Scucca

You've fallen into the trap of subjectivity (and therefore we'd have to consider psychological explanations for your stance). Its very easy to find evidence in support of the view that the 'liberal media' charge is subjective nonsense. For example, Lee (2005, The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol 49, pp 43-64) notes the following:

Second, researchers have examined news content and found no significant or consistent partisan or issue favoritism (Dalton, Beck, & Huckfeldt, 1998; Dennis, 1996, 1997; Domke, Watts, Shah, & Fan, 1999; Fedler, Meeske, & Hall, 1979; Fico, Ku, & Soffin, 1994; Graber, 1971 ; Hofstetter, 1976, 1978; Merrill, 1965; Niven, 2002; Patterson, 1994; Severin & Tankard, 1992; Stempel, 1961, 1969; Stempel & Windhauser, 1984).

Thats a lot of studies! Whilst it is possible to find studies to support your position, we clearly have a need to avoid "its biased cos I say so". This is particularly the case as the notion that the media is used to support the conservative status quo is also a sound point of view

__________________

Truth Detector

Do I need "empirical" evidence when it has been done enough times to illustrate such buffoonery by the media?

What difference does it make if they do it ONE time, or a MILLION times, the FACT remains that it is a blatant effort to tie Cheney to a company the media has deemed to be EVIL; therefore Cheney must also be "evil" and "corrupt."

I know you are desperate to suggest otherwise, so instead of such absurd attempts to dispute my assertions asking for "empirical evidence it is "every" time, why don't you post some "empirical" evidence that suggest they have NO bias? Good luck with that.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

Scucca

Examples of research already referenced!

LennyD

Wow are there really people who can not see the leaning of the reporting in either direction on certain news outlets?

I simply can not believe that anyone with an open mind or even just one at all can not see how some places seem to just leave out certain facts, while others have experts repeat them over and over until the public makes a connection no matter if it is accurate or not.

The only way it would make sense to me that someone would not be able to see any manipulation of the information we receive would be if that person was so caught up in the agenda of one extreme or the other that they were blinded by their beliefs.

As for myself I do not need to do anything more than just change the channel to the next news report and see the obvious.

__________________
*************************

Question Everything

mpg

I haven't watched network news for a long time so all of my examples are old. I've seen many but the most glaring example is the 1994 elections. When the Republicans took control of the Congress the coverage was similar to that of a natural disaster like a tsunami. It was also described as racist and sexist.

__________________
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

Scucca

The most important aspect is that we avoid subjectivity. The whine of the petty left or right about the terrors of biased media isn't too fruitful. I always like to see properly conducted research. The evidence into Fox is particularly useful as the 'audience' stands out in terms of characteristics. We then get a more important concern: to what extent do individuals self-select biased media? Alternatively, to what extent are easily influenced individuals corrupted by the media?

LennyD

Hmmm well said.

There are some very interesting thoughts there.

Thankfully we do not all avoid subjectivity, and personally I find the whine from both ends pretty entertaining.

Still I do not think from what I am seeing here so far that everyone can find the value in viewing the different angles, and especially the ones that are out of the norm or vastly different than their own.

From what I have seen outside of here selection of anything that fits one thinking is common, and maybe only out numbered by the masses that are so easily corrupted.

A few years back on another very different forum a knowledgeable poster making a honest contribution get himself into heap of flaming from openly discussing how so many people are totally inept in understanding and making intelligent decisions in how our system works and politics in general. I guess he politely called 90% of us idiots, but honestly very few were proving him wrong.

Personally I still believe there is hope for us as a group even though history has shown us many are little better off than sheep (you know the whole being lead to slaughter thing) and a majority of those who have a party affiliation do little more than cheer on their team like it was the NFL.

Getting back on subject I can not truly understand how anyone could not see a bias or some kind of spin at all.

Bodhisattva

"bafoonery" is a trademarked Scucca Term.

Lenny... are you alright? Scucca never says anything well.

The US Media is completely biased. All one needs to do is read the media of other countries in order to see how manipulated the US People are. The media as a watchdog of the Government? What a crock. The media is the lapdog of the Government and the special interests... who the hell do you all think is paying for advertising and such?

Is it a conspiracy? Not really... it is just business, and the US Representatives are in the pockets of the interest goups, and they are not representing the will or the people anymore, if ever, so what is there to do? Not much. Vote for third parties and shake **** up. But that wont work either, for there are too many idiot sheeple in the USA that will never budge from the two party system, so that is out. Any intelligent and independent free willed person with integrity is **** out of luck in the US system.

__________________

LennyD

Third party potential as well as a future with politicians who legislate with the will of the people as their guide is lost mostly due to thinking like this.

I can not begin to count the people I have heard personally say that a vote outside the two parties is a wasted vote, but I can tell you that I have them all that a vote for anyone that they honestly do not agree with their politics or do not believe will vote in their beliefs etc is the only truly wasted vote.

Then I did not come here to preach my beliefs anymore than I think I need to tell someone which news outlets to use to find bias to their liking.

So which special interest drives CNN, MSNBC, and FOX

Scucca

I had a quick look at the “Fox effect” and found the publication Morris (2007, Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and Political Attitudes, Social Science Quarterly, Vol 88, pp 707-728). This makes the following remark:

A surprising finding is that exposure to network news is also significantly associated with a higher probability of shifting a vote from Democrat in 2000 to Republican in 2004...This finding also offers evidence that the so-called liberal network news broadcasts are unable to move potential swing voters to the left. If anything, those viewers are moving to the right

So much of the right wing hullabaloo about liberal bias is pointless blubbering. However, the paper does find evidence that Fox viewers stand out. Thus, it concludes that ”Fox News watchers have perceptions of political reality that differ from the rest of the television news audience”. We're therefore still unsure over the nature of the “Fox effect”: i.e. whether there is a causation effect or, in a desperate bid to find media sources that support their warped sense of reality, they change their viewing habits accordingly. I personally like to read right wing sources (from the local rag to the Economist), but right wingers are often more simple in their nature