# The Mainstream Non-Biased Media **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695 "2008-10-26T23:40:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/23 "2008-10-27T02:26:44Z")
Bias would be: “Who’s McCain Trying Kid?” ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/24 "2008-10-27T02:33:35Z")
He has his life invested in this. Bush came along and took what was his. He has no other chance. He wants it badly . He and all other candidates speak to followers who scream and yell at everything they says. It is hard after a while not to think everybody loves them. It just is not true. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/25 "2008-10-27T02:40:38Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Fair enough. He only guaranteed that it will be close, and in the next sentence said he’s going to win. > > Would a headline of, “McCain guarantees election will be close,” have been fine by you? Sure, as far as possible bias is concerned. I think “McCain guarantees close election; predicts victory” would have been fair and sufficiently punchy. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/26 "2008-10-27T02:45:52Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure, as far as possible bias is concerned. I think “McCain guarantees close election; predicts victory” would have been fair and sufficiently punchy. Maybe in a newspaper that’d work! But yeah, you’re right. Frankly, that’s one of my problems with internet news. Most of them really condense the link’s headline to the point where they make little or no sense at all. They’ve all gone all Variety on us. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/27 "2008-10-27T02:49:34Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure, as far as possible bias is concerned. I think “McCain guarantees close election; predicts victory” would have been fair and sufficiently punchy. That’s a rather lame headline in my opinion. But “McCain guarantees victory,” while a completely accurate rendition of what he said, isn’t any great shakes either. What do they expect him to say? “We’re screwed?” It’s true that the lede is a little misleading, though. The word “guarantee” was not used in the context of a victory. It’s fair in a paraphrase but shouldn’t have been used that way. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/28 "2008-10-27T02:59:32Z")
1 Without the video it’s impossible to know if the quote is punctuated correctly. B Yahoo! News is part of the mainstream broadcast media? :dubious: CMC +fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/29 "2008-10-27T04:18:53Z")
> [@](#): > > “McCain guarantees close election; predicts victory” “Doesn’t specify whose” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/30 "2008-10-27T04:20:59Z")
Seriously, McCain said two things: that the election will be close and that he will win. Of those two, the second is the bigger story and that’s the one that goes in the headline. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/31 "2008-10-27T04:27:07Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > B Yahoo! News is part of the mainstream broadcast media? :dubious: A pretty decent number of people probably get their news that way. It’s not a news channel, they carry mostly wire stories. Regardless, it’s one story and doesn’t prove anybody’s bias - and the bias claim here is really weak. I have to repeat that it’s silly to make a story out of McCain’s prediction that he’ll win. He says at three events a day that he’s going to win. What else is he going to say on Meet the Press? There is no other answer he is going to give. If he DID say he doesn’t expect to win, that’d be real news. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/32 "2008-10-27T08:57:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Seriously, McCain said two things: that the election will be close and that he will win. Of those two, the second is the bigger story and that’s the one that goes in the headline. The problem is that he used the verb “guarantee” with one prediction but not with the other. It’s really not all that complicated. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/33 "2008-10-27T09:05:38Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Regardless, it’s one story and doesn’t prove anybody’s bias What evidence would satisfy you that the news source in question is biased? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/34 "2008-10-27T09:31:45Z")
Just for kicks, I clicked on the link that gives the most recent headlines on Yahoo. Here they are: > [@](#): > > Palin says expensive clothing not her property > > Obama Wages `Uphill Battle’ to Wrest West Virginia From McCain > > McCain tries to distance himself from Bush > > Obama leads in 5 key states, McCain in 2 > > 23% - Still Swinging > > McCain guarantees victory > > Martin: Arkansas pols discover enthusiasm for Obama > > Could McCain lose his home state? > > McCain derisive of Obama in battleground states > > Obama slams McCain in Colorado > > All in a day on the campaign trail > > For McCain, 18-hour days produce both hits, errors > > For Obama, no rest in an 18-hour campaign day > > Today on the presidential campaign trail > > One poll moves (a lot); the rest stay flat > > Pentagon on guard for White House wartime transition > > White House race gilded by history > > Candidates spar with 9 days to go > > Obama offering closing case to voters in Ohio > > Obama draws record crowd, links McCain to Bush > > Financial Times endorses Obama > > Former GOP senator, vet backs Obama > > Alaska’s largest newspaper endorses Obama > > Obama, McCain Face Most Pressure Since FDR to Speed Transition > > Endorsements: Anchorage paper picks Obama > > Jesse Jackson Jr. would be “honored and humbled” to replace Obama > > Before 100,000, Obama slates McCain > > Yikes! there’s politics in my mailbox > > Obama Leads McCain in National, Battleground Polls > > Growing Asian-American vote sheds passive past > > Palin’s state paper backs Obama; Arizona daily for McCain > > McCain casts himself as a check on liberal Democrats > > Palin forswears fancy campaign clothes > > Republicans brace for night of doom in Congress > > Nader says he set campaign speech record > > Obama woos middle class, McCain tars him as ‘socialist’ > > Back to the future in an Obama White House > > Ex-US Treasury head Rubin: no return to Washington > > Bush leaves successor a world of trouble > > McCain campaign: Palin returned most GOP clothes > > McCain cautious on auto industry bailout > > Obama Woos Latinos, Attacks McCain on Immigration > > McCain Says He’s Closing Poll Gap Before Election Day > > McCain cuts size of shopping spree > > McCain delves deep into process > > McCain Says He Is Closing Gap With Obama Before Election Day > > Obama opens wide lead in New Hampshire over McCain > > McCain shrugs off plunging polls in White House race > > Clinton WH vets doubt Obama openness vow It does seem that there are more negative articles about McCain and/or Palin than Obama and/or Biden. I suppose one could respond that there is more negative news right now about McCain/Palin. I don’t know if this is true, but what I did find interesting was the choice of verbs to describe the candidates’ conduct. For example, compare “Obama slams McCain” with “McCain tars Obama.” Which verb more strongly suggests that the criticism is unfair or unjustified? Or compare “Obama draws record crowd, links McCain to Bush” with “McCain tries to distance himself from Bush” Which headheadline suggests that the actor has not succeeded? Whoever wrote those headlines could have easily said “Obama tries to link McCain to Bush.” or “McCain distances himself from Bush” Maybe I’m being paranoid, but it does seem like there’s some bias here. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/35 "2008-10-27T12:41:28Z")
I think the desperation with which the Pubs / conservatives try to read everything as “media bias” shows how pathetically poor and weak their case is. Because a headline isn’t perfect in summarizing exactly what someone said that reflects clear bias even when it is nearly impossible to explain why it is in any way biased rather than just imprecise? By contrast, you should look at places like [FAIR.org](http://FAIR.org) that document media bias in the conservative direction. They document real examples of the major media making shit up such as (during the lead-up to the Iraq war) saying that Saddam threw the inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 or leaving out vitally important information (such as saying that Saddam was uncooperative with the inspectors, claiming that they were spying on him without bothering to note that it was in fact acknowledged in major newspapers quoting multiple U.S. and UN sources that they were in fact spying on him). And, it is not like such bias was inconsequential, as it helped lead us into the most major foreign policy blunder since at least Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/36 "2008-10-27T13:23:21Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Because a headline isn’t perfect in summarizing exactly what someone said that reflects clear bias even when it is nearly impossible to explain why it is in any way biased rather than just imprecise? That’s just not true. The headline makes McCain seem rather unreasonable. More unreasonable than his actual words suggest. Anyway, I wouldn’t call it “clear bias.” Bias is almost never clear from just one incident. As noted above, it seems a bit sketchy to me that when Obama (apparently) compares McCain to Bush, the headline is “Obama links McCain to Bush” and not “Obama attempts to link McCain to Bush” while at the same time, when McCain (apparently) says that he is not like Bush, the headline is “McCain tries to distance himself from Bush” and not simply “McCain distances himself from Bush” Obviously determining clear bias would require extensive analysis of headlines, which I don’t have the time to do right now. But from my unscientific sample, it does appear that there is some bias. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/37 "2008-10-27T13:32:45Z")
It seems to me it is hard to do this. Partisans of parties always want to see cheer leading, and say that the medias that do not cheer lead them is biased. Always this is the case, even if in objective views, there is reason for reporting negatively. Watching the US elections in 2004 and now 2008, it seems that which ever side is behind, it complains of bias, because the side that is behind, it is always in the end feeling desperate and it is looking less competent than the side that is winning. Like the team that is down in football, the supporters always complain about any little thing the arbitrator does not call (or does call), but if they are up, then it is more a shrug. I do not know if there is bias in the US medias, they do seem to love too much silly stories without any substance over more thought, but this seems to be without bias, only seeking audience. ---
**Author:** ![BlueOhio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/439d5e/32.png) [@BlueOhio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueOhio)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/38 "2008-10-27T13:40:29Z")
I know it used to be that whomever wrote the headline was pretty low on the totem pole - these weren’t editors or publishers, or even the reporters writing the headlines but lower paid staffers. I don’t know if it is still this way in modern electronic media. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/39 "2008-10-27T13:40:39Z")
Non-biased _Variety_ headline: McCain Plain: Obama Trauma ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/40 "2008-10-27T14:05:42Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > What evidence would satisfy you that the news source in question is biased? Show me a consistent, non-cherry picked pattern in a person or source’s coverage and I’ll take a bias charge seriously. One article sure as hell isn’t going to do it. At least not when the entire argument centers around something this silly. The OP is claiming it is unreasonable to write that McCain guaranteed victory when he actually did guarantee victory. “We’re going to win” is a guarantee of victory. Saying you will definitely do something is a guarantee. I critiqued the wording in the lede, but what **jtgain** concluded about “the media” is nonsense. So, in terms of determining patterns, a survey of headlines being carried on Yahoo won’t convince me of much either: Yahoo doesn’t have a news department, they’re running articles by a variety of different services. The one quoted in the OP is by Politico, by the way. You could get a general idea of how the campaign is going from those headlines, but I see no proof that “the media” is biased here. Comparing “tars” vs. “slams” is not a meaningful way to determine bias either. The conclusion that one “make McCain sound more unreasonable than the other” is totally subjective, no distiction is made about the source for either piece, and it overlooks the factors that go into writing a headline, including trying to grab reader interest, variety of words, and _space_. The difference is that somebody went for variety in the verbs used in his/her headline (“slams” is very common, “tars” is not), or wanted to use less space. Determining intent there is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/41 "2008-10-27T14:28:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Comparing “tars” vs. “slams” is not a meaningful way to determine bias either. The conclusion that one “make McCain sound more unreasonable than the other” is totally subjective, no distiction is made about the source for either piece, and it overlooks the factors that go into writing a headline, including trying to grab reader interest, variety of words, and _space_. The difference is that somebody went for variety in the verbs used in his/her headline (“slams” is very common, “tars” is not), or wanted to use less space. Determining intent there is impossible. More importantly, there was no attempt made in **brazil84** ’s analysis to actually distinguish whether the substance of the attacks might merit a different use of words. (I am reminded of the joke about the facts having an anti-Bush bias.) There is a factual reality there where if one candidate calls the other a “silly nincompoop” and the other says “My opponent’s plan for job creation will not provide the kind of broad scale economic benefits that I propose,” the two should probably not be treated as equally-wise and valid forms of criticism of one’s opponent. (In the actual case in question, the “tarring” was using the word “socialist” to describe Obama.) In **brazil84** ’s world, perhaps if one candidate says the moon is made of green cheese and the other says that it is made of materials not entirely disimilar from what the earth is made of, any statement more committal than saying, “Candidates disagree on make-up of moon” would be considered biased. As I noted, when liberal groups like FAIR cite examples of media bias, they often (although probably not always) give examples where what the media says is clearly at variance with the facts. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/42 "2008-10-27T14:33:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Show me a consistent, non-cherry picked pattern in a person or source’s coverage and I’ll take a bias charge seriously. > > One article sure as hell isn’t going to do it. At least not when the entire argument centers around something this silly. The OP is claiming it is unreasonable to write that McCain guaranteed victory when he actually did guarantee victory. “We’re going to win” is a guarantee of victory. Saying you will definitely do something is a guarantee. Which expresses more confidence and which expresses less confidence: (1) I think I’m going to win; (2) I’m going to win; or (3) I guarantee I’m going to win. ? To me, the answer is pretty obvious. (1) expresses the least confidence; and (3) expresses the most confidence. But I would be interested to hear your view. > [@](#): > > So, in terms of determining patterns, a survey of headlines being carried on Yahoo won’t convince me of much either: Yahoo doesn’t have a news department, they’re running articles by a variety of different services. That’s the point isn’t it? To look at coverage from a variety of mainstream (?)sources and see if there is a pattern of bias. > [@](#): > > Comparing “tars” vs. “slams” is not a meaningful way to determine bias either. The conclusion that one “make McCain sound more unreasonable than the other” is totally subjective Actually, the question I asked is whether one verb makes it sound more like the criticism is unfair or unjustified. > [@](#): > > Determining intent there is impossible. I agree that determining intent is impossible - from just one instance. It’s like when a merchant or banker is rude to you. Maybe it’s because of your age, race, or sex; and maybe it’s because the merchant is just rude. Personally, I’ve noticed a pattern of discrimination in favor of white people over the age of 30 at banks, restaurants, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695.md?page=3)