Media Bias
- Thread starter Archy1221
- Start date
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
Are you talking about letting each candidate offer their positions on key issues, and publishing them side by side?
Are you talking about the reporters digging into those positions to reveal past contradictions and feasibility problems? If one candidate is clearly more full of s#!t, is that bias?
If you farm something like The Economy out to the economic experts, and they come back with the near unanimous conclusion that Kamala Harris' policies are more likely to succeed than Donald Trump's, is that bias or responsible reporting?
It's the same old saw: there may be two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean they are equal. The notion that reporters should just shrug and say "you figure it out" is stupid.
Probably not. I think the paper could do that through researching the campaigns
I think there would be very issues to talk about if candidates in either side were looked into for past contradictions, but those should probably be noted along with the timeframe since the position change and asking the candidate why the position change and reporting to the readers.
Depends on the “economic experts”. Are they the same ones who predicted a Trump recession with near certainty?
It’s not stupid unless you honestly think someone is gonna make there decision on who a paper tells them to vote for. LOL.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/media/trump-reelection-media-credibility-trust/index.html
Interesting article. I am not sure why the media doesn't want to recognize their bias. This includes FOX news who probably does recognize they are bias and just doesn't give a crap.
This was and interesting quote.
"That raises another question: Do major networks and publications have enough columnists and commentators who reflect the Trump majority’s views?"
Uh...no you don't, unless your FOX and then they don't have enough people with views on the left. Some outlets tried to bring in people with opposing views and it triggered the other employees. Blair Wiess says, hold my beer and let me explain. But it begs the question, if you can honestly be objective for a change, you wouldn't need people with opposing views.
And this one...
“Maybe we have a point,” the aide remarked. “Maybe ‘misinformation’ is a lazy word that was never applied to press coverage of Biden’s health or the border. Maybe ‘offensive’ things aren’t offensive to most.”
That last statement is very true.
Interesting article. I am not sure why the media doesn't want to recognize their bias. This includes FOX news who probably does recognize they are bias and just doesn't give a crap.
This was and interesting quote.
"That raises another question: Do major networks and publications have enough columnists and commentators who reflect the Trump majority’s views?"
Uh...no you don't, unless your FOX and then they don't have enough people with views on the left. Some outlets tried to bring in people with opposing views and it triggered the other employees. Blair Wiess says, hold my beer and let me explain. But it begs the question, if you can honestly be objective for a change, you wouldn't need people with opposing views.
And this one...
“Maybe we have a point,” the aide remarked. “Maybe ‘misinformation’ is a lazy word that was never applied to press coverage of Biden’s health or the border. Maybe ‘offensive’ things aren’t offensive to most.”
That last statement is very true.
Enhance
Administrator
It all goes back to money at the end of the day. CNN won't change their strategies until their financial situation tells them to, same with Fox News.
Not saying the following about you nic, but in general - the people who often complain the most about "the media" are the ones who regularly feed right into their business models. Acknowledging they're a human industry, and a business, goes a long way towards processing and understanding their content and motivations.
The days and weeks following an election are always the media's, podcaster's, influencer's, etc., favorite time for platitudes and trying to interpret what all of these voter decisions mean. Personally, I think (as per usual) they are going way overboard to generate clicks and views. The same people who swayed this election in favor of Trump will be the same kind of people who sway an election in a Democrat's favor the next time a Democrat wins (which will happen, as sure as the sun rises and sets). They're mostly just average people trying to do what they think is best for them, not people trying to make grand statements about anything.
BigRedBuster
Active member
The only way you can be objective for a change is to openly welcome people with opposing views and be willing to listen to them and try to understand. That doesn’t mean you have to agree.
We all come from different life experiences to formulate our views.
The problem is that America only wants to listen to people that agrees with them. That includes the media they pay attention to. When a network like Fox brings in their token lib, it’s always presented as, “they are the funny crazy one for humor”….instead of having an honest discussion with them.
That also includes the friends we have. We may have close friends that have different views, but we just ignore those topics instead of actually having those discussions.
Personally I get news these days from Google/MS feeds and the web. Outside of Gutfeld, because it's entertaining, I don’t watch cable news much, nor the legacy media. I try and read similar stories from both fox and CNN. I was encouraged when CNN hired a new CEO that appeared to be trying to move them back to the middle but he only lasted a year.
I have actually had conservative friends try and tell me that FOX was too liberal. Can you believe that? I thought they were joking.
Some of problem is rushing stories before getting them right. I really think most pundits are just partisan and can't help themselves. But your are right about going where thw money is and the nation is just as partisan.
I agree. My neighbors that we sit out and drink on the porch with sometimes are what I would call socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Abortion was a hot topic last time. The funny thing is we settled at 15 weeks with exceptions. Too bad government can't do that.
But can the media slow down, verify and report just the facts without having emotion or interjecting opinion? Some of this is because the talking heads on TV claim they are news analysis shows and therefore like opinion pieces. Let's get Headline news back on the air. I can watch for 30 minutes, catch up and be done.
Enhance
Administrator
At first this surprised me, but the more I think about it, the more it sort of makes sense. Mainstream media outlets like Fox have been pummeling their viewers into partisanship submission for decades. Combine that with Trump often pushing obvious inaccuracies (because the base doesn't really seem to care all that much one way or the other) and you end up getting a cohort of people who just keep burrowing themselves further down the rabbit hole. Now, the steps they first took to descend into partisanship are so high up they can barely see where they started.
This is actually a pretty fascinating phenomenon. I now work on the corporate analysis side of the media world (not for a mainstream outlet or network), but I've worked at various levels of news media for 15 years. Rushing content with possible mistakes has become more common than ever, dare I say acceptable in many situations. I think a lot of it has to do with social media as it has fostered a culture where people have come to expect immediate news/results, and there's no way to provide that without risking accuracy. So, as a news agency, what do you do? Risk being late, losing views, revenue, engagements, etc. but being right, or should you be fastand hope that people give you the time to correct and update your reporting in the following days? The empirical evidence to this point (both in terms of engagement and revenue) suggests people now generally prefer the latter.
Now, there are obviously situations where being fast and being wrong could spell doom, but those are usually far and between. Most journalists still want to get the facts right first, but their jobs are obfuscated by columnists and TV pundits... who aren't really journalist. But that line is blurred now more than ever.
But it isn't. That is supposed to be the difference between reporting and journalism/opinion. I don't want the deliverer to tell me how I'm supposed to interpret or feel about the "facts."
Which is what happens far too often. Hence, why some Editors and staff want their publications to endorse candidates.