Media & Politics

[My$terio_Fan]

Do you think media plays a role in politics and elections? I mean I am a huge fan of Barack Obama and wanted him to win the election. But when I really think about it, why did I want him to win? Was it because he was a democate? Probably. But do I really know any of his policies or what not? No.

Straight up the reason why I like Obama is because he is black and deemed cool by the media. You cannot turn on a news channel or read a magazine without hearing something about Barack being loved, or cool, or great. I personally I think the media and it's portrayl of Obama helped him win the election.

For people who watch TV all they see is Obama being treated like god and McCain being crusified(Except on fox news). So do you think the media plays a big role in politics? And do you think it's fair that the media usually is so one sided?

Personally I think the biasis is too much. Even though I don't like the republicans, I think the media is cloudy some peoples opinions.

 

[Mr. TM]

I think there is a huge bias in the media that DOES clous people's minds. In Canada, I voted Conservative. But they are negatively viewed in media all across this nation. I voted for Stephen Harper for my own reasons. Now my friend who is also a Stephen Harper supporter was in a relationship with a girl who had wanted (but didn't) to vote Green. Her reason was because Stephen Harper was an idiot. My friend asked why. She responded "I don't know, he just us". Obviously the media had washer her mind into thinking that Stephen Harper is a bad Prime Minster. He may be, but people are no longer thinking for themselves.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yes, the media is biased, and its slant is to the left (politically). This is a huge topic that I really couldn't even begin to touch the surface of with just one post. But, suffice it to say, the media picks winners and losers. In terms of politics, I really don't care what the media has to say, as I am able to independently decide for myself whom I would like to support/vote for. The only time that media bias really bothers me is in regards to murder trials (the perfect example being the Amanda Knox case...the American media thinks her innocent as can be, but there is irrefutable proof that she was somehow involved in the murder of her roommate in Italy, Meredith Kirchner...but, I am going on a tangent here, so I'll stop).

 

[The Dewbliners]

Absolutely, the media is biased. Some networks are slanted more to the Left (CNN, MSNBC,Etc.), Whilst others are more to the Right (FOX,700 WLW). How I combat this is by going to both sides, listening to their arguments, and figuring out where the middle ground is. From there, I find the third party candidate that fits the mold, and proceed to vote accordingly. Is it a wasted vote? Yes. Does it really matter, in the long run? No, the media is still gonna influence all the swing-voters, and undecideds.

As far as the media influencing murder cases/trials, I honestly think it's a shame. Most people hear about a murder, and they can't wait til a suspect is arrested and charged. Then as soon as the police release a name for a "Person of Interest", the public demands the modern day equivalance of a crucifiction. Nine times out of ten, I would say a guilty verdict is predetermined by the media. Even if there is irrefutable proof of a defendants innocence, a jury will base their decision more on what they here from the news, than the court proceedings. This just draws everything out, with appeals, just so an innocent man can be released and the true killer can be found. For an example see the case of the "Hurricane".

Sorry for the diatribe. I just get carried away sometimes.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Yes, the media is biased, and its slant is to the left (politically). This is a huge topic that I really couldn't even begin to touch the surface of with just one post. But, suffice it to say, the media picks winners and losers. In terms of politics, I really don't care what the media has to say, as I am able to independently decide for myself whom I would like to support/vote for. The only time that media bias really bothers me is in regards to murder trials (the perfect example being the Amanda Knox case...the American media thinks her innocent as can be, but there is irrefutable proof that she was somehow involved in the murder of her roommate in Italy, Meredith Kirchner...but, I am going on a tangent here, so I'll stop).

The TV media is slanted to the left. You are correct about that. But news radio has a rightward slant. This, of course, is obvious in the editorial sections of the newscasts, however, an examination of the news reporting shows something different.

Two seperate UCLA studies have listed Special Report with Brit Hume (on supposedly right leaning Fox) as the most centrist show on TV as far as news reporting goes. A George Washington University Study found that Fox, once again, gave the most balanced portrayals, in their news coverage, of all the networks, in dealing with Presidential candidates. Say what you will about Fox's editorials, their news is, in fact, fair and balanced. These same studies also found the MSNBC had basically no change in the percentage of negative McCain editorial segments to negative McCain news segments. MSNBC, it seems, was openly trying to influence the election as a network.

All this leads to my response on the Amanda Knox case. I agree with Tdigle, that American news networks seem to want Knox to be innocent. All of those networks, except for Fox has had pro-Knox coverage. I, as a Fox news viewer, have seen her tried and convicted already by every Fox News Legal Analyst.

Fox's viewershit is 39% Conservative, 31% Liberal, and the rest are independants. It is the closest spread of all the networks, and when you push through the editorials, which are up to the anchor, not the network, and just watch the news coverage, it appears that Fox is the most watched of all American networks for a reason.

I watch enough of the other networks to know that MSNBC was openly pulling for Obama. It's two most recognizable faces, Olberman and Matthews, were pulled off of political coverage for trashing the Republican National Convention. They actually referenced Obama more times than McCain after McCain acceptance speech. Tehy said very unkind things about Sarah Palin, as well. MSNBC couldn't help but not allow these two on election night coverage, as they might have faced election tampering charges with Olberman yelling that it was over every chance he got to try and dissuade MCCain voters from even showing up in the west.

 

[The Todd]

The best example is Berlusconi in Italy. He is as power ful as Rupert Murdoch is in Britain in the Media, and to top it off, he is prime minister. He owns so much of the media world in Italy, in the run up to elections all the tv stations and newspapers say vote Berlusconi, as he owns them. Rival groups find it hard to buy media coverage due to Berlusconi's strangle hold. He has gotten so powerful now it doesn't look like it will stop. The media has to be won back before someone can take the country back. The media is that powerful.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, the media is biased, and its slant is to the left (politically).

I disagree.

I don't think that media (referring to news shows) is biased necessarily towards one view or another, I think the media is biased towards sensationalism. The news outlets will report what will make them money.

So, for example, Fox feels they will make money catering to Republicans, and vice versa with the stations that cater to Dems. News media is about money. THAT is why we have biased reporting.

Say what you will about Fox's editorials, their news is, in fact, fair and balanced.

No offense, but this is a laugh. My mom's husband is a big fan of Fox News, and so it's occasionally on when I go visit her. And I can't begin to count the amount of conservative comments/garbage that I've heard on there.

Without intending insult, people like you will claim that Fox is the most fair and balanced, because that's what you want to believe. And you can quote UCLA studies on one program and a Washington University study all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I NEVER noticed fair and balanced reporting on that channel.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Sly, it's the reporting, not the editorials that I am focused on. i would like to think that people who are educated enough to seek out 24 hour news coverage are educated enough to separate fact from opinion. I mean, I know you are smarter than three university surveys and all, but maybe, this one time, we can let the facts win out?

I think you find it laughable because they don't spend the whole time finding weak connections to blame President Bush for everything. Half of the bullshit reported to be Bush's fault is based on logical fallacies that people want to believe because the Sportscenter anchor on MSNBC tells them to. President Bush did plenty of his own fucking up, which was reported on Fox News.

People assume it is not balanced because they watch Youtube clips of Bill O'Reilly yelling at guests. What they don't see is that former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliff is was the most used guest commentator on the channel. They don't realize that for 12 years the voice of American conservatism, Sean Hannity was balanced by Alan Colmes.

I do agree with you that there is a lot of sensationalism on the news. Well, explosions and terrorism garner higher ratings than good news ever will, so it needs to be on TV for the survival of these networks, but calling any other network more balanced than Fox is laughable. I see Pat Buchanan as the only conservative voice on MSNBC, and he has been a joke to party loyalists since his run as reform candidate. On CNN, there are no conservative voices, however Anderson Cooper and Larry King get prime time highlighted coverage.

I respect your posts, but this one is just another attack on Fox News. It seems that everyone thinks they can pile on with lies and theories just because Obama won. It's cool to gloat, but watch the news coverage, and not the editorials, and you will see that the educated experts who do research and have fact finding ability and standards for the conclusions they reveal might be right, and you, sir, might not be.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly, it's the reporting, not the editorials that I am focused on. i would like to think that people who are educated enough to seek out 24 hour news coverage are educated enough to separate fact from opinion. I mean, I know you are smarter than three university surveys and all, but maybe, this one time, we can let the facts win out?

I think you find it laughable because they don't spend the whole time finding weak connections to blame President Bush for everything. Half of the bullshit reported to be Bush's fault is based on logical fallacies that people want to believe because the Sportscenter anchor on MSNBC tells them to. President Bush did plenty of his own fucking up, which was reported on Fox News. People assume it is not balanced because they watch Youtube clips of Bill O'Reilly yelling at guests. What they don't see is that former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliff is was the most used guest commentator on the channel. They don't realize that for 12 years the voice of American conservatism, Sean Hannity was balanced by Alan Colmes.

I do agree with you that there is a lot of sensationalism on the news. Well, explosions and terrorism garner higher ratings than good news ever will, so it needs to be on TV for the survival of these networks, but calling any other network more balanced than Fox is laughable. I see Pat Buchanan as the only conservative voice on MSNBC, and he has been a joke to party loyalists since his run as reform candidate. On CNN, there are no conservative voices, however Anderson Cooper and Larry King get prime time highlighted coverage.

I respect your posts, but this one is just another attack on Fox News. It seems that everyone thinks they can pile on with lies and theories just because Obama won. It's cool to gloat, but watch the news coverage, and not the editorials, and you will see that the educated experts who do research and have fact finding ability and standards for the conclusions they reveal might be right, and you, sir, might not be.

Great post, it's just unfortunate for you that you proved it true about people who assume.

I never ONCE claimed any other station to be any less biased than Fox, but that doesn't change the fact that Fox is very much biased. And I've got better things to do than look up Bill O'Reilly on Youtube. Like pull my toenails out with a rusty pair of pliers for example. See, this is the problem with conservatives when it comes to the media. They are so desperate to point out all the liberal biases that they become apologists and hypocrites for the same exact thing.

And, don't give me that university study bullshit. You and I both know that "studies", more often than not, conclude what the surveyor wants them to conclude. I bet you could find another study out there that completely refutes the ones you posted, and says that "Station X" really is the fair and impartial one. Once again, I have better things to do with my time.

I don't give a fuck that Obama won, or that Bush used to be President, that was never my point. Well, I'll take that back. I do care that Obama won and that Bush used to be President, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. As is approximately half of your post.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Great post, it's just unfortunate for you that you proved it true about people who assume.

This is going to be fun.

I never ONCE claimed any other station to be any less biased than Fox, but that doesn't change the fact that Fox is very much biased.

Well, maybe this post was the benefit of more than just you. I love how liberals think everything is about them. That's why the PC patrol walks around and bans churches from speaking about God. And once again, studies, from UCLA and George Washington, two incredibly liberal universities support my point. So you are wrong. Case closed, but I'll keep going. The viewership of Fox also proves you wrong. 39% conservative, 31% liberal 30% moderate. That is as balanced as any other news station can claim. If the news were so slanted right, I doubt that a third of the viewership would sit there and say, "I know they are lying to me, but I'm gonna watch for all the pretty blondes." Society has proven me right, and you can argue all you want, but you're wrong.

And I've got better things to do than look up Bill O'Reilly on Youtube.

You don't have to. The stories get around, and are often worse than the actual event. I don't think you've spent enough time watching to have an unbiased opinion. I think you are a victim of the media brainwashing and you don't want to admit it.

Like pull my toenails out with a rusty pair of pliers for example.

We have some common ground. This is what Olberman makes me want to do.

See, this is the problem with conservatives when it comes to the media. They are so desperate to point out all the liberal biases that they become apologists and hypocrites for the same exact thing.

That's funny that you label the conservatives desperate. We weren't desperate enough to start websites, like Media Matters that do nothing but bash Fox for their editorials. There are more sites out there that protect the liberal news watching public from the evil Fox. It's funny that you label us desperate when we laugh off the futile attacks to label Fox fascists and what not, but it is in fact, the left who makes a big deal about it. Wrong again Sly.

And, don't give me that university study bullshit.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with you? Because it uses facts, and in your definition of a debate facts shouldn't be allowed?

You and I both know that "studies", more often than not, conclude what the surveyor wants them to conclude.

Not at these bastions of liberalism. I commend them for releasing this study, that was performed with public money, even though it goes against the entire doctrine of their university's faculty and board.

I bet you could find another study out there that completely refutes the ones you posted, and says that "Station X" really is the fair and impartial one. Once again, I have better things to do with my time.

And these studies have been funded by George Soros. He funded the fight for 215, legalizing pot, in California. he has pumped billions into PACs designed to derail republican campaigns. He even sponsored a study that posited that three million Iraqui citizens have been murdered by troops or casualties of carpet bombing when the Red Cross says that number is less that 5% of that number, and most of those casualties might have been of citizens kidnapped and placed in building that were likely targets prior to the invasion. Sorry, for using facts and citations. I know your opinion superceedss all, but please, bear with me.

I don't give a fuck that Obama won, or that Bush used to be President, that was never my point. Well, I'll take that back. I do care that Obama won and that Bush used to be President, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. As is approximately half of your post.

You do give a fuck, or else your only facts would have been that you caught a few minutes of Fox News when you were at your mom's. You made an entire post bashing Fox based on what you saw while it was running in the back ground for a couple of trips to your mom's. Your support of Obama is key to this discussion, as you have proved that yet again, his supporters are people who are easily brainwashed by SportsCenter anchors and loud mouths.

Once again, teh reporting is fair. They broke the Bush DWI before the 2000 election. They were the first to call him to the carpet for the first crap stimulus bill, and they continue to report the news right down the middle.

Their editorial staff is biased, but that's what editorials are for.

 

[Slyfox696]

This is going to be fun.


Well, maybe this post was the benefit of more than just you. I love how liberals think everything is about them. That's why the PC patrol walks around and bans churches from speaking about God. And once again, studies, from UCLA and George Washington, two incredibly liberal universities support my point. So you are wrong. Case closed, but I'll keep going. The viewership of Fox also proves you wrong. 39% conservative, 31% liberal 30% moderate. That is as balanced as any other news station can claim. If the news were so slanted right, I doubt that a third of the viewership would sit there and say, "I know they are lying to me, but I'm gonna watch for all the pretty blondes." Society has proven me right, and you can argue all you want, but you're wrong.


You don't have to. The stories get around, and are often worse than the actual event. I don't think you've spent enough time watching to have an unbiased opinion. I think you are a victim of the media brainwashing and you don't want to admit it.


We have some common ground. This is what Olberman makes me want to do.



That's funny that you label the conservatives desperate. We weren't desperate enough to start websites, like Media Matters that do nothing but bash Fox for their editorials. There are more sites out there that protect the liberal news watching public from the evil Fox. It's funny that you label us desperate when we laugh off the futile attacks to label Fox fascists and what not, but it is in fact, the left who makes a big deal about it. Wrong again Sly.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with you? Because it uses facts, and in your definition of a debate facts shouldn't be allowed?


Not at these bastions of liberalism. I commend them for releasing this study, that was performed with public money, even though it goes against the entire doctrine of their university's faculty and board.



And these studies have been funded by George Soros. He funded the fight for 215, legalizing pot, in California. he has pumped billions into PACs designed to derail republican campaigns. He even sponsored a study that posited that three million Iraqui citizens have been murdered by troops or casualties of carpet bombing when the Red Cross says that number is less that 5% of that number, and most of those casualties might have been of citizens kidnapped and placed in building that were likely targets prior to the invasion. Sorry, for using facts and citations. I know your opinion superceedss all, but please, bear with me.


You do give a fuck, or else your only facts would have been that you caught a few minutes of Fox News when you were at your mom's. You made an entire post bashing Fox based on what you saw while it was running in the back ground for a couple of trips to your mom's. Your support of Obama is key to this discussion, as you have proved that yet again, his supporters are people who are easily brainwashed by SportsCenter anchors and loud mouths.

Once again, teh reporting is fair. They broke the Bush DWI before the 2000 election. They were the first to call him to the carpet for the first crap stimulus bill, and they continue to report the news right down the middle.

Their editorial staff is biased, but that's what editorials are for.

1) I think you are confusing my posts with other people's posts. For example, you keep mentioning Obama, and yet I've never once said in this thread whether I wanted Obama to win or not, or whether I wanted McCain. In fact, I said during most of the election process, that I think either man will do the same quality of job. So, I'm not sure why you keep referring me as an Obama supporter. I guess that's the Rush Limbaugh style of debating. When you're wrong, associate your opponent to something that you have an easier time arguing about. Good choice.

2) You said:

Well, maybe this post was the benefit of more than just you. I love how liberals think everything is about them.

My apologies. Generally when someone begins their post with my name, I generally assume that means they were talking to me. But, good recovery and all. And you even managed a Rush Limbaugh style of attack on liberals. Good job.

3) You seem to think I have a dog in this fight. I don't. I don't give a damn if you want to call certain stations biased. I can't stand the Democrats and I hate the Republicans. But trying to say that Fox News isn't biased is ridiculous. And that's my point.

4) Breaking a story does not show a lack of bias, it shows what I said originally is the point. It's about money. Breaking a story means more viewership, which in turn leads to more money.

5) Conservatives most certainly are desperate to point out liberal biases in the media. They've been doing it for decades, and they cry about it all the time. Hell, is that not one of Rush Limbaugh's signature lines, the liberal media? You'll have to excuse my ignorance of Rush Limbaugh, as I only catch him when I'm at my grandmother's but Lord knows I've heard it plenty of times.

6) There was still plenty of things in your post that you assume about me, once again proving what they say about people who assume. Do me a favor. Next time actually respond to my post, instead of making stuff up and attributing it to me. I'd go through and point out all the things you assumed about me, but meh. If you're unsure, just understand I don't align with either political agenda, so trying to label me as one or the other is a waste of time.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Ok, so maybe I jumped the shark a bit, but still, you have to recognize my viable points. And I know you do because you fail to substantiate teh opinion behind them.

So, I apologize for lumping you in with the liberals, but my points are still valid what I saw to all liberals as a whole.

These studies were concocted by liberals and proved my point. The reporting, and the reporting only, on Fox News was deemed to be the fairest. The most likely source of the consternation against Fox was likely against O'Reilly and not in fact against Martha McCallum and Jane Skinner and Megyn kelly and Trace Gallagher. The reporting is all I was examining and it has been proved to be fair.

And claiming that Rush Limbaugh calls the media liberal is one thing, but claiming that the conservatives, as a whole, go on a media bashing tip even close to comparable to the crusade against Fox News is laughable at best.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I disagree.

I don't think that media (referring to news shows) is biased necessarily towards one view or another, I think the media is biased towards sensationalism. The news outlets will report what will make them money.

So, for example, Fox feels they will make money catering to Republicans, and vice versa with the stations that cater to Dems. News media is about money. THAT is why we have biased reporting.

It's a pretty well-established that the media has a liberal slant. Yes, the businesses/corporations that comprise the media are for profit, but they cover much more than politics. Furthermore, when you look at the political leanings of anchors and reporters and those of the Ordinary Joes and Janes that make up the American populace, there is a stark contrast. If a news company's political coverage accounted for a significant portion of their revenue, wouldn't it be in their best interest to cater to those with the most commonly held political beliefs (i.e., in America, moderate/slightly conservative people)?

 

[FromTheSouth]

It's a pretty well-established that the media has a liberal slant. Yes, the businesses/corporations that comprise the media are for profit, but they cover much more than politics. Furthermore, when you look at the political leanings of anchors and reporters and those of the Ordinary Joes and Janes that make up the American populace, there is a stark contrast. If a news company's political coverage accounted for a significant portion of their revenue, wouldn't it be in their best interest to cater to those with the most commonly held political beliefs (i.e., in America, moderate/slightly conservative people)?

Yes, but media members are very interested in certain policies. One of which is the first amendment, which the left is a more dedicated expansionist of, in their opinion. Therefore, trying to influence elections is in their interest. They try to move the nation to the left.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yes, but media members are very interested in certain policies. One of which is the first amendment, which the left is a more dedicated expansionist of, in their opinion. Therefore, trying to influence elections is in their interest. They try to move the nation to the left.

What portion of my post are you responding to? Are you just trying to give an alternate explanation of the liberal bias of the media that isn't rooted in economics?

 

[FromTheSouth]

What portion of my post are you responding to? Are you just trying to give an alternate explanation of the liberal bias of the media that isn't rooted in economics?

I was merely saying, that once one is on the air, it is his word and his balls, for lack of a better term. A reporter on air, will inflect his voice, use body language, or jsut flat out say what he wants.

Often times, what he wants will illustrate a liberal bias for an assortment of reason, one of which is expansion of the first amendment because it benefits him personally.