At least that's what the media keeps telling us.

Until they get caught on tape making comments about someone they despise (Palin) while covering one of her speaking events. An event that, much to the left's chagrin, raised a record amount of money for the college where she was speaking.

But hey, I'm sure they churned out perfectly objective and balanced stories, despite their personal feelings.

Yeah, right.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/16643

I doubt we'll be hearing too much about this, even though the Washington Post's so-called "conservative" beat reporter had to resign because of comments he made. His were so egregious the Post probably felt it had to act. I doubt any of these guys face similar repercussions.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, 4/29/2006

Since Mr. Colbert is part of the bias -- he would know, I guess.

It's a joke.

But the media bias is played up way too much by conservatives. It isn't as big as you guys say it is. And it's not like Fox doesn't even it out with it's massive conservative bias (don't give me the "but Fox is fair and balanced per this one report" crap. Fox is conservatively biased. Nothing really wrong with it either). You're also ignoring the fact that talk radio is almost exclusively manned by cigar chomping idiots spouting GOP talking points and lying about anything and everything just so they have something to yell about.

If I just want facts I'm not likely going to any of the anchor shows on the main networks. I'll use a mixture of Newspapers and reports and decide for myself.

It's not overblown.

Yes Fox is decidedly conservative in its news reporting.

Just as CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, AP, Reuters and just about every other major news organ, including Time and Newsweek, are decidedly liberal.

I'd say the liberals have a "slight" edge in this one.

I've spent my entire career in this field and I can honestly say, in 40 years of observing how the media does its job, this is the most biased I've ever seen it. Not even close.

It's because no one was watching in the past. People just accepted what Dan Rather or whoever else was on the tv were reading facts. They weren't. Now we have internet sites and shows (like the Daily Show and Colbert Report) to say "wait a second, that's not really true" or "that's a really big leap you took to get to that conclusion".

Edit: And Time is like the news source for people who don't really want to read much but like to think they're in the loop. Lobby magazine at best.

Try finding a liberal AM radio dial program. They don't exist. And please, don't tell me NPR. They are not liberal...they are neutral.

Growing up the internet did not exist. It was CBS, ABC, NBC. They were my only news sources. Today the game has changed. We now have satellite TV and the internet. I agree much of the media is biased but for those that seek truth it is now readily available for the majority. I can not remember the last time I watched a network news program. My news is now obtained via the internet. I can now choose to freely read news from all spectrums. I can at my free will check out the democrat underground, the Huffpo, Heritage, Cato, you name it. My sources of news are unlimited.

But don't worry the elitist among us are quite aware of this. Look for them to find ways to attempt to stifle this new freedom in the very near future. After all it is dangerous to have the unwashed and unlearned access to such divisive material.

majorspark;403652 wrote:Growing up the internet did not exist. It was CBS, ABC, NBC. They were my only news sources. Today the game has changed. We now have satellite TV and the internet. I agree much of the media is biased but for those that seek truth it is now readily available for the majority. I can not remember the last time I watched a network news program. My news is now obtained via the internet. I can now choose to freely read news from all spectrums. I can at my free will check out the democrat underground, the Huffpo, Heritage, Cato, you name it. My sources of news are unlimited.

But don't worry the elitist among us are quite aware of this. Look for them to find ways to attempt to stifle this new freedom in the very near future. After all it is dangerous to have the unwashed and unlearned access to such divisive material.

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=465

You can help.

It's not directly related to news bias but it could result in some terrible situations if the right people don't make a stand. I suggest everyone send that letter or a letter to their congressman.

majorspark;403652 wrote:But don't worry the elitist among us are quite aware of this. Look for them to find ways to attempt to stifle this new freedom in the very near future. After all it is dangerous to have the unwashed and unlearned access to such divisive material.

Of course they will.

Revival of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is still being discussed, a current bill in Congress would give the POTUS an Internet "kill switch" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html), the leftist media which has been steadily and rapidly losing market-share is lobbying the Dem-controlled Congress hard for "assistance", etc., etc.

For decades liberal elites have controlled information decimation but have lost that monopoly since the advent of cable television news, talk radio, and the Internet.

Since those new sources of information have ironically eaten into their eeeeeeeevil capitalistic profit-margins, the elite leftist media moguls are crying foul and putting pressure to bear on their liberal pals in the Beltway to protect them from these new competitive pressures.

You would think that these "objective journalists" would ask themselves if they need to re-think their strategy. That maybe - just maybe - they need to make adjustments and recognize that in order to regain market-share they need to - oh I dunno - be a little more "fair & balanced" in their own product offerings.

NAW....how can they push their leftist agenda on the American public if they practice true 4th Estate balanced and objective professional journalism?

Therefore, it's not a matter of if they will do something but when.

Footwedge;403645 wrote:Try finding a liberal AM radio dial program. They don't exist. And please, don't tell me NPR. They are not liberal...they are neutral.

Several have existed and failed. No conspiracy, just the marketplace actually working.

queencitybuckeye;403674 wrote:Several have existed and failed. No conspiracy, just the marketplace actually working.

There's no market because liberals already own every major media outlet except Fox News.

The reason conservative radio is so successful?

They represent an alternative to the liberal bias regular MSM patrons are subjected to every day.

And if you think NPR isn't liberal -- then your political spectrum is skewed to the left. They are decidedly liberal in how they present stories, and the local talk shows I've listened to (it hasn't been often, admittedly) are overwhelmingly liberal in how the hosts present information and the majority of listeners who call in respond.

I Wear Pants;403572 wrote:It's because no one was watching in the past. People just accepted what Dan Rather or whoever else was on the tv were reading facts. They weren't. Now we have internet sites and shows (like the Daily Show and Colbert Report) to say "wait a second, that's not really true" or "that's a really big leap you took to get to that conclusion".

Edit: And Time is like the news source for people who don't really want to read much but like to think they're in the loop. Lobby magazine at best.

Have to disagree with this......

My father was a print journalist for upwards of 50 years. Back in his day reporters, whether they were newspaper, magazine, television or radio just reported the news. Today, the news is read interlaced with opinion, sensationalism and a political leaning not seen in the past.

Reporters, writers, etc should just be reporting the news....not trying to make news.

When was this great tradition of the media being non biased and not indulging in sensationalism. 18th century and 19th century newspapers were carried their blatant political advocacy from their editorials into their news coverage. in the late 19th century you have the rise of the large newspapers chains lead by Pulitzer and Hearst, practitioners of yellow journalism, a synonym for sensationalism. For many years after their formation the leading newsmagazine :Time, Newsweek and US News and World Report were attacked for rightwing, not left wing bias.

The era of yellow journalism and sensationalism spurred on by Hearst came to a screeching halt as journalists insisted on being called professionals as opposed to tradesmen. So, along came journalism schools and college degrees -- and along with it, a set of journalistic ethics that included things like an emphasis on accuracy, confirming facts from more than one source and making an all out effort to keep your opinion from infiltrating the story.

As such, the Fourth Estate became a valuable part of the watchdog we needed as our country grew ever larger and, along with it, the government. There was simply no way for the average citizen to keep tabs on all those who worked in government and had leverage over everyday life.

Sadly, we've watched that watchdog role evaporate in the past several years as the mainstream media has taken on an advocacy stance, choosing to defend a political viewpoint and the people who represent those views (particularly Obama), instead of holding them accountable to the people they are supposed to represent.

As New Media has grown and the legacy media has seen its revenues plummet, the saddest part of all these changes is how the cutbacks to reporting staff will mean even less coverage of government and government officials -- especially those in smaller to mid-sized communities.

I predict that small cities in Ohio like Bucyrus, Port Clinton and others that are now served by chain operations based out of larger cities such as Mansfield, will see those operations completely closed down at some point -- and we will see a revival of weekly newspapers to fill the void of local news. How successful that trend will be likely will come down to the younger generation and whether they view knowing what's going on locally as important or not. Right now, they don't tend to support daily newspapers like those of us who are older do.

When the source of news completely dries up via staffing cutbacks, it will be interesting to see if that lack of access to information spawns some type of comeback by local media, providing them with an opportunity to charge for content that is now free.

Ultimately, I see Kindle or Nook winning the electronics battle for providing information, and very small charges per subscriber for some of these local media as a way in which smaller journalism entities can make a comeback.

Journalists were never some dependable truth tellers working for the good of the public. They've always lied and had bias.

I Wear Pants;403906 wrote:Journalists were never some dependable truth tellers working for the good of the public. They've always lied and had bias.

This. It was still biased, but previous generations trusted others to the point where it's basically a fatal flaw. I can think of some older people (older baby boomers and up) who are like that to this day.

Today's world may be more cynical, but that does help in weeding out the truth in some cases.

While no doubt true to a degree -- there was a concerted effort for more than 50 years (post Hearst) to upgrade the education and image of journalism as a profession, and with it, the belief that those who followed its ethics would tell the truth as close to objectively as humanly possible.

What we're seeing now is a DELIBERATE disregard for those fundamentals of journalism and journalistic ethics -- primarily to favor one political viewpoint.

Of course they wanted to seem like a real profession. Who doesn't?

And the public bought into their bullshit ideal that journalists tell it like it is and work to expose the truth. They don't and they never have. Even if there was a concerted effort that made it so journalists for the most part have degrees and they made rules to govern integrity and all that crap. They never listened to it.

There has always been a disregard for those fundamentals of journalism. Look at all the bullshit that's been allowed to be spewed throughout the last century.

And the problem is that even when there isn't a bias conservatives and liberals will see any story that shows the opposing viewpoint in a positive light as bullshit and claim the person presenting it is biased or the network is a puppet etc, etc. So it doesn't matter if it is or isn't biased.

Did you take any journalism courses like journalism ethics? I did, and it was more than just stressed to behave a certain way. You make it sound like it was all a sham from the get-go -- which is a ridiculously ignorant viewpoint. The strides that were made in improving journalism through the 20th century were not made up just for the hell of it -- it was a set of principles that journalists were judged against.

Viewers or readers can think what they like, but if the journalist does an honest job, they will at least have heard two sides of the story, with some confirmation of facts by more than one source.

It's a set of ideals that you're supposed to follow. Doesn't mean they get followed very often. I'm sure it was made with good intentions but journalistic integrity has never been as important to most journalists as selling a story.

Writerbuckeye;403798 wrote:The era of yellow journalism and sensationalism spurred on by Hearst came to a screeching halt as journalists insisted on being called professionals as opposed to tradesmen. So, along came journalism schools and college degrees -- and along with it, a set of journalistic ethics that included things like an emphasis on accuracy, confirming facts from more than one source and making an all out effort to keep your opinion from infiltrating the story.

As such, the Fourth Estate became a valuable part of the watchdog we needed as our country grew ever larger and, along with it, the government. There was simply no way for the average citizen to keep tabs on all those who worked in government and had leverage over everyday life.

Sadly, we've watched that watchdog role evaporate in the past several years as the mainstream media has taken on an advocacy stance, choosing to defend a political viewpoint and the people who represent those views (particularly Obama), instead of holding them accountable to the people they are supposed to represent.

As New Media has grown and the legacy media has seen its revenues plummet, the saddest part of all these changes is how the cutbacks to reporting staff will mean even less coverage of government and government officials -- especially those in smaller to mid-sized communities.

I predict that small cities in Ohio like Bucyrus, Port Clinton and others that are now served by chain operations based out of larger cities such as Mansfield, will see those operations completely closed down at some point -- and we will see a revival of weekly newspapers to fill the void of local news. How successful that trend will be likely will come down to the younger generation and whether they view knowing what's going on locally as important or not. Right now, they don't tend to support daily newspapers like those of us who are older do.

When the source of news completely dries up via staffing cutbacks, it will be interesting to see if that lack of access to information spawns some type of comeback by local media, providing them with an opportunity to charge for content that is now free.

Ultimately, I see Kindle or Nook winning the electronics battle for providing information, and very small charges per subscriber for some of these local media as a way in which smaller journalism entities can make a comeback.

STANDING O

Is the coverage of Senator Byrd's death a recent example? Maybe when you compare this to the way they covered Strom Thurmond's demise. Here is a link from Fox News (boo-hiss, yeah I know).



http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/is-the-media-giving-robert-byrd-a-pass/#axzz0sC85UsnG

Of course Byrd was given a pass for his KKK work and his efforts to block segregation. While they were mentioned in the stories I saw, they were a miniscule part of his biography in how the story was reported. Probably worse, was the fact that his over zealous use of his Senate position to bring "pork" to West Virginia was not even mentioned.

I can't help but blame the big players, such as USA Today and Murdoch for helping to lower journalistic standards. To them it's all about sensationalism and selling newspapers and advertising space/time. USA Today (IMHO) helped to legitimize rags such as The Enquirer.