• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Source of Media Bias

polisciguy

polisciguy

Active member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
396
Reaction score
133
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

I think it is largely driven by conforming the programming to the wants of the audience and political bias.
Which isn't completely horrible, alone, but if they engage in antics like quoting mining, lying by omission, without context, that's where the wheels fall off.

With Trump it's much more transparent, that he's favoring more "Trump leaning" media outlets, but it was also there with Obama.
You can find familial and married relationships between the MSM and the White House staff.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

That may explain some conformation bias, it keeps some viewers very happy, but it also limits your audience to those with that bias. Most media bias seems to be by omission - never report the downside of that bias.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

There is certainly bias in the reports of different information carriers. CNN gives you quite a different spin and selection of items than does Russia Today or France24. In the case of public media like the latter, the bias is usually relatively easy to identify and understand, if the country of origin is understood. In the case of private media the spin is usually oriented to either the philosophy of the team (CNBC, The Economist) or that of the owner of the paper or station. Often the country's culture sets a paradigmatic filter so that on certain topics there will be an over riding slant that to interpretation and selection of information that the owners and teams as well as the government media follow.

In English we are relatively privileged in having channels and news papers form all over the world and in the ownership of every which kind of interest group. That enables English speakers to get an overview wide enough to judge veracity and come closer to the reality behind the news, than one can achieve in most languages lacking global spread. In French and I suspect Spanish the variety of opinions on most topics is also relatively broad, while in German you will find a more narrow information availability, distribution and resultant opinions will be similarly limited in breadth and often, therefore, in depth.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

I call them the "Corporate Class Propaganda Machine".....they who pay get ownership rights, and it is the corporate class who both own and pay for (Ad Revenue) most of what passes for journalism now.

And since the ends justify the means and honesty/fairness is considered to be for chumps now because power must be used to get ourselves to UTOPIA....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That may explain some conformation bias, it keeps some viewers very happy, but it also limits your audience to those with that bias. Most media bias seems to be by omission - never report the downside of that bias.
Click to expand...

Easily proven false by comparing the headlines to known facts.

Then too we could read the pieces with a critical eye, so much is clearly identifiable as propaganda by looking at the words used.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that when the Church Senate Committee found 400+ CIA agents/assets planted in USA MSM that their purpose was to entertain? Perhaps the trees are blocking your view of the woods?
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

I think this is not only totally wrong, but it's being promoted as an excuse to cover for the fact that the Mainstream Media is totally in the tank for the left. Furthermore, it's been that way for a long time (at least since the Clinton days). However, they haven't been as prominent or outspoken as they are now because they thought they had ushered in Hillary...and lost. Now, they've pulled out all the stops and they'll keep getting more and more outrageous until they succeed in damaging Trump enough.

Bottom line...the Mainstream Media is left-wing agenda driven, they've been that way for decades and they won't stop.
 
Mycroft said:
I think this is not only totally wrong, but it's being promoted as an excuse to cover for the fact that the Mainstream Media is totally in the tank for the left. Furthermore, it's been that way for a long time (at least since the Clinton days). However, they haven't been as prominent or outspoken as they are now because they thought they had ushered in Hillary...and lost. Now, they've pulled out all the stops and they'll keep getting more and more outrageous until they succeed in damaging Trump enough.

Bottom line...the Mainstream Media is left-wing agenda driven, they've been that way for decades and they won't stop.
Click to expand...

So in the tank and their content providers (so-called journalists) are so ignorant that many if not most dont know what they are doing....they think they are doing journalism as they make their propaganda, get really indignant when their ignorance is pointed out to them.
 
Sure financial interests can insert bias into the news. I don't think it is an either or situation though. Bias comes from the desire for ratings, commercial/advertising interests, the views of the news makers, and the ownership group of a particular news source. There is nothing inherently wrong with bias. Every source contains bias. The real issue is whether they are dealing in facts or not.

Fox News and MSNBC can have two very different takes on the same event. The question is whether they both agree that the event occurred. If one outlet refuses to acknowledge specific facts related to an event in order to serve some ideological view, then it ceases to be a legitimate news source. This is what your students should be looking for. Sure, they should be aware of bias as it will determine which stories get covered and how a story gets covered. This is generally overcome by not being content to receive news from a single source. However, when a story is based on inaccurate facts or is removed from fact altogether, then it should be fair to say that the source is not worth consuming and should be avoided. This is why getting info from Twitter and Facebook news feeds is probably a poor choice. Rather than focusing on identifying bias, students should be focused on identifying non-factual news.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

That theory has been floated before by anyone who thinks it's easier to critique the media on free-market grounds rather than ideological grounds.

For one thing, even if you buy into your theory you can still be left with a media who wants to do both ... fashion a public mindset to which they themselves already ascribe and which will necessarily also keep drawing people back to confirm what they were indoctrinated to believe.

For another thing, the market is ready for a news outlet about which you can't determine their ideology and they're awfully hard to come by.

I don't think the theory can stand on it's own since it's obvious that editors and the reporters they hire are of like ideological mind and they vote that way.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

When a journalist is a limp wristed graduate of an Ivy League school who is afraid of guns, knows no one who has anyone in their family in the military, and has never been West of the Acela corridor then his or her view of the world is going to be totally at odds with the majority of Americans. It's a bias that most of them never grow out of, especially because everything around them supports the idea that they are the elite who should be telling the rest of us how to live. And that's what they do in their work, day in and day out, in ways subtle and gross.
 
DaveFagan said:
Are you suggesting that when the Church Senate Committee found 400+ CIA agents/assets planted in USA MSM that their purpose was to entertain? Perhaps the trees are blocking your view of the woods?
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything, personally. It was just a prompt for discussion.
 
polisciguy said:
I'm not suggesting anything, personally. It was just a prompt for discussion.
Click to expand...

As is my reply. Now why would the CIA want agents/assets in MSM? Must be to promote an agenda. What is the agenda specifically? I make this point becase I do not perceive the MSM as left/right or repub/dem. I see the MSM promoting a war agenda and supporting USA interference in foreign politics and foreign resource acquisition and support of the Military Industrial Corporate Complex. Whichever political party agrees to support this agenda then gets biased treatment.
/
 
bubbabgone said:
That theory has been floated before by anyone who thinks it's easier to critique the media on free-market grounds rather than ideological grounds.

For one thing, even if you buy into your theory you can still be left with a media who wants to do both ... fashion a public mindset to which they themselves already ascribe and which will necessarily also keep drawing people back to confirm what they were indoctrinated to believe.

For another thing, the market is ready for a news outlet about which you can't determine their ideology and they're awfully hard to come by.

I don't think the theory can stand on it's own since it's obvious that editors and the reporters they hire are of like ideological mind and they vote that way.
Click to expand...

You add great points. The two practices aren't mutually exclusive, as you mention.

It seems, as far as I can tell anyway, that the market for an apparently unbiased source of media, though large, doesn't typically include the average media consumer. That market is served, in some small part, by more academically driven news sources - particularly print and online sources. There isn't really anything in that category the way of television media, to be sure, but individuals who really want to get to the bottom of politics (the audience for this sort of media) tend to read more dense material or participate in forums like this versus watching 24 hour television news.

I am curious what a more mainstream-like approach to that market would look like.

Thanks for your response.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is a political bias, purely and simply. They have gotten so extreme that they are at the point of hurting themselves financially.
 
polisciguy said:
You add great points. The two practices aren't mutually exclusive, as you mention.

It seems, as far as I can tell anyway, that the market for an apparently unbiased source of media, though large, doesn't typically include the average media consumer. That market is served, in some small part, by more academically driven news sources - particularly print and online sources. There isn't really anything in that category the way of television media, to be sure, but individuals who really want to get to the bottom of politics (the audience for this sort of media) tend to read more dense material or participate in forums like this versus watching 24 hour television news.

I am curious what a more mainstream-like approach to that market would look like.

Thanks for your response.
Click to expand...
Al jazeera thought that there was a market for non entertainment non biased news in America, spent a LOT of money trying to make it happen.....yes they were not the right people to do it and yes they had to change the name and did not BUT their complete failure to find a market really calls into question this theory that there is a market for that.

Secondly, why are PBS Newshours ratings not a 100 times better than they are if this is what people want and almost no one else is offering it?

No, what Americans tend to want is to get told that the ideas in their head are right, we dont want to know reality if reality is different than that, fantasy trumps reality, willfully.
 
Last edited:
fmw said:
Nonsense. It is a political bias, purely and simply. They have gotten so extreme that they are at the point of hurting themselves financially.
Click to expand...

When it gets to be impossible to pretend that the so-called journalists are producing journalism thus are pointing at reality then there is no point in watching, when fantasy collides with reality fantasy always loses.....the fact that journalists suck is way too much reality to bare.
 
polisciguy said:
You add great points. The two practices aren't mutually exclusive, as you mention.

It seems, as far as I can tell anyway, that the market for an apparently unbiased source of media, though large, doesn't typically include the average media consumer. That market is served, in some small part, by more academically driven news sources - particularly print and online sources. There isn't really anything in that category the way of television media, to be sure, but individuals who really want to get to the bottom of politics (the audience for this sort of media) tend to read more dense material or participate in forums like this versus watching 24 hour television news.

I am curious what a more mainstream-like approach to that market would look like.

Thanks for your response.
Click to expand...

If there was a source that delivered uncolored (unbiased) news it would be welcome.
It would also be hard for someone to define and describe such a thing unless they themselves were "uncolored".
Like was said about porn, I can't define it but I'll know it when I see it.
I could give obvious examples of colored news items and sources but I suspect you're pretty familiar with them already.
Bottom line is that if you can detect patterns of bias in what should be straight news reporting then it's not being done right.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people out there with plenty of different views about bias in the news media. Some are legitimate perspectives, while others only serve to steer people away from the truth. No matter what label someone chooses to apply when it comes to bias in the news media, there's a consistent factor that's present year in and year out that just can't be explained away.

Overall, the mainstream news media is pro-liberal/pro-democrat, anti-conservative/anti-republican. It's been this way for decades and no matter what other label people try to apply, that is something that is consistently present in one form or another. So every time I see someone suggest that the bias in the mainstream news media is actually some other form of bias, I simply ask them to explain how the liberal bias that we know exists, fits with their perspective.


.
 
FOX is not mainstream media. "Fair and Balanced" is a lie in and of itself. They should label themselves as Conservative News.
 
polisciguy said:
We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.
Click to expand...

If that were true, Fox News would not be alone in being a conservative voice.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Al jazeera thought that there was a market for non entertainment non biased news in America, spent a LOT of money trying to make it happen.....yes they were not the right people to do it and yes they had to change the name and did not BUT their complete failure to find a market really calls into question this theory that there is a market for that.

Secondly, why are PBS Newshours ratings not a 100 times better than they are if this is what people want and almost no one else is offering it?

No, what Americans tend to want is to get told that the ideas in their head are right, we dont want to know reality if reality is different than that, fantasy trumps reality, willfully.
Click to expand...

This tends to align a little more with my personal perspective as well. While I can't deny the existence of a market for quality, unbiased news (in the sense of network television), I think it's smaller than we may initially think, in part because it's better served in other ways. It would be difficult to condense complex issues satisfactorily for that market into short segments on TV, which is one of several reasons many people belonging to that market prefer (or rather, have no other choice) to read more long form or academic sources. I'd put myself in that camp, though I can't speak for everyone.

As a result, I'd be skeptical that a TV news network in this category would have success on the level that maybe it should on paper. Or I could be totally wrong, and it could be a hit. But I don't know of many indicators that encourage me in that regard.
 
polisciguy said:
Hello all!

A colleague and I recently had a discussion with a group of students on bias in the media and from where people perceive that bias to stem. I thought bringing a particular part of that discussion to this forum would be interesting. Shortly into the conversation, we began discussing the issue within the context below, which I'll provide as a sort of prompt for the sake of the forum. As a note, this discussion was largely centered around mainstream media (television, online, and print), but feel free to bring in other forms of media if you think it adds something to the discussion.

We tend to see the media as having political bias when a potentially more accurate view would be that it has a financial bias. Media networks and outlets target demographics the same way other forms of entertainment do, giving them more of what they want to see/hear and less of what they don't because they are driven by viewership, subscriptions, a generally loyal base audience, etc.. They continue to be profitable, their audience entertained, and everyone is happy, even if some of that happiness is derived from criticizing a particular outlet, show, or pundit.

Additionally, we have this perspective that the media has a shadowy agenda, distorting the truth for political gain, covering up the actions of government, and everything in between. But could it be that our problems with the media persist because we fail to see it for what it is - a form of entertainment? From that, would it be more accurate to say media bias stems from targeting their audience more so than political reasons? What would this imply about how Americans consume media?

So what are your thoughts? It could be that you don't give any credence to this idea at all, or perhaps you have an entirely different perspective.
Click to expand...

I guess I dont see the point. Whatever the motivation, its still biased. We arent upset that media corporations want to make money. Rather that they do so by violating our trust, claiming to be unbiased, while being anything but.
 
jonny5 said:
I guess I dont see the point. Whatever the motivation, its still biased. We arent upset that media corporations want to make money. Rather that they do so by violating our trust, claiming to be unbiased, while being anything but.
Click to expand...

Certainly true, and I think that brings up one of the things that should be given consideration from this discussion. Who is the blame really on? If we can see the media for what it is, what role do we the people have in "keeping the machine going," so to speak?

It's certainly not a one or the other scenario, to be sure. I do think we sometimes find ourselves shaking our fists at the media without taking any personal responsibility for not using our heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom