Left Leaning Media Bias?

[Bodi]

"In a 2006 academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showed that the 2004 coverage on 3 of the big 6 broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush"

A May 2017 study conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U. S. President and businessman Donald Trump's first 100 days in office by all major mainstream media outlets and broadcast networks including CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS.[64] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive

Fox News controversies - Wikipedia



Which Political Lean gets more biased news coverage?

 

[Felis Leo]

"In a 2006 academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showed that the 2004 coverage on 3 of the big 6 broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush"

A May 2017 study conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U. S. President and businessman Donald Trump's first 100 days in office by all major mainstream media outlets and broadcast networks including CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS.[64] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive

Fox News controversies - Wikipedia



Which Political Lean gets more biased news coverage?

I don't know for certain, Bodhisattva. While certainly most of the news organizations appear have a left-leaning bias I believe that at the end of the day it all comes down to money. I would thus assert that news organizations have a sponsor-leaning bias. And whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[Grand Mal]

[/FONT][/I]Fox News controversies - Wikipedia



Which Political Lean gets more biased news coverage?

The other one.

 

[Grand Mal]

I don't know for certain, Bodhisattva. While certainly most of the news organizations appear have a left-leaning bias I believe that at the end of the day it all comes down to money. I would thus assert that news organizations have a sponsor-leaning bias. And whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

True that.
If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer.

 

[upsideguy]

"In a 2006 academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showed that the 2004 coverage on 3 of the big 6 broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush"

A May 2017 study conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U. S. President and businessman Donald Trump's first 100 days in office by all major mainstream media outlets and broadcast networks including CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS.[64] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive

Fox News controversies - Wikipedia



Which Political Lean gets more biased news coverage?

There are two fatal flaws in your argument: 1) that being "favorable" to a politician is somehow reflective of bias or non-bias; 2) that Bush and Trump somehow have some type of equivalence.

If Trump were a screw up, he should get substantially unfavorable press, reflective of his performance. That would not be an indication of bias. Similarly, if Trump were a screw up, getting favorable press when not warranted might be an indication of bias.....

This website does a pretty good job of measuring the political lean of most of the media in the US and much of the media in the world.

Media Bias/Fact Check - Search and Learn the Bias of News Media

More important than the "lean", however, is the degree to which each of these media outlets has a reputation for factual integrity.

 

[Bodi]

There are two fatal flaws in your argument: 1) that being "favorable" to a politician is somehow reflective of bias or non-bias; 2) that Bush and Trump somehow have some type of equivalence.

If Trump were a screw up, he should get substantially unfavorable press, reflective of his performance. That would not be an indication of bias. Similarly, if Trump were a screw up, getting favorable press when not warranted might be an indication of bias.....

This website does a pretty good job of measuring the political lean of most of the media in the US and much of the media in the world.

Media Bias/Fact Check - Search and Learn the Bias of News Media

More important than the "lean", however, is the degree to which each of these media outlets has a reputation for factual integrity.

... I don't have to even look to know that their integrity plummets when the President in office is from a differing preferred party...

 

[eohrnberger]

I don't know for certain, Bodhisattva. While certainly most of the news organizations appear have a left-leaning bias I believe that at the end of the day it all comes down to money. I would thus assert that news organizations have a sponsor-leaning bias. And whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

So then the so called 'news' is little more than political propaganda whoring for money?

The 'news' and the free press was at one time intended to fulfill the important roles of speaking truth to power, hold elected officials accountable and to inform the electorate of what their government was up to.

<*sigh*> Yeah, those days are long past, ever since the decision was made to make broadcast 'news' departments compete on ratings, back in the '70s I think. How the mighty have fallen. #JournalismIsDead

 

[upsideguy]

... I don't have to even look to know that their integrity plummets when the President in office is from a differing preferred party...

So, you are essentially saying that you are not interested in truth, especially if it could compromise your impressions. That seems to be the stereotype of Trump supporters. You seemingly have confirmed that stereotype.

The reality is that most of the so-called "anti-Trump" MSM still operate with a high degree of factual integrity. That does not mean the media is without bias, it just that their reporting is based upon facts. On the other, the factual integrity ratings of Fox have actually fallen and its bias has skewed right. Of course, we have seen some of their best journalists leave over journalistic matters. It seems that the only way to say nice things about Trump is to loose with the facts.

Media Bias/Fact Check - Search and Learn the Bias of News Media

 

[lwf]

Each outlet has its own bias. Here's a good chart from Media Bias/Fact Check



If you want to get the least biased and most reliable news, stick to those outlets in the green rectangle. If you don't mind a little bit of biased interpretation and persuasive analysis of the facts, include the yellow rectangle. Be very careful about trusting news from any of the other sources.

 

[jamesbyoung]

The issue is that Trump deserves most of the media negativity that he gets.

Even Fox dumps on him more than praises him.

The center and left of course are going to dump hard on him.

He deserves it.

 

[Bodi]

So, you are essentially saying that you are not interested in truth, especially if it could compromise your impressions. That seems to be the stereotype of Trump supporters. You seemingly have confirmed that stereotype.

The reality is that most of the so-called "anti-Trump" MSM still operate with a high degree of factual integrity. That does not mean the media is without bias, it just that their reporting is based upon facts. On the other, the factual integrity ratings of Fox have actually fallen and its bias has skewed right. Of course, we have seen some of their best journalists leave over journalistic matters. It seems that the only way to say nice things about Trump is to loose with the facts.

Media Bias/Fact Check - Search and Learn the Bias of News Media

You are displaying my point perfectly... thank you. I talk about sides being biased and you affirm that by posting nothing but anti-Trump/Fox stuff.

"Media Bias Fact Check is a left-wing "fact-checker" owned by Dave Van Zandt which purports to monitor bias in the media."

Media Bias Fact Check - Conservapedia

 

[lwf]

You are displaying my point perfectly... thank you. I talk about sides being biased and you affirm that by posting nothing but anti-Trump/Fox stuff.

"Media Bias Fact Check is a left-wing "fact-checker" owned by Dave Van Zandt which purports to monitor bias in the media."

Media Bias Fact Check - Conservapedia

Conservapedia?

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

 

[Glitch]

"In a 2006 academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showed that the 2004 coverage on 3 of the big 6 broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush"

A May 2017 study conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U. S. President and businessman Donald Trump's first 100 days in office by all major mainstream media outlets and broadcast networks including CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS.[64] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive

Fox News controversies - Wikipedia



Which Political Lean gets more biased news coverage?

You can almost date when mainstream media became left-leaning - 1987. The year the FCC abolished their Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters to be "honest, equitable, and balanced." The Fairness Doctrine had been in place since 1949, but mainstream media was also very conservative at the time. Edward R. Morrow was the epitome of the ideal journalist - accurate, objective, and politically neutral. The political neutrality of the media only lasted until Walter Cronkite, the most trusted news broadcaster in the country, declared the Vietnam war to be a "stalemate" on February 27, 1968.

When CNN first went on the air in 1980, still under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine, they advertised themselves as "Infotainment," not a news channel. However, when the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 then suddenly CNN became "News You Can Trust," and began delivering a very leftist perspective of events. By 1992 ABC and NBC were on board, deliberately sabotaging the 1992 elections in Clinton's behalf. They were so egregiously leftist that by 1996 Fox News was created to counter the blatantly leftist mainstream media. By 1992 CNN, ABC, and NBC had become the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. MSNBC and CBS joined their compatriots in 1996 (the year MSNBC was created).

Since 1996, Fox News has about the same audience as CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS combined. None of them are accurate, objective, or politically neutral. Which is why I "cut the cable" and stopped watching all of them back in 2006.

 

[Bodi]

Conservapedia?

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

I make a point that both sides are biased when the President is from the opposing party and he counters with a Left Leaning site... so I counter with a Right Leaning site to show the clear bias... so yes. Conservapedia.

 

[BWG]

Conservapedia?

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

LOL!!!

You have to admit that using conservapedia to show Media Bias/Fact Check is biased take a bit of chutzpah. :lol:

 

[Bodi]

Since 1996, Fox News has about the same audience as CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS combined. None of them are accurate, objective, or politically neutral.

Agreed...

 

[Bodi]

LOL!!!

You have to admit that using conservapedia to show Media Bias/Fact Check is biased take a bit of chutzpah. :lol:

I was not doing that... I was showing that both are biased and that affirms my original argument about bias.

 

[bubbabgone]

"In a 2006 academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showed that the 2004 coverage on 3 of the big 6 broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Bush, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Bush"

A May 2017 study conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U. S. President and businessman Donald Trump's first 100 days in office by all major mainstream media outlets and broadcast networks including CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS.[64] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive

Fox News controversies - Wikipedia



Which Political Lean gets more biased news coverage?

If that's true, why on earth would balanced coverage be tagged "Fox News controversies" instead of "Mainstream media outlets controversy"?

 

[lwf]

I make a point that both sides are biased when the President is from the opposing party and he counters with a Left Leaning site... so I counter with a Right Leaning site to show the clear bias... so yes. Conservapedia.

Media Bias/Fact Check is not a left leaning site. It endeavors to be politically neutral.

 

[Bodi]

Media Bias/Fact Check is not a left leaning site. It endeavors to be politically neutral.

IF you research enough you start to see the lean of all of the things that are part of the guys network.

...and then there is this:

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst.

The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

 

[lwf]

IF you research enough you start to see the lean of all of the things that are part of the guys network.

...and then there is this:

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst.

The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

It is indeed an amateur and non scientific site. It also does not push a political agenda and is informative when you are trying to decide if a particular news item or outlet is worth wasting your time on.

 

[upsideguy]

You are displaying my point perfectly... thank you. I talk about sides being biased and you affirm that by posting nothing but anti-Trump/Fox stuff.

"Media Bias Fact Check is a left-wing "fact-checker" owned by Dave Van Zandt which purports to monitor bias in the media."

Media Bias Fact Check - Conservapedia

Most of the world would look at MediaBiasFactcheck as a pretty good source for such. In fact, the polling done on their site is pretty consistent with their conclusions. They also explain their conclusions, unlike you.
I for one get much of my news from International sources such as the BBC, the Toronto Star, the Guardian and the The Economist. I don't find their views significantly inconsistent with the views of the best American sources.

From Conservipedia article: "....Most of Media Bias Fact Check's assessments are wildly inaccurate. For instance, Conservapedia is placed at the very end of the right-wing of the political spectrum (see Conservapedia Derangement Syndrome). Conservapedia is listed under "Questionable Sources" and described as "border[ing] on hate group status." It is accused of promoting "conspiracies" and "fake news." They claim that it, "is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria."[1]..."

Ah, yes, because it is a questionable source. The whole idea that you have to have a website that views the news/truth from a Conservative perspective makes its bias self-evident.

OK.... you like to shop for your facts. You like to hear news that soothes your ears. You like political porn. You like living in a fantasy world. You like it when people say nice things about your Donald: your hero; your leader. You do know that he doesn't give a s... about you, right? Everything he does, he does for his own self-aggrandizement. Are you watching is daily news conferences? They have become a pathetic substitute for his rallies. They are there to feed his insatiable ego. He does care about the lives of Americans right now, he only cares about being "thanked".

The reason he gets bad press is that most of the world views him as a bad president: a danger to the world. That is not media bias, it is the wholesome truth. Something they do not tell you on your political pornsite. A big problem with America are the number of people that live in the fact free world that you frequent and don't check what they are hearing. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. Which is what you are trying to do. That is just wrong.

How the world sees the U.S. and Trump in 10 charts | Pew Research Center

Am I getting this right? Let me check.

How to talk someone out of a damaging cult

Look, you can like Trump. You can think he is doing a good job. Certainly you should be challenged on such, but I respect your right to defend him, if you are using real and veriable facts. But, if you don't understand why he gets so much bad press (and its not bias), then something is missing.....

 

[jamesbyoung]

Most of the world would look at MediaBiasFactcheck as a pretty good source for such. In fact, the polling done on their site is pretty consistent with their conclusions. They also explain their conclusions, unlike you.
I for one get much of my news from International sources such as the BBC, the Toronto Star, the Guardian and the The Economist. I don't find their views significantly inconsistent with the views of the best American sources.

From Conservipedia article: "....Most of Media Bias Fact Check's assessments are wildly inaccurate. For instance, Conservapedia is placed at the very end of the right-wing of the political spectrum (see Conservapedia Derangement Syndrome). Conservapedia is listed under "Questionable Sources" and described as "border[ing] on hate group status." It is accused of promoting "conspiracies" and "fake news." They claim that it, "is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria."[1]..."

Ah, yes, because it is a questionable source. The whole idea that you have to have a website that views the news/truth from a Conservative perspective makes its bias self-evident.

OK.... you like to shop for your facts. You like to hear news that soothes your ears. You like political porn. You like living in a fantasy world. You like it when people say nice things about your Donald: your hero; your leader. You do know that he doesn't give a s... about you, right? Everything he does, he does for his own self-aggrandizement. Are you watching is daily news conferences? They have become a pathetic substitute for his rallies. They are there to feed his insatiable ego. He does care about the lives of Americans right now, he only cares about being "thanked".

The reason he gets bad press is that most of the world views him as a bad president: a danger to the world. That is not media bias, it is the wholesome truth. Something they do not tell you on your political pornsite. A big problem with America are the number of people that live in the fact free world that you frequent and don't check what they are hearing. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. Which is what you are trying to do. That is just wrong.

How the world sees the U.S. and Trump in 10 charts | Pew Research Center

Am I getting this right? Let me check.

How to talk someone out of a damaging cult

Look, you can like Trump. You can think he is doing a good job. Certainly you should be challenged on such, but I respect your right to defend him, if you are using real and veriable facts. But, if you don't understand why he gets so much bad press (and its not bias), then something is missing.....

Trump undoubtedly deserves most of the media negativity he gets.

Fox dumps on him more than praises him. He deserves it.

 

[Huey Freeman]

The same people who deny systemic bias against African-Americans and other minorities, are the same individuals who insist the media has a systemic bias against conservatives. It never made any sense to me but, then again, white supremacy rarely does.

 

[Jason Warfield]

First, I would like to challenge anyone on here to name me a period of time where the media, as a whole, wasn't leaning in one direction or another. Spoiler alert: you can't. Such a time never existed. Oh, sure, you could point out one or two news outlets over time, but not the entire industry,

People with money have always owned news outlets. And they generally have a say in the agenda, whatever it may be. Left or right. Over time it has gone way, then the other and back again and the cycle starts all over.

Now, here's what HAS changed over time. Sure, the left is currently against the president but how they report that is different than when the right was against Obama. The difference is in HOW the agenda is reported.

While there are leftist sites that mudrake and tell lies....but the majority of left-leaning sites achieve their agenda by simply showing the facts and letting Trump run his fool mouth in front of the cameras. And when he denies it and supporters like those on this board say the same thing...all we have to do on the left is to roll the clip. And when the right says it has been taken out of context and that what was shown was edited...all we have to do is show the entire clip to prove you wrong. Of which almost none of you will watch because you cannot bear to be proven wrong.

When Obama was president, the right-biased media did the opposite. Instead of reporting truth, they doctored photos, edited quotes and videos to take out of context...and all we had to do was play the whole clip and show the right that we know what they are doing and make them look like hacks...except for their own viewers who are too cowardly to actually look at facts...if their world view is challenged, they will not do it. The are too afraid to change the narrative of what they want to believe for the narrative that actually exists.

And the sad thing is that the proof is right there; just a google search away where they can cross-reference claims for accuracy like I do. But you all won't do it...the threat is too real for you.

This thread reminds of a debate I had with an old buddy who is right-wing and he quoted me George Washington over gun control When I pointed out that the quote was false and was debunked by Washington historians using archives related to George Washington like speeches, journals, correspondence, etc...and that the speech had been changed from the original that Washington wrote....he refused to do the research himself. He could not do it. Simply because the lie was more appealing to what Washington actually said...which is odd given that the real quote provides support for other elements of the 2nd Amendment debate that would be in his favor. But again...the lie was so much better to believe in...