Media Bias

JJ Husker said:
Where have you been for the last 20 years (longer)? Sure, in a perfect world the media would be completely unbiased and report only facts. We don’t live in that Utopia. @Enhance explained why things are not that way and it isn’t hard to understand. People (every single one) have flaws and biases. Many do act with professionalism to mitigate their biases but some do not. The key is recognizing who is better at it and who isn’t and then consuming your news accordingly.
Click to expand...


What's happened in the last 20 years has been a profit model that replaces expensive boots on the ground reporting with relatively cheap talking heads. Competing 24/7 news channels changed everything. Some of that's on us. We really do consume the Good Guy/Bad Guy s#!t. 

But that's cable television. Forget about it. There's been plenty of outstanding reporting going on in print publications and their digital channels, and frankly Twitter out-reported CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all day Wednesday. It's a bit chaotic at the moment, but if you avoid the temptation to post breaking news before vetting it, there's a lot of truth out there. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
What's happened in the last 20 years has been a profit model that replaces expensive boots on the ground reporting with relatively cheap talking heads. Competing 24/7 news channels changed everything. Some of that's on us. We really do consume the Good Guy/Bad Guy s#!t. 

But that's cable television. Forget about it. There's been plenty of outstanding reporting going on in print publications and their digital channels, and frankly Twitter out-reported CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all day Wednesday. It's a bit chaotic at the moment, but if you avoid the temptation to post breaking news before vetting it, there's a lot of truth out there. 
Click to expand...
QFT

We need to figure out how to get back to investigative and local journalism.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
What's happened in the last 20 years has been a profit model that replaces expensive boots on the ground reporting with relatively cheap talking heads. Competing 24/7 news channels changed everything. Some of that's on us. We really do consume the Good Guy/Bad Guy s#!t. 

But that's cable television. Forget about it. There's been plenty of outstanding reporting going on in print publications and their digital channels, and frankly Twitter out-reported CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all day Wednesday. It's a bit chaotic at the moment, but if you avoid the temptation to post breaking news before vetting it, there's a lot of truth out there. 
Click to expand...
I agree. Things did get much worse due to the advent of 247 cable news. It’s about money, eyeballs and advertising. But some seem to think bias did not exist prior to that. Hell, I used to be one of them. “The good old days with Walter Cronkite....” Problem is human beings will always have a bias. It’s just gotten easier and more lucrative for them to not suppress it. There’s probably never been a time in history that journalism (reporting and editors) didn’t have at least a smidge of bias. It’s just human nature.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I've been a journalist. Went to the J-School at UNL. Journalism 101 is that you get multiple sides to a story from the most authoritative source who will talk to you. Because these sources are so valuable,  you can't afford to piss them off by willfully misrepresenting them. Once you have their side of the story, you vet the claims through research, sometimes consulting  less-partisan experts on the given subject. When a passionate quote doesn't align with a verifiable fact, you're obliged to report it.  There may be two sides to a story, but that doesn't mean they are equal. That's why you're a reporter, not a stenographer. 

Journalists tend to be well-educated, genuinely curious, and obsessed with getting inside information. If a majority of people in this profession lean in one direction, chances are it's closer to the truth. 
Click to expand...
There is also a way to frame the exact same story with the exact same facts to make the story sound very different than how the story actually unfolded. This happens far to often and has created an issue that the media has an agenda to push and will use their vast reach to push that agenda instead of pushing out true news stories 

 
JJ Husker said:
I agree. Things did get much worse due to the advent of 247 cable news. It’s about money, eyeballs and advertising. But some seem to think bias did not exist prior to that. Hell, I used to be one of them. “The good old days with Walter Cronkite....” Problem is human beings will always have a bias. It’s just gotten easier and more lucrative for them to not suppress it. There’s probably never been a time in history that journalism (reporting and editors) didn’t have at least a smidge of bias. It’s just human nature.
Click to expand...
In 2008 Presidential election, 68% of McCain stories were negative, 35% of Obama stories were negative.  Quite the discrepancy and not good for the country based on how much impact the media can have on a persons thoughts and actions. And that’s with one of the few  Republican the media liked.  

RedDenver said:
QFT

We need to figure out how to get back to investigative and local journalism.
Click to expand...
Plus 100 here 

 
Archy1221 said:
In 2008 Presidential election, 68% of McCain stories were negative, 35% of Obama stories were negative.  Quite the discrepancy and not good for the country based on how much impact the media can have on a persons thoughts and actions. And that’s with one of the few  Republican the media liked.  
Click to expand...
This is classic both-sidesing. It ignores that not all situations need 50-50 favorable coverage. (Unless you're really going to argue political figures like Stalin or Hitler should have had equally favorable coverage, I suppose.) McCain got a tremendous amount of negative coverage because he picked Palin as his running mate - and that negative coverage was deserved.

 
RedDenver said:
We need to figure out how to get back to investigative and local journalism.
Click to expand...
(This isn't directed at you Red, just using it as a jumping point).

SOAPBOX RANT INCOMING.

I hear this a lot, but I think if people actually mean it and care about it, they have to start taking action and making better choices. Otherwise, we're just going to continue to deal with the same issues and complaints.

One of the best ways people can do this is by purchasing a digital subscription to their local newspaper/online news site. I hate to say it, but the days of advertising subsidizing local news have faded. Local communities are going to have to pay for reliable, local news if they want to keep it alive and sustainable. And it's really not that expensive to do so.

Yes, local news is imperfect. But at least these people are in your community. They care about it. Most of the national news published locally is nuts and bolts versions which suffices in a lot of cases.

Without this support, local news/investigative journalism will continue down the path its on, only to be replaced by more sensationalism and talking heads that care more about your clicks than you as a person.

:rant

 
For 40 years, Donald Trump got all the coverage he wanted from mainstream media because he was a spotlight whore and the media considered him a good albeit lightweight story. 

When he launched his birther takedown of Barack Obama in 2011, the mainstream media gave him far more positive attention than he deserved. When he segued to a Presidential run in 2015, they continued to give him far more coverage than any other candidate, precisely because he was a celebrity. 

I think the media turned on Trump only when they realized the narcissistic jackhole would be making decisions that affected everyone's lives. 

 
Enhance said:
(This isn't directed at you Red, just using it as a jumping point).

SOAPBOX RANT INCOMING.

I hear this a lot, but I think if people actually mean it and care about it, they have to start taking action and making better choices. Otherwise, we're just going to continue to deal with the same issues and complaints.

One of the best ways people can do this is by purchasing a digital subscription to their local newspaper/online news site. I hate to say it, but the days of advertising subsidizing local news have faded. Local communities are going to have to pay for reliable, local news if they want to keep it alive and sustainable. And it's really not that expensive to do so.

Yes, local news is imperfect. But at least these people are in your community. They care about it. Most of the national news published locally is nuts and bolts versions which suffices in a lot of cases.

Without this support, local news/investigative journalism will continue down the path its on, only to be replaced by more sensationalism and talking heads that care more about your clicks than you as a person.

:rant
Click to expand...
I agree. We have to vote with our wallets.

 
RedDenver said:
This is classic both-sidesing. It ignores that not all situations need 50-50 favorable coverage. (Unless you're really going to argue political figures like Stalin or Hitler should have had equally favorable coverage, I suppose.) McCain got a tremendous amount of negative coverage because he picked Palin as his running mate - and that negative coverage was deserved.
Click to expand...
In a two party system with a basic 50-50 split in ideology, you really want to say a plus thirty favorability coverage for one candidate over another is fair?  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
fwiw.....investigative journalists have painstakingly chronicled Donald Trump's dishonesty and debunked untold conspiracy theories, and it hasn't mattered a lick to the millions of people who prefer to believe the manufactured myths. 
Click to expand...
This is so accurate. Real journalism exists. Problem is people don't pay attention to it. 

 
Back
Top