Jump to content

One Man's Fool

Media Bias 101

Recommended Posts

For those who deny the existence of media bias, here is a classic example of how it works:

Today, the Associated Press's unbelievably biased Jennifer Loven writes a story titled Bush Denies Racial Component to Response.

Is anything in the story inaccurate? Not really. So why do I say it's biased?

Because it was written at all. The idea that the federal response was slow because many of the victims were black is so absurd that no serious person could possibly give it credence. It's like if a reporter asked Bush to confirm or deny that the hurricane hit Louisiana because of all the abortions that happen there. They would never do that, because it's ridiculous.

But this Kanye West stuff? Hey, pelt the president with the question. Then, by writing a story about it, you can cast asperions on him without ever technically making an accusation at all.

Clever. This is mainly how media bias works - not so much by what they say, but by what they choose to treat as news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the best example you have of media bias, I'm pretty comfortable with the level of bias that exists.

Ask the president a question and then report the answer. The perfect way to hide bias in a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is the best example you have of media bias, I'm pretty comfortable with the level of bias that exists.

Ask the president a question and then report the answer. The perfect way to hide bias in a story.

Just shows that the subtlety works. Ask the president a question based on an absurd premise, then, by virtue of the president having commented on it, validate the absurd premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Absurd" is pretty subjective. Why is the premise absurd?

Considering the article in no way paints a picture that counters the presidents answer (nor does it really spend any time bashing Bush or his administration), what aspersions are they casting on the president? That the response was slow because of racism? That aspersion has already been cast on him by multiple sources so far, he's being given the chance to respond to those aspersions. Seriously, is this the insidious media bias everyone talks about?

Every person has their own biases. If this is the example of how the evil media tries to influence people with their evil liberal biases, then we don't have much to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, OMF...but you are so off your ****ing rocker on this one its sick.

This is a legitimate story. The racial component to this story is out there, whether you want to see it or not. A whole bunch of people think the response would have been different had the folks left in NO been white. True or not, its a story.

Bush needs to get this behind him fast, or risk blowing all of the work the Republicans have done to get more african americans into the party fold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a whole bunch of people think we never landed on the moon too.

It's only a story because the media plays along with it in their quest to blame this on Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which "whole bunch" do you think is a larger group?

Is their quest to blame Bush or sell newspapers? It seems to me like the media plays up stories that people (and by people I mean the papers readers) are interested in so that they can sell more papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is fascinating on so many levels . . .

Sorry, OMF...but you are so off your ****ing rocker on this one its sick.

This is a legitimate story. The racial component to this story is out there, whether you want to see it or not. A whole bunch of people think the response would have been different had the folks left in NO been white. True or not, its a story.

Dude, you are making my point for me! It's "out there"? Yes, and how did it get out there? Because some race-mongering tool wanted to put it out there, but that alone doesn't accomplish it. He has to get pickup from the mainstream media, and they were only too happy to oblige, and voila! It's "out there." And that makes it a "legitimate story."

Bush needs to get this behind him fast, or risk blowing all of the work the Republicans have done to get more african americans into the party fold.

Ah yes, can't forget the political component to freaking everything, can we? Do people in the media have the ability to view anything aside from through the prism of politics?

Funny thing about your post: Nowhere do you offer a defense of the theory that the federal government really moved slowly because they don't care about black people, nor do you give any indication that you actually believe this. And yet you call it a "legitimate story." Why is it a story? Because it's legitimate. Why is it legitimate? Because it's "out there." How did it get out there? It was in the news!

And you think I'm off my rocker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which "whole bunch" do you think is a larger group?

Is their quest to blame Bush or sell newspapers? It seems to me like the media plays up stories that people (and by people I mean the papers readers) are interested in so that they can sell more papers.

No. It is obvious that they just don't like Bush.

The media NEEEEEEEEEEVER did this to Clinton. Not once. :cheeky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which "whole bunch" do you think is a larger group?

Is their quest to blame Bush or sell newspapers? It seems to me like the media plays up stories that people (and by people I mean the papers readers) are interested in so that they can sell more papers.

but that would make them sellouts and not the noble crusaders determined to get tot he bottom of the truth that we are led to believe they are. If that's the case then I'll buy it.

By the way, I'm not convinced one group is larger than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm not convinced one group is larger than the other.

Then you have a lot in common with people who don't think we landed on the moon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catch this weeks HBO's Real Time and you will see the race card played severely by all but the token conservative (who Bill defended as doing a good job). Carlin was on and his views on Bush (read anything conservative that he can pin on him) should embarrass even the most liberal viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catch this weeks HBO's Real Time and you will see the race card played severely by all but the token conservative (who Bill defended as doing a good job). Carlin was on and his views on Bush (read anything conservative that he can pin on him) should embarrass even the most liberal viewer.

Do people take anything said on that show seriously? I mean, George Carlin's a comedian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The studio audience does. They make themselves feel so good by congratulating themselves by applauding whenever a panelist has a "Springer moment" and says something bold. All that's missing is the African American Female Head Bop while saying it.

I don't write those off in teh audience as just idiots like I would at a Pauly Shore concert. These are probably otherwise intelligent people with serious jobs, maybe even children. That's what worries me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is the best example you have of media bias, I'm pretty comfortable with the level of bias that exists.

Ask the president a question and then report the answer. The perfect way to hide bias in a story.

This question is tantamount to asking him if he stopped beating his wife. If one cannot see that, one is simply not being objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that the reaction was poor due to race was brought up by a lot of people and not just Kanye West. The first people to bring it up were the citizens of New Orleans themselves. Don't you guys remember some of the first comments coming from the survivors were? I was shocked about all the anger and resentment, and a lot of them leveled this charge against Bush. The media can't just ignore it and they did the right thing by presenting the issue and letting Bush answer his critics.

Sometimes journalists ask questions they don't even want to ask simply because they know there are people out there seeking those answers. Its part of their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but that would make them sellouts and not the noble crusaders determined to get tot he bottom of the truth that we are led to believe they are. If that's the case then I'll buy it.

They are sellouts. Buy it.

Many journalists would admit it and others would act pompous and high and mighty. Just like people in any other profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The studio audience does. They make themselves feel so good by congratulating themselves by applauding whenever a panelist has a "Springer moment" and says something bold. All that's missing is the African American Female Head Bop while saying it.

I don't write those off in teh audience as just idiots like I would at a Pauly Shore concert. These are probably otherwise intelligent people with serious jobs, maybe even children. That's what worries me.

They're probably prompted to applaud and laugh. Just like at every other TV show.

This seems to bother you a lot. Who cares? It's a meaningless TV show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're probably prompted to applaud and laugh. Just like at every other TV show.

This seems to bother you a lot. Who cares? It's a meaningless TV show.

In your mind, when do media productions (books, movies, periodicals, newspapers and especially television programs) cross the line from meaningless to meaningful? It seems that you dismiss the show as meaningless because you would have to otherwise acknowledge that your opponent's point is correct. But that's just my take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of Buddha's general debating style to ridicule the concept of something being taken seriously when the something - if taken seriously - undermines his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...