomever funds the news organization is driving the content that organization chooses to present. Perhaps it’s a bit of both.
Do I think they are biased and lie through their teeth? Yes. Are they as bad as I think they are? Probably not. It helps if you are in a small town with a low circulation paper; they can’t risk offending either political side and usually stick more to just offering the facts.
This is one that you’re going to think - “What else would they do?”. And that response is the big problem.
There is a crime.
An arrest is made sometime and place later.
Who gets the press?
The police (of course!)
The police version of the story is the only one reported.
That is Problem One
The story is related to you as:
“Did you see they got the guy who (committed the crime - whatever it was)”. Instantly, the arrest is proof of guilt.
That is Problem Two - and it’s huge.
Unfortunately the British press are most certainly biased. The Sun and The Times are owned by Murdoch and therefore push his opinions to a certain degree. The Telegraph is right-of-centre, and has had a strong soft spot for UKIP, though with UKIP’s leftward surge, how long that will continue is debatable. The Independent pushes whatever line its Russian billionaire owner wants. The Guardian and The Mirror are left-of-centre. And the Daily Mail is in a class all of its own. 
ETA: Yes Prime Minister’s take on this.