The Foxnewsification of America

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=mlees]
The columnist is telling you what their POV is, you just have to read the article. scratches head I just don’t understand, yet, what advantage your looking for here.

If you consider yourself “liberal”, and you see an opinion piece that has the warning label of “liberal”, are you going to assume that it is more factual? Less?
[/QUOTE]
I would assume that I probably need to read an opposing viewpoint in order to determine if it’s factual. My personal bias wouldn’t enter into it.

Isn’t there a danger that, based on whatever “label” is on a piece or news organisation, that label will bias you? By that, I mean if, based on your preconceptions of those who use that label, you will become unfairly critical (or more likely to unquestionally accept) the info or opinion presented?

YES. But I think it is better to be overly critical than overly accepting of ANYTHING one reads or hears in the media. That’s exactly my point.

Let me try my (weak) analogy skills again. The members of the SDMB already feel that Fox News Channel has a conservative bias. FNC, because of your watching it over time, already has that slant applied to it. You don’t need the “label”, you already accept or reject what they say based on your own opinions of their integrity.

What do you, personally, expect to gain by FNC coming out and point blank stating 'this piece contains elements of conservative opinion"?

That’s only one example, though. People around here also vigorously deny that CNN, for example, is slanted to the left. Is it or isn’t it? I think it is, others don’t. What is the truth? What I would expect to gain is a positive confirmation that I should expect their pieces to be biased, not on someone else’s say so, or my own biased opinion.

Are you just looking for a “Hah! I knew it! You guys are NOT F&B!”

Not at all.

Consider my own (mlees) posts, here on SDMB. Over time, some folks (if they actually give a hoot and paid attention to the posters’ names) will come to sense a little of how I may perceive things. A couple may think, when they see my login name on the post, may think “Great… here comes the ‘peanut gallery’ again…”. And that perception of me (and my opinions) is based entirely on what I say, how I say it, and so on. Any bad (or good) impressions I leave around here are (mostly) of my own doing. I feel it’s the same with the news agencies.

That works with opinion pieces. Not so much with news reporting. I used the opinion pieces as an example of where I use known bias as an aid when reading. But it’s not hard to determine bias in opinion pieces…I’m talking more about making it known for “hard news,” where the bias isn’t so obvious.

[nd_n8]

[QUOTE=mlees]
The members of the SDMB already feel that Fox News Channel has a conservative bias. FNC, because of your watching it over time, already has that slant applied to it. You don’t need the “label”, you already accept or reject what they say based on your own opinions of their integrity.

[/QUOTE]

WHOA…
WHOA WHOA WHOA…

Are you telling me that Fox News is Conservitave and not Liberal?

Next you’ll be telling me that Bill Mahar is a Liberal.

Maybe I should rethink some of my self imposed labels.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I guess I don’t see the value of having to ferret out bias in a piece. When I read news and commentary, I’m looking for facts as well as various points of view on an issue, in order to be well-informed enough to form a solid opinion on it. I would much rather know where the writer is coming from, which will help me determine if there seems to be bias, and whether or not I need to go look for some opposing views. I read a lot of opinion columnists, and knowing what the POV of the columnist is helps me to know how big of a grain of salt I need to take it with.
[/QUOTE]
News stories should have no bias whatsoever. None. And while that is impossible for fallible human beings to achieve in practice, it still must remain the goal for journalists. A media organization (under most circumstances) can free itself from this “burden” and “report” any way it wishes simply by acknowledging that they are not journalists. There is no shame in admitting that. Just call a spade a spade.

News is reported for media consumers to learn facts about events. Opinions only cloud the message. In communication theory such interference and distraction from the intended message is called “noise”. Journalists strive to eliminate as much “noise” as possible in their stories so that the maximum amount of the message gets through.

As you have pointed out upthread, newspapers especially have always been known for their biases. This is as it should be because newspapers are private enterprises intended to deliver the messages of their publishers. In modern newspapers in the USA (at least) this is still true but the bias is largely contained in the editorial pages because journalists have an ethical obligation to be as objective as possible when reporting news items.

Putting a disclaimer next to a news item that the writer is writing with a (for example) right-wing or left-wing slant is the same as putting a disclaimer that the writer is not a journalist. If there is any foreknowledge that an item is being prepared with such a slant then the correct measure is not to print a disclaimer, but rather not to run the story at all and not to employ writers who do not abide by the ethics of objective reporting.

The other area where bias comes into play (and is acceptable to some extent) in print media is in story selection. You may see more pro-union stories in a left-leaning newspaper, for example. But the bias should be limited the decision to cover a union strike rally instead of the concurrent 103rd Annual Robber-Barons Ball (e.g.), NOT in actually WRITING the piece with a pro-union bias.

Broadcast media is a different kettle of fish because the airwaves are publicly owned. So, media outlets holding licenses to send messages on those airwaves have a higher standard of overall objectivity. This includes content selection as well as the actual content itself.

Cable-cast media need not have the same standards of objectivity and can be presented more like print media. But in my opinion, this should be changed because while the cable systems are privately owned, they are often monopolies and as such operate only with the blessings of the government. They also operate as a utility–running their cables through city-county owned rights-of-way. Therefore their product must live up to certain standards to be approved by the community as a whole. An electric company’s current must abide by certain public standards; a phone company’s voice communications must also, and both are heavily regulated. The cable company’s product should be no different IMO.

[mlees]

@Sarahfeena

That’s only one example, though. People around here also vigorously deny that CNN, for example, is slanted to the left. Is it or isn’t it? I think it is, others don’t. What is the truth? What I would expect to gain is a positive confirmation that I should expect their pieces to be biased, not on someone else’s say so, or my own biased opinion.

So, if your unsure of the factuality of the info in a news piece, your going to accept the self applied “slant label” at face value?

That’s only one example, though. People around here also vigorously deny that CNN, for example, is slanted to the left. Is it or isn’t it? I think it is, others don’t. What is the truth? What I would expect to gain is a positive confirmation that I should expect their pieces to be biased, not on someone else’s say so, or my own biased opinion.

Well, if you start from the knowledge/assumption that humans are imperfect, and that all news pieces are subject to deliberate or accidental slanting, then you are already aware that you need to fact check. (I think that there is good and bad in all of the major news organisations.)

If, as you say, you want people to be more (and not less) critical of the news the read/listen to, then these labels will have the exact opposite effect in that regard, IMO. You will have even more folks saying “Well, I’m not going to trust anything that has that label. They just can’t be trusted.”

If you want folks to question all sources, which I think is a worthwhile goal, than provide easy to get alternate viewpoints. (TV and the internet are great for this, IMO, as long as you fact check, dammit!)

OT: A show or publication that would gather news articles from multiple sources, and contrast them against each other might be interesting… hmmm. Some attempts have been tried, I think. I am not sure why it has not caught on more. Regular people just don’t have the time?

[mlees]

@I love me

Broadcast media is a different kettle of fish because the airwaves are publicly owned. So, media outlets holding licenses to send messages on those airwaves have a higher standard of overall objectivity. This includes content selection as well as the actual content itself.

I am not exactly clear here, but that is self enforced. Not through the government.

While no none commercial company can “claim” a piece of the radio spectrum, they are free to do what they will with it, within the bounds of the FCC obscenity rules, and libel laws. (After all, Channel “x” just licenses the right to broadcast on a particular frequency. The government shouldn’t care if the plan on transmitting rock videos, Captain Kangaroo reruns, or news reports.)

If the government monitored the airwaves and enfourced “the Truth”, the anything that made those in the halls of power look bad might get squashed as “untruthful” (Abu Graib comes to mind…), as well as running up against the first amendment.

As it is, let the “news” organisation do what they will. If the viewing public figures out that a particular new organisation cannot be trusted to provide accurate info, they will eventually go out of buisness, at least as a news agency.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]

News stories should have no bias whatsoever. None. And while that is impossible for fallible human beings to achieve in practice, it still must remain the goal for journalists. A media organization (under most circumstances) can free itself from this “burden” and “report” any way it wishes simply by acknowledging that they are not journalists. There is no shame in admitting that. Just call a spade a spade.

News is reported for media consumers to learn facts about events. Opinions only cloud the message. In communication theory such interference and distraction from the intended message is called “noise”. Journalists strive to eliminate as much “noise” as possible in their stories so that the maximum amount of the message gets through.

As you have pointed out upthread, newspapers especially have always been known for their biases. This is as it should be because newspapers are private enterprises intended to deliver the messages of their publishers. In modern newspapers in the USA (at least) this is still true but the bias is largely contained in the editorial pages because journalists have an ethical obligation to be as objective as possible when reporting news items.

Putting a disclaimer next to a news item that the writer is writing with a (for example) right-wing or left-wing slant is the same as putting a disclaimer that the writer is not a journalist. If there is any foreknowledge that an item is being prepared with such a slant then the correct measure is not to print a disclaimer, but rather not to run the story at all and not to employ writers who do not abide by the ethics of objective reporting.

The other area where bias comes into play (and is acceptable to some extent) in print media is in story selection. You may see more pro-union stories in a left-leaning newspaper, for example. But the bias should be limited the decision to cover a union strike rally instead of the concurrent 103rd Annual Robber-Barons Ball (e.g.), NOT in actually WRITING the piece with a pro-union bias.

Broadcast media is a different kettle of fish because the airwaves are publicly owned. So, media outlets holding licenses to send messages on those airwaves have a higher standard of overall objectivity. This includes content selection as well as the actual content itself.

Cable-cast media need not have the same standards of objectivity and can be presented more like print media. But in my opinion, this should be changed because while the cable systems are privately owned, they are often monopolies and as such operate only with the blessings of the government. They also operate as a utility–running their cables through city-county owned rights-of-way. Therefore their product must live up to certain standards to be approved by the community as a whole. An electric company’s current must abide by certain public standards; a phone company’s voice communications must also, and both are heavily regulated. The cable company’s product should be no different IMO.

I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying that journalists should “give up” and not TRY to write objectively. Of course, they should. I never meant that journalists need to write in a way that “matches” the declared slant of the paper. What I meant was that a paper should have an editorial point of view, and hire staff accordingly. That way, the general bias of the paper will lean the same way. I’m not talking about a red-flag warning that ALL content is deliberately biased. In fact, I’m over stepping my own point to say that papers should necessarily “declare” a slant. I’m thinking more along the lines of coming to an understanding, acceptance, and more importantly, an admission that even the strictest “news” has a bias to it.

[Sarahfeena]

WTF happened to my post? Here it is…thank goodness for the “back” button!

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
News stories should have no bias whatsoever. None. And while that is impossible for fallible human beings to achieve in practice, it still must remain the goal for journalists. A media organization (under most circumstances) can free itself from this “burden” and “report” any way it wishes simply by acknowledging that they are not journalists. There is no shame in admitting that. Just call a spade a spade.

News is reported for media consumers to learn facts about events. Opinions only cloud the message. In communication theory such interference and distraction from the intended message is called “noise”. Journalists strive to eliminate as much “noise” as possible in their stories so that the maximum amount of the message gets through.

As you have pointed out upthread, newspapers especially have always been known for their biases. This is as it should be because newspapers are private enterprises intended to deliver the messages of their publishers. In modern newspapers in the USA (at least) this is still true but the bias is largely contained in the editorial pages because journalists have an ethical obligation to be as objective as possible when reporting news items.

Putting a disclaimer next to a news item that the writer is writing with a (for example) right-wing or left-wing slant is the same as putting a disclaimer that the writer is not a journalist. If there is any foreknowledge that an item is being prepared with such a slant then the correct measure is not to print a disclaimer, but rather not to run the story at all and not to employ writers who do not abide by the ethics of objective reporting.

The other area where bias comes into play (and is acceptable to some extent) in print media is in story selection. You may see more pro-union stories in a left-leaning newspaper, for example. But the bias should be limited the decision to cover a union strike rally instead of the concurrent 103rd Annual Robber-Barons Ball (e.g.), NOT in actually WRITING the piece with a pro-union bias.

Broadcast media is a different kettle of fish because the airwaves are publicly owned. So, media outlets holding licenses to send messages on those airwaves have a higher standard of overall objectivity. This includes content selection as well as the actual content itself.

Cable-cast media need not have the same standards of objectivity and can be presented more like print media. But in my opinion, this should be changed because while the cable systems are privately owned, they are often monopolies and as such operate only with the blessings of the government. They also operate as a utility–running their cables through city-county owned rights-of-way. Therefore their product must live up to certain standards to be approved by the community as a whole. An electric company’s current must abide by certain public standards; a phone company’s voice communications must also, and both are heavily regulated. The cable company’s product should be no different IMO.
[/QUOTE]
I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying that journalists should “give up” and not TRY to write objectively. Of course, they should. I never meant that journalists need to write in a way that “matches” the declared slant of the paper. What I meant was that a paper should have an editorial point of view, and hire staff accordingly. That way, the general bias of the paper will lean the same way. I’m not talking about a red-flag warning that ALL content is deliberately biased. In fact, I’m over stepping my own point to say that papers should necessarily “declare” a slant. I’m thinking more along the lines of coming to an understanding, acceptance, and more importantly, an admission that even the strictest “news” has a bias to it.

[mlees]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
WTF happened to my post? Here it is…thank goodness for the “back” button!

I think you are misconstruing what I am saying. I am not saying that journalists should “give up” and not TRY to write objectively. Of course, they should. I never meant that journalists need to write in a way that “matches” the declared slant of the paper. What I meant was that a paper should have an editorial point of view, and hire staff accordingly. That way, the general bias of the paper will lean the same way. I’m not talking about a red-flag warning that ALL content is deliberately biased. In fact, I’m over stepping my own point to say that papers should necessarily “declare” a slant. I’m thinking more along the lines of coming to an understanding, acceptance, and more importantly, an admission that even the strictest “news” has a bias to it.
[/QUOTE]

I know you weren’t addressing me, I hope I’m not considered rude to reply here…

I think that it is the duty of the consumer to understand that everything is possibly subject to some kind of bias. I don’t think putting the onus on the news organisation will solve the issue here, for you.

Consider this, as well. The average American has a healthy skepticism for politicians. They feel that politicians will say enything (and admit nothing) to get elected. This, IMO, helps explain some of the apathy and lack of participation in elections and debates. Unfortunately for the voter, the political machine is such that, if you don’t play the game by their rules, you generally don’t get elected (or if you do, your marginalised during the day-to-day goings on in the halls of power).

Why is there this skepticism? I think it’s because the public realises that politicians practice this double speak. I think that the public can, and do, (generally) detect a slant in news, when they care enough about a story.

[Sarahfeena]

Eh, it’s not like this is a hill I want to die on. I think what irritates me is cases where journalists…well-respected ones…have insisted that they have no bias, when it’s pretty clear that their biases have affected their decision making

[Subliminal man](Dan Rather)[/Subliminal man]