By the way, for the purposes of this debate, here is a link to the alluded-to FAIR study about the views of reporters on social and economic issues, etc: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jshore *
**
I’m familiar with this argument. Correct me if this is an incorrect paraphrase, but you seem to be saying that “The media may possess a left-wing bias, but since their viewpoints are reasonable and are an attempt to educate the misinformed public, it’s OK.”
I don’t mind attempts at “educating” the vulgar masses, so long as it’s clearly labeled as editorial opinion. Slanting news coverage (for example, in the manner Uncle Beer relates on the issue of gun control) is, in my view, a pernicious wrong with overall damaging effects, as I’ve repeatedly argued…even if the slants in question are in accord with my own personal philosophies.**
I’ve yet to see evidence that “pro-corporate bias” exists, much less that Wealth = Right-Winger. If one argues that more liberal opinions tend to be held by people with a greater degree of education, one must also acknowledge that such educational status also correlates with higher income.
**
No, I would not use the simple fact of layoffs being reported as lack of evidence of a “corporate media bias”. To cite a particular type of reporting on labor issues, I’d point to the characteristic way in which labor strife is reported in the major media - presenting the labor grievance(s), incorporating a sound bite from a labor leader, and closing with, at best, a one-sentence summary from the business viewpoint. To me, that style of reporting is not at all suggestive of a “pro-corporate” viewpoint.
**
And I will continue to argue that no one whose job it is to report the news has any business invoking “the objective reality of the world” as a justification for slanting coverage.
Kimstu said: "I’d like some stronger evidence that media coverage on these issues is not actually biased in favor of business than your unsupported claim.
Kimstu, what I’ve done here and in a previous thread is to ask, repeatedly, for people who allege a “corporate media bias” to show that such a bias exists, and how it might benefit the right wing. Again, show me, with relevant cites, how that’s the case. I’m not going to run around proving a negative for you.
As to your example of business coverage, I regularly see stories about labor-related issues in the business pages. Business sections, in my experience, do not exclude such news. And if you’re wondering why coverage of organized labor has declined in the last 50 years or so, might it be that the scope and influence of organized labor has declined dramatically over that time period, thus affecting the degree of coverage it gets?
If you’re miffed about the extent of “support for capitalism” in the major media, I will grant you that not too many media organizations echo the Daily Worker when it comes to economics reporting. I still don’t see how that makes them Right Wing.
You did ask nicely, but that wasn’t the question. You complained that there is an imbalance, and cited numbers (plausibly or not), implying that not having equal numbers of “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” stories (whatever definitions those terms have) is ipso facto “biased.”
If that’s really what you meant, it’s simplistic bullcrap. If you meant something else, perhaps along the lines of “The pro-gun position is underreported in the media to an unfair extent”, then please so state. But you didn’t.
Quoth Jackmannii:
[/quote]
If you believe that a proper function of reporting is to reflect public opinion, then what’s your take on the whitewashing of incidents of virulent racism in the southern press years ago? Since it reflected the popular opinion of the time, was it responsible reporting?
[/quote]
Ignoring the bait: How can reporting what popular opinion is not be responsible? I take it your concern is in stepping over the line from reporting to advocacy. If you think that’s the case, you need to make the case, not just whine. Same goes for Mr. Beer.
Jackmannii: And if you’re wondering why coverage of organized labor has declined in the last 50 years or so, might it be that the scope and influence of organized labor has declined dramatically over that time period, thus affecting the degree of coverage it gets?
But I wasn’t talking about coverage of organized labor per se, but rather about labor issues in general. The assumption that only labor unions are relevant when it comes to talking about “labor issues” is, I think, an example of how the business viewpoint has colored our views of reality.
If you’re miffed about the extent of “support for capitalism” in the major media, I will grant you that not too many media organizations echo the Daily Worker when it comes to economics reporting. I still don’t see how that makes them Right Wing.
Don’t be silly, of course I’m not saying that a media organ has to be frankly socialist in order not to be right-wing.
And as for your refusal to provide evidence that media coverage is not biased in favor of business, I wasn’t expecting you to undertake the responsibility of disproving my assertions. I was just pointing out that your own positive assertion to the contrary (and a rather categorical and sweeping assertion, at that) was unsubstantiated.
To cite a particular type of reporting on labor issues, I’d point to the characteristic way in which labor strife is reported in the major media - presenting the labor grievance(s), incorporating a sound bite from a labor leader, and closing with, at best, a one-sentence summary from the business viewpoint. To me, that style of reporting is not at all suggestive of a “pro-corporate” viewpoint.
Where’s your evidence that this is in fact “characteristic” reporting? I think one of the problems we’ve got here is that while you keep demanding that your opponents back up their claims with hard evidence (a perfectly reasonable thing to ask), you continue to make broad statements of your own to the opposite effect, without providing any hard evidence for them.
Jackmannii, the sad fact of the matter is that there is no such objective thing as just “reporting the news without slanting the coverage”. I will admit that there is clear advocacy pieces and pieces that try to be more objective, but total objectivity is a myth and what I am saying is that it is sometimes confusing to define objectivity. For example, on social issues, let’s take the teaching of evolution and creation science. Are you arguing that any report that doesn’t present creation science as as-valid a science as evolution is is “biased”?
You’ve certainly managed to pack a lot of confusion into two sentences. For one thing, you are continuing to neglect this distinction between liberal on social issues and on economic issues (obviously, one can make even more distinctions than this, but lets go with this dichomy for simplicity). On social issues, I think that educational status does correlate with more liberal opinions. However, on economic issues the correlation is more the reverse. (There may be a push back toward the liberal side among those who attain the “highest degrees” of education in the sense of degrees beyond undergraduate…I know for a fact that such people vote Democratic vs. Republican in greater numbers, although whether this is due to more liberal opinions on economic issues or only on social issues is something I am not sure has been investigated. My guess would be that there would be somewhat of a dichotomy between those who obtain, say, PhDs and those who obtain degrees like MBAs, so it would get kind of complicated.)
And, there is, I believe, a known correlation between wealth and right-wing views on economic issues although there are certainly exceptions out there (like the Kennedy family). So, no “wealth =/= right-winger” but there is a correlation.
However, I would simply point out that this definition of “left wing” and “right wing” on economic issues involving corporate power etc. is accepted terminology and if you don’t like it, be my guest and try to change it, but it seems pretty silly to just deny its existence. Then one is left arguing, "The media has a left-wing / liberal slant if you accept my definition of left-wing, which is not the generally-accepted definition of “left-wing”. (I prefer “left wing” to “liberal” here in that the term “liberal” has admittedly evolved somewhat over time and thus there are some people conservative on economic issues that will claim to be “liberal” in some more classical sense of the word. I believe that “left and right wing” have stayed a bit more constant although someone can correct me if I’m wrong.)
Your continued unwillingness to see the argument for unfettered capitalism / corporate power vs. more regulation of markets / corporate power as a right-wing / left-wing issue basically makes basically impossible to have an intelligent argument with you on this subject. For those who have not been enlightened as to your definition of the terms here, would you care to define them?
By the way, another example of detecting any supposed “slant” in reporting is to look at what news stories the major media chooses to give a lot of coverage and what thy don’t. Along these lines, I recommend http://www.projectcensored.org
Hmmm. A view is expressed in this thread (about the supposed “fiscal conservative” slant of the major media). I challenge the author of that view (or anyone else holding the opinion) to back it up with cites. No one does, but I’m the one who’s obliged to provide concrete examples of my views?
(Un)fair enough.
Here’s a typical example of the labor POV dominating a major network story.
And here’s yet another case of non-inclusion of company views (don’t tell me they couldn’t find anyone to comment) in a story about labor unrest.
Please note that the latter example comes from a business news section, like the ones that you think ignore labor’s side of things.
Jackmannii: I challenge the author of that view (or anyone else holding the opinion) to back it up with cites. No one does, but I’m the one who’s obliged to provide concrete examples of my views?
Yes, Jackmannii, when you make positive assertions such as “major media coverage of business issues including mergers, layoffs, labor unrest, product safety and the like is not biased in favor of business by any reasonable perception”, or that a certain style of reporting on labor issues is “characteristic in the major media”, you are obliged to provide concrete evidence if you don’t want people to think that you’re just resorting to an argumentum ab ano. You need not believe anyone else’s assertions if they don’t provide evidence for them, but by the same token, they need not believe yours unless you do the same.
Now, about this evidence: you are right that the CNN article about the Saturn strike that you linked to did not quote anybody from the management side of the issue. However, there are five other stories on the same topic linked in the “Related stories” box, and every one of them quotes a Saturn or GM spokesman; at least one is primarily discussing the GM perspective. This, IMHO, argues strongly against your contention that it is “characteristic” mainstream reporting on such issues to “close with, at best, a one-sentence summary from the business viewpoint”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jshore *
**
Let me remind you that Kimstu was complaining about what she sees as major media (and I quote) “support for capitalism”. Not “insufficient backing for my views on greater industry regulation”, but “support for capitalism”. To me, that sounds like the Media are being condemned as right wing for not espousing socialism. And you’re right, such talk makes having an intelligent discussion difficult.
I absolutely agree with you, though, that there is no way for a reporter to be completely objective. The only objective people are dead. There’s an important distinction between the impossible-to-achieve standard of objectivity, and that of fairness. And on the question of certain types of horrific events, a certain amount of subjectivity creeps in, if you are a human being, and the idea of balanced reporting is a joke. For example:
"The little community of Baucus, Wyoming was rocked today by the lynching of a black man in the town square. Civil rights groups expressed outrage.
On the other hand, Bubba Messerschmidt of the local chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood said “He got what wuz comin’ to 'im.”
Back to you, Dan.
Reporters would do well, however, to consider what degree of subjective righteousness is appropriate in a story about, say, the degree of government involvement in health care funding.
When’s the last time you saw a clearly labeled editorial piece on the CBS Evening News? I can remember when they were common, when network news personnel had some guts.
Jackmannii: Let me remind you that Kimstu was complaining about what she sees as major media (and I quote) “support for capitalism”. Not “insufficient backing for my views on greater industry regulation”, but “support for capitalism”. To me, that sounds like the Media are being condemned as right wing for not espousing socialism.
Seems like kind of an extreme interpretation, but in any case, you must have been relieved to see that I explicitly disavowed it in a subsequent post.
Due to Circumstances Beyond Our Control by Fred Friendly is a fantastic book about just the kind of CBS editorial pieces that are being described. The reasons for their cessation are interesting and…relevant to this little discussion here.
This proves to you that CNN is being balanced in its labor/management reporting? You’ve got to be kidding.
Of the five related stories you cite, four give considerably heavier weight to union data and quotes than to management opinions. In all four of those stories, the number of lines devoted to union’s view is more than double the lines given over to management’s POV (point of view). A lone exception favors presentation of a top GM exec’s POV over that of the UAW by a less than 2:1 margin.
Considering that the union line heavily dominates in five of the six stories in question, yes, I think that my cite adds weight to the idea that when it comes to strike coverage, labor views get more attention than management views in the major media. And it’s certainly does nothing to back up the concept of “corporate media bias”.
There is no doubt in my mind that most of the media has a leftward bias. Here is just one example right off the top of my head.
I remember when back in 1995 when the Republican congress was working toward balancing the budget. Apparently, they wanted to restrain the growth of medicare from 11 percent down to about 7 percent.
I was watching CNN news and they were reporting on the differences between the Republican and the Democrat medicare budgets. Toria Tolley was reading the news. She said something to the affect that the Republican plan had xxx amount of medicare CUTS. Then a minute later she said that the Democrat plan had xxx amount of medicare SAVINGS.
Jackmannii: This proves to you that CNN is being balanced in its labor/management reporting?
No, and I never said it did. What it does indicate to me, as I said, is that your previous claim of what is “characteristic” for mainstream reporting on labor issues is not correct.
You now seem to be shifting your stance somewhat to the milder claim that the media give more weight to labor views on strike issues than to management views. To assess whether that were really true, of course, we’d have to look at the whole range of strikes and see which ones get reported at all, which get ignored, and which way the coverage on the reported ones trends.
Barking Spider,
Two can play at this game. Why don’t we compare, for example, the media pile-on concerning Gore’s exagerations (which were sometimes exagerated themselves) with, say, the reaction to Bush’s many misstatements or Cheney’s patently false claim in his debate with Lieberman that “government had nothing to do with it” in regards to his large increase in wealth during the 1990s when in fact he was CEO of a corporation that saw a large increase in government contracts after he came on board?
(BTW, as a disclaimer, I personally don’t think the apparent media bias toward G.W. over Gore was due to any political bias, but might likely be due simply to the fact that the media people covering G.W. liked him better for personality reasons than those covering Gore…as I heard suggested in an interview on Fresh Air with someone covering one of those campaigns. On the other hand, the inability of the media to report on the Cheney remark while jumping on the Gore exageration issue does seem to reflect on their tendency to follow the trivial and to ignore issues that take a bit more complex consideration…which, in the end, I think does end up favoring a corporate viewpoint.)
Well, CNN is apparently flagrently liberal, so I decided to check out the website. Now, maybe the online version isn’t so biased, but I found nothing that didn’t seem to be pretty much straight-up news:
Here’s one about a plotted school shooting, with no mention of gun control at all. There’s one here that would be a perfect opportunity to take a few pot-shots at Ashcroft, but only states that there is concern from opponents, and gets his statement on the matter. This one has a few more anti-death penalty statements than pro, but that’s because the news is the statements of anti-death penalty lawyers. There’s still a response from the prosecution.
This and this are mostly “he said/she said” and (simplified) summaries of the two sides.
I’m just not seeing it.
Kimstu, as one who’s been impressed by the quality of your postings in previous debates, let me say that the degree of nitpicking, fudging and selective responses that you’re engaging in here does you no credit.
Let me remind you that while I have presented cites, you are still relying on unsupported views and trying to divert attention from your own lack of concrete evidence by calling on me to prove a negative.
You, better than anyone, should know that’s not how we do things here.
Anyone remember that old saying about suckers and poker tables?
Well, sorry if you don’t approve of what I’ve posted, Jackmannii, but I really don’t think I’m out of line in asking you to support your assertions, any more than you’re out of line in asking me to support mine. I think all of us are aware that this is a complex issue on which comprehensive and unambiguous data is very hard to come by. All the more reason to question assumptions, examine assertions, and refrain from summarily dismissing opponents’ positions with terms like “fantasy” or “delusional”.
Now Gad, honey, I don’t know the quote whereof you speak, but tell me, hand on heart, was that a useful and dignified contribution to the debate?