[QUOTE=Shodan]
[li]Are we talking news only, or commentary?[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
Well, that’s the problem. It was CNN that pioneered the practice (since widely copied by others) of blurring the distinction between the two (see OP). I say we should consider both in evaluating a given news outlet’s “bias” but acknowledge that news, insofar as it can be disentangled from commentary (something almost impossible to do with Fox), is the far more important indicator.
Funny yet true. There are left-wing media outlets but they’re limited to community radio (e.g., Pacifica) and a few openly political magazines. I wish there were a massive left-wing media machine to counterbalance the massive right-wing media machine (see the thread linked in the OP), but there isn’t. Independent World Television (http://www.iwt.tv/[/url) might partially fill that gap when it’s up and running. Al Gore’s Current TV (http://www.current.tv/) almost certainly will not.
Not just individuals, Martin, whole paleoconservative organizations. See The American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/) and the America First Party (http://www.americafirstparty.org/). And of course the Libertarians, although their classification as “conservative” would be debatable.
Sorry, I meant: Independent World Television (http://www.iwt.tv/) might partially fill that gap when it’s up and running. Al Gore’s Current TV (http://www.current.tv/) almost certainly will not.
During the campaign, one of the presidential candidates was ahead, 52% to 44%, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points. CNN’s headline said that the candidate with 52% “leads” the other candidate.
When the leader was Kerry, anyway.
The headline for that poll info was “Kerry Leads Bush.”
But when the numbers were EXACTLY reversed, with George W. Bush in the lead with 52%, to Kerry’s 44%, same margin of error, the headline was “Bush Apparently Leads Kerry.”
Here’s the FOX lineup.
The two programs with “report” are news-- ie, Brit Hume and Shep Smith. The only exception there is when they explicitly do commentary, as on the last 20 min of Hume’s show-- he has a roundtable of conservative and liberal commentaters. I try to watch that every day-- it’s very good.
Hannity, O’Reilly and Greta are commentary.
Anything wrong with that analysis? (I’m not sure about Cavuto-- I think he does business news. I don’t like him and rarely watch him).
What are the news programs on MSNBC?
Easily countered by more anecdotal.
To use a recent example, most news organizations were all reporting about the Terry Schiavo’s parents and their “struggle to keep their daughter alive.” Lord knows how many times I saw that phrase. 80% of each broadcast was devoted to the parents side with the last 20% going to a blurb from Michaels lawyer. The order of the stories was Parents and supporters/Michaels lawyer/Parents and supporters. To me, it was the most biased reporting in recent memory, all leaning towards the parents and their brave struggle.
Most of the supporters of the parents were conservatives, including Tom Delay, Jeb Bush, and George W. Bush.
Now do we really want to sit here trading anecdotes about fond media memories? How long do we really want to ride that particular see saw?
I agree that the last 20 minutes of Special Report with Brit Hume is pretty good. Whether or not it’s as good as The News Hour is another question, but I generally watch Special Report. I don’t like the Abrams Report, and I can’t stand CNN.
For what it’s worth, you forgot The Big Story with John Gibson at 5. Never watch it, I’m generally watching Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption there if I’m watching TV.
Here’s the MSNBC lineup:
The Abrams Report–news, though I believe there is some commentary. It’s against Special Report, so I never watch it.
Hardball with Chris Matthews–commentary. Pretty good commentary, better, in my opinon, than anything from 8 PM on on Fox.
Countdown with Keith Olberman–news, though I believe there is some commentary.
The Abrams Report–repeat of the 6 PM broadcast, I believe.
Scarborough Country–commentary.
If I’m working in my dorm room and have the TV on in the background, a general night would look like:
5: Around the Horn
5:30: Pardon the Interruption
6: The Simpsons
6:30: Special Report
7: Hardball
8: Something, maybe baseball or Countdown. Sometimes reruns of CSI. Whose Line? on Mondays.
9: See 8. Looking for something to watch. CSI on Thursdays.
10: Sometimes Scarborough Country, if they have a promo for something interesting. Otherwise Whose Line? or whatever else I find.
11: The Daily Show
11:30: Letterman
So I watch some more liberal-leaning stuff, some more conservative stuff, and a bunch of things that have nothing to do with politics.
A while back, ABC News posted an admission of bias in the media on their “The Note” political blog. This is what they said:
I think that about sums it up. When almost all your commentators and writers are liberals, they bring bias to the table no matter how much they try to be fair. When you exist in an environment where ‘everyone knows’ that gun control is a good thing, then when someone comes along to say it isn’t, you react skeptically. When someone comes along that confirms what you already believe, you report it straight.
That’s why liberal think tanks and activists are usually not reported as being liberal. They’re just “Women’s Groups”, or “worker’s groups”, or whatever. But conservative think tanks and organizations are always reported as such. It’s why pro-abortion activists are “pro-choice supporters”, while the other side are “anti-abortion activists”. It’s why a study on gun safety by the NRA is ignored or reported on with the disclaimer that the study comes from a conservative, pro-gun organization, whereas a study by Handgun Control, Inc. will be reported on without specifying the bias of the organization.
CNN shares this level of bias, but as news organizations go, it’s not as bad as some others cough CBS cough. I think the comparison to the Washington Post is a good one. Both suffer from the bias that comes from having a staff that is overwhelmingly liberal, but both make a reasonable attempt to remain fair, and do a pretty good job of it.
Considering how quick you have been in dismissing blogs in the past, Sam, I find it amusing how you’re now accepting this one without the slightest shred of skepticism or doubt.
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges when you compare the last 20 minutes of Special Report with The News Hour (PBS’s show with Jim Leher). Unless you mean the special segment they do every Friday with Shields and Gigot (can’t remember who replaced Gigot).
I agree on Abrams. He seems to make the show more about him than about the news.
Hardball is probably the best well rounded news analysis program on cable news, although C.M. is slightly more Dem leaning than Pub leaning. Still, he does a good job of maintaining objectivity.
I absolutely can’t abide Crossfire-- it sets my nerves on end with all the yelling and screaming and name calling.
At any rate, I’d like BrainGlutton to respond to my post regarding his statment that FOX confuses reporting with commentary any more than the other cable news outlets. I don’t find it any harder to differentiate news from analysis on FOX than on CNN or MSNBC.
The problem with trying to prove bias anecdotaly is that most such anecdotes are completely unproven to have anything to do with bias at all. Your example may well be evidence of bias. Or it may not. There is simply no way to tell given the information we have. (Well, the information I have, anyway. Maybe you know something I don’t.)
For example, if it turned out that a conservative reporter wrote both headlines, would you still see this as an example of bias? If two different reporters wrote the headlines, would you necessarily assume their political views had something to do with it, or would you think that maybe they just have different ways of expressing the results of the polls?
Or perhaps CNN ran one headline, then got some angry letters from people saying how, statistically, it was too close to call. So maybe they changed some policy to use wording like “apparantly”.
If one is convinced that a bias exists in a source, then one will see anything from that source through that filter. Something which confirms one’s belief will be remembered, something which goes against it will be ignored or forgotten.
I think it’s the whole sort of NPR thing — the here’s-what’s-good-for-you and here’s-what’s-wrong-with-society angle taken on so many stories. For example, I recall the very first day of the ground war. A young CNN reporter with a classic slacker look-and-feel about him, sat on a rock, speaking in low tones while American soldiers and armored vehicles filled the screen behind him. More or less, he said, “We’re here, but now that we are, the soldiers are tired. The war is grinding them down as war is wont to do.” Cut to two brief interviews in which grunts are answering an obviously loaded (and not shown) question: “It’s too hot, and I didn’t expect this much dust,” “I’m worried about my family, I just hope they’re not worried about me.” And then the camera pans the wreckage of an American tanker truck. “We can call this the war’s first casualty,” the young slacker intoned, “Dare we hope that our next report will not have broken bones instead of broken axles?”
For me, this report was utterly stupid, so much so that I was riveted to it as I would be to a really bad movie. When he was finished, I was too astonished to laugh right away, but eventually I did. There was so much wrong with it. For one thing, it was the very first wave of the very first day, and the soldiers were clearly gung-ho and high-spirited as we could see easily in the background. The slacker had obviously found a couple of guys whose responses could be edited to sound negative in some petty way. For another thing, the melodramatic metaphors were so over-the-top that they were ridiculous. The truck was a victim of a pot-hole, and soldiers were repairing it. And finally, he was basically reporting in advance, anticipating the inevitable casualties to come, dutifully reminding us that war is hell. All it need to be NPR was a few seconds of Iraqi flute music and children screaming in its intro.
That’s what I meant. The Friday segment. I’d say that for general news, The News Hour is the best in the 6 PM timeslot. And that includes the Big 3.
It’s hard to beat the News Hour.
Just an aside: Last week, I was flipping channels in the early evening and wasn’t interested in any of the news stories on either cable or the networks. I don’t ever watch BBC News, so I figured I’d find the channel that carried it and see what was on. Finally found BBC, and guess what they were reporting on: the Michael Jackson trial. I was ready to kill myself at that point…
Have some compassion for the poor Brits. They’re prohibited by law from reporting on current trials, or even pending ones AFAIK. For their minimum daily requirement of lurid courtroom drama in their own language, they have to either borrow ours or else do without, and we couldn’t ask them to do that, now could we?
To be fair it was the parents side that was “struggling” since the husband had the law on his side.
Despite biases in either direction - all media here love an underdog in a struggle.
Fair enough. So what’s needed is (a) a study that captures every piece of reporting from a particular source, or a fair, random cross-section thereof; (b) a way to objectively evaluate the bias in each piece; and (c) some sort of blind mechanism by which the evaluators are insulated from the actual source, to the extent possible.
Yes?
Why not just stick to easily-verified examples of genuine bias?
Saying “Ted Koppel didn’t smile enough when he was interviewing George W. Bush” is not an example of bias, but merely an indication that the speaker needs to turn his tin-foil hat shiny-side out.
Saying “The Today show featured three times as many Republican/conservative guests as Democratic/liberal ones during the month of April” is an example of bias, since the claim can be verified by anyone with a program guide and access to Google.
Er… maybe.
If the Today show ridiculed and heaped scorn on its Republican/conservative guests, while praising the ideas offered by their Democratic/liberal guests, then the bias is in favor of the Democratic/liberal side. If the Today show offered a neutral forum for the ideas of each side, then the bias probably skews against the Democratic/liberal side, just based on the numbers.
True?