• 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!

Is press bias towards a particular political party good for the people?

Is press bias towards a particular political party good for the people?


  • Total voters
    22

Rickeroo

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
1,478
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

The "Press" is allegedly supposed to be a neutral reporter of the news. Opinions can be expressed in the "opinion" sections, but the ideal is that news reports should be informative and un-biased.

Whenever it does otherwise it becomes "Yellow Journalism" and is no longer news but rather propaganda.

These days we seem to be getting more "commentary" designed to push narratives that sway viewpoints as opposed to actual news reporting.

I no longer trust the "Fourth Estate," as it is clearly too partisan to depend on for straight information.
 
Last edited:
To what end?

Meaning, the press are just people from the public subject to the same ideologies we all have across the political spectrum. To try to enforce absence of bias towards any given ideology opens up a mess of a question on how that would be enforced.

We can say all day long that the press is supposed to be neutral but over our nation's history that rarely if ever happened. No reason to believe it all of a sudden will get better in the future.

Because of the question on press bias being good or bad for the people becomes moot. Just about every bias comes with some degree of consequence so the question remains to what end?
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

the amount of pro-trump people on the MSM circuit who say the same thing over and over again is nauseating. There's no originality among the lot.
 
The "Press" is allegedly supposed to be a neutral reporter of the news. Opinions can be expressed in the "opinion" sections, but the ideal is that news reports should be informative and un-biased.

Whenever it does otherwise it becomes "Yellow Journalism" and is no longer news but rather propaganda.

These days we seem to be getting more "commentary" designed to push narratives that sway viewpoints as opposed to actual news reporting.

I no longer trust the "Fourth Estate," as it is clearly too partisan to depend on for straight information.

The Press has ALWAYS been partisan. Its the nature of the beast as the beast is headed by humans. The press can be more or less biased but they ARE biased. So long as their biases are out in the open I don't care. I can sift through and get my info. What's kinda wrong with the press today is they don't do hardcore old school almost private investigator level of examination of issues and situations as they used to. The facts tended to dull the partisan nature of the reporting. Today the reporters are in an echo chamber and very lazy so do a crap job. They just don't have the curiosity today they used to and the persistence to pursue that curiosity. That's my take. :)
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally, I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

Of course, it's not, but what you must also understand is what bias is and how it works. Bias doesn't mean that you favor one side of an argument over the other. It means that you favor one side of an argument over the other for reasons above and beyond the pure and simple fact that one side makes more sense.

Journalists are human beings. They are American citizens. Some of them are wealthy, but most of them are middle class at best. They pay taxes just like you, they have families just like you. They pay mortgages, rent, and medical bills just like you. They send their children to schools, they have student loan debt, they have friends and family serving in the military. They go to church, they drive the same roads, they celebrate the same holidays. They fear terrorist attacks every bit as much if not more so than you do. They worry about losing their jobs to technology like the internet. Some are east coast liberals, many were born in the heartland.

Their concerns in life are really not that different than your own concerns in life. There is no rational reason for the vast majority of members of the free press to prefer one political party over another unless that party truly is better for themselves and their country as a whole than the other one. These people have to deal with the endless spew of information coming at them from the world on a daily basis, and they are well equipt to tell you who is lying. So when the vast majority of the free press is taking liberals side and making Trump out to be a piece of **** you should be considering the possibility that they are telling you the truth, and he really is a piece of ****.

If 9 out of 10 Dentists told you that Crest was a good toothpaste and then one random Dentist told you that brushing your teeth was for suckers and you'd be better off using Mountain Dew as a mouthwash you'd be a moron if you listened to that one dentist. Unfortunately there's a lot of stupid people in this world that don't like brushing their teeth, and as a result, they're sadly likely to listen to the one Dentist who is telling them what they want to hear.

If 9 out of 10 mechanics told you that you badly needed new breaks, and one random guy told you that you're fine for another 50,000 miles you'd be an idiot if you didn't get your breaks fixed. Unfortunately breaks cost money, and as a result, there's a lot of stupid people in this country who would convince themselves that the one jack ass telling them what they want to hear is the good mechanic, whereas all those other guys are just trying to bilk them for more money.

The same thing is true about the press. If 9 out of 10 journalists are telling you that Trump is a narcissistic egomaniac that's lying to the country and destroying our Democracy you should try listening to them. They have no valid reason to want to undercut a president who is actually doing a good job of improving the nation. If you're trusting the one network that's telling you the things you want to hear contradicting all the others because it makes you feel good, then you're a moron, and you're getting scammed.
 
They should be as neutral as possible with the exception of things like editorials. If you watch a day of Fox News on TV and then a day of CNN, or even just read Fox News’s website and CNN’s website, there’s noticeable bias on both sides. Basically it turns into an outlet for confirmation bias base on your political leanings.
 
How about no more opinions, no more newstainment, no more leggy blondes, just the news cold and straight? Tell me what happened, not how I should feel about it.
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

I voted no. I'm old school. I think MSM should just factually report the news and leave political bias to politicians. As to if particular news organizations force feed their subscribers to lean conservative or liberal in their inclinations is a whole other argument.
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally, I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

There's a saying in Detective Work that goes "to whom benefits." The idea is that if you want to know who is guilty of a crime just look to see who would benefit the most from the crime.

Ask yourself something... which cable news network has the highest ratings? Answer: Fox News.

The one network that is presenting the news in a way that is incredibly favorable to Donald Trump and to right-wing Americans is dominating the ratings and making the most money. Why would all the other networks, websites, and newspapers in the country distort reality and lie to present a view of the world that favors liberals when they could make more money as one of the few news sources that cater to the right?

The answer is simple because all those other networks are telling you the truth. Or at least they're trying to tell you the truth to the best of their ability. As people of good conscience with journalistic integrity, they couldn't bold face lie to the American people like that even if it would make them more money. Fox, on the other hand, doesn't care. They set out with the goal of filling a niche market. They realized that by catering their news to specifically make 1/3 of the country happy they can attract all the viewers from one political party while promoting the ideas that the owners of that one network want to be promoted whether they are good for the country or not.

There's a simple reality when it comes to conspiracies. The likelihood of a conspiracy being successful decreases exponentially with respect to each person that would be required to lie in order to keep it secret. One network controlled by one or two individuals could potentially coordinate their lies in such a way that they could maintain the lie. But across multiple networks, newspapers, websites, and magazines the idea that hundreds of independently owned and operated news organizations could all coordinate together to maintain the same lie is absolutely impossible. I couldn't be done. It's logically impossible.

One or two right-wing networks could certainly coordinate their talking points, but the idea that hundreds of sources are coordinating thousands of journalists to all present a fantastic lie is nonsensically stupid. If you believe Fox or Breitbart is the one or two sources you can trust in a see of endless lies you're a ****ing moron. The truth is exactly the opposite. They are the one or two sources you should definitely ignore.
 
How about no more opinions, just the news cold and straight? Tell me what happened, not how I should feel about it.

This presumes that you actually have the ability to differentiate between facts and opinions. Your posts on this forum have demonstrated that you cannot.

no more leggy blondes
So basically you're saying we should cancel Fox News. I guess I can deal with that.
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

The press blindly doing the bidding of a political party is bad.

The press reporting negatively on a corrupt, immoral, idiot in office that happens to reflect poorly on that person is fine and should be encouraged.

The press deliberately trying to influence an election is bad - however - the press influencing an election by reporting honestly is fine.

The key here is intent. The intent of the press should be to report relevant events happening in the city/state/country/world they are covering. They should be free to report without political influence and they should report without political intentions.
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

They are all biased, but not for the good of the people. They are biased to appeal to a certain market niche.
 
By "press" I mean mainstream deliverers of news - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC. Personally I don't think news delivered with the purpose of benefiting a political party is good for the people. Good for the party perhaps, but not the people.

I don't think we have unbiased MSM reporting anymore. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. along with many of the talk shows have gone off the rails.

It's a shame actually.
 
They should be as neutral as possible with the exception of things like editorials. If you watch a day of Fox News on TV and then a day of CNN, or even just read Fox News’s website and CNN’s website, there’s noticeable bias on both sides. Basically, it turns into an outlet for confirmation bias base on your political leanings.

If Democrats tell you it's raining, and Republicans tell you the sun is shining the job of a news organization isn't to be neutral and report both sides. It's too open up a window and look outside to see what is true and what is not, and report which one of the political parties are lying and which one is telling the truth. When 9 out of 10 networks are all agreeing with Democrats, and Fox News is the only one agreeing with Republicans that should tell you which news organization you can trust.
 
They are all biased, but not for the good of the people. They are biased to appeal to a certain market niche.

Then why is it that Fox is the only one successfully consolidating that niche? If the other 9 MSM sources are all intentionally appealing to the same liberal niche it would be an idiotic strategy. It would be like putting 10 Mexican restaurants in a 5 square mile area with only one pizza joint. From a business perspective that would be moronic. If you want to fill a niche you have to cater to a specific group that nobody else is catering too. It is the one network Fox that's catering to the niche. The rest are generally trying to be honest.

MSNBC tried to cater to a liberal niche, but it isn't really working that well because even when they specifically catered to liberals their programming wasn't all that different than the other networks that were giving it to us straight.
 
No but there is a difference between siding with a party and siding with what is right or wrong or whats good for this country
 
Back
Top Bottom