The GQ forum is for factual questions. Since you say you don’t want an argument, I’ll move this thread to the IMHO forum rather than Great Debates.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
I’d like to see a cite for that as well. This site, which is reporting what they perceived as pro-Gore media bias in the election night coverage, makes no mention of this, despite reporting several other quotes by Rather that they perceived as pro-Gore. They would surely have reported it if Rather had actually said something as blatent as “we won”.
The site does report that Claire Shipman said something similar on NBC. She did say the words “we’ve won the election” but she was quoting a member of Gore’s campaign staff. Her full quote was that Gore’s staff was claiming “that his win of the popular vote gives him the authority to proceed right now. And, Tom, they also say that popular vote win is giving him some personal comfort in the face of a loss. As one aide said, ‘we’ve won the election. Whether we get inaugurated is another deal.’”
I’m pretty far Right & I totally don’t regard Fox as “fair & balanced”, except to counteract CNN, which I think is skewed New-World-Order (kinda j/k).
That’s why I mostly watch MSNBC.
Well, I seem to be suffering from faulty memory syndrome. I’ve been Googling around trying to find the “we won” cite, and although there’s a plethora of data showing Rather’s pro-Gore bias and his displeasure with the election process, I can’t find anything about that particular comment. My apologies. I withdraw that parenthetical.
If all advertising is brainwashing, which it isn’t, then maybe. I’d favor the word “lying” over “brainwashing.”
Pro-Gore media bias on election night? Was that an attempt to counterbalance all the anti-Gore media bias on the rest of his campaign?
There’s nothing wrong with FOX having a right-leaning bias as long as it’s clear about it and doesn’t proclaim or pretend to be “fair and balanced.” You can’t be biased and be fair and balanced at the same time.
News is not “basically for entertainment.” News is supposed to inform, provide a community service, not entertain you, but that’s a journalistic principle, not a corporate mantra, so it’s fallen way, WAY by the wayside. Still, I wouldn’t call Nancy Grace “entertainment” (I want to slap her).
I think it’s true what you say about validation, though. People do seek out those whose opinions and beliefs mirror their own.
If you’re really going to evaluate this, you’ll also need to consider:
–What kind of stories are given the most time?
–What stories did they choose NOT to run and why?
–Which stories did they choose to lead? To close? Why?
I don’t claim to be making science with what I’m doing; it’s mostly for my own edification. Still the things you mention are things that I make a point of taking note of.
As you would expect, there are differences in the variables you mention, after all there is no tight formula for what story leads or how much time you give each story. The problem comes when attaching a “why” to the differences. That’s where I think you need a tin-foil-hat attitude to come up with any kind of left-right basis.
And for the record, one of the more noticable differences in reporting came over the past couple of weeks with the Katrina disaster. I found Shepard Smith far more critical of FEMA than the CBS crew, and far more passionate in his criticism.
Hmmm. While on the average, Fox is more to the right than MSNBC, I think MSNBC is more biased. The anchors, even when reporting supposed news, make no qualms about interjecting their personal opinion into the matter, even to the point of badgering guests, cutting them off, and throwing a few extra words to which the guest can’t reply. I’d hate to see what their opinion analysts are like.
I’ve somewhat blocked the several involuntary exposures to MSNBC’s “news” out of my mind, so I can’t recall the exact stances taken by their crew, but it didn’t seem as rightist as Fox – just more populist and stupid. Sort of like if O’Reilly were an Old South Democrat anchoring a news program.
Actually, there are formulas that help determine what leads and how much time a station will spend on it, so that makes the “why” a bit easier to determine.
In the formula, for example, footage of a fire will almost always lead the local news. The public loves a good fire! I’m sure national news programs have similar “formulas.”
I think you’re confusing formulas with guidelines.
Actually, no.
For example, this is how the “formula” might work in print:
Large ship sinks off coast of Ireland – back page
Large ship sinks off coast of Ireland after crash because captain was drunk – back of World section
Large ferry sinks off coast of Ireland after crash because captain was drunk; 30 people die – Inside of World Section
Large ferry sinks off coast of Ireland after crash because captain was drunk; 200 people die – front page of World Section or near if not on the front page.
They aren’t written formulas, but they are formulas none-the-less.
Small ferry sinks near New York City. Nobody hurt, but a reporter figures out a plausible way to blame a prominent politician – front page.
Nope. The best you can claim for you examples is that each media outlet would place the story by applying some sort of guideline based on how the event might impact the readers or viewers, the interest level, etc. Ultimately there will be a subjective judgment about how to report the story or whether to report it.
A formula implies some sort of objective criteria.
All of which is moot, really. If Fox leads with a ship sinking off the coast of Ireland but CBS leads with a story about political corruption at FEMA I don’t see why it matters *how *they made the decision - whether they apply a formula, guideline or roll dice - what matters is *why *they thought one was more important than the other and whether there is a pattern to the decisions.
You see, InvisibleWombat has already mastered the formulas. 
Yes, the Force is strong with that one.
:dubious: We’ve discussed this before Bricker and the results were far from conclusive unless opinion suddenly became fact. If you’ve got better information, I await your return to those threads.
With regards to Fox News, what I find to be more pronounced than any political bias is a heavy bias towards editorializing and sensationalism. Their motto should be “LOOK AT ME! PLEASE LOOK AT ME!!.” What’s worse is that it is working so the other news networks are aping it.
They shouldn’t have to. The news should be stated as plainly as possible without any political bias. Editorials are for stating views. The news is for describing what happened.
What depresses me is how accurate this statement is.
There is no “guideline” because every scenario/story is different, and they are all evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As I said, it really is formulaic: a+b=c, OR a+c=d, etc. There are specific events that, when combined with other events (as I illustrated in my previous example), change the “value” of the story and therefore, the decision on where to run that story. But you’re correct, it’s not objective.
Ultimately, for the media company, it’s all about readership/viewership and ratings because that brings in the advertising dollars. Perhaps that’s the “guideline” to which you’re referring: ***Use whatever will bring the highest ratings and therefore the most profit. ***
That makes no sense to me. The “how” leads to the “why.” If they just flip a coin to determine which story leads, then you know “why.” It’s because they flipped a coin.
How about these examples: Let’s say one channel leads with a story about improprieties found in Hillary Clinton’s senate campaign and then a story about an explosion at an industrial plant in Missouri that kills 4. The other leads with the explosion and follows with the Clinton story. * That* could be an indication of bias (though not proof), but you would need months of such data to detect and confirm patterns.
If you’re going to insist that the lead stories are governed by a formula, then perhaps you could suggest what the formula would be for your example.
Or not. I really don’t care.
The only point I wanted to make in this thread is that I have been watching both Fox and CBS evening news specifically looking for bias and have not found any.