BF2S Forums The media, both broadcasted, and in print

"Why don't the newscasters cry when they read about people who died, at least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

we win hands down, Next !

All media is biased of course. From Fox News at one ridiculous extreme to AL Jazeera at another ridiculous extreme, all media outlets are paid for by people who have vested interests in influencing public opinion.

The point was, do their stories carry a bias or have a slant? we are all in agreement that 99% of them do.
Check poll results

I think it is hard to paint an entire brush on the media. You have to look at each outlet seperately. Some are bias either way. I would say overall though it is mildly to the left.

I also don't think you can paint a news station biased just by its anchors too (the primetime pundits), like say Russert vs O'Rielly each one leans in the other direction.

Neil Cavuto and John Gibson. Admittedly though, also on the same station.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq

Someone please show me some good news in iraq. All I ever read about is quagmires and dead troops. Yet every soldier I have spoken to says the place is a lot better. Schools, power and the like. They said it's a shithole, but a better one than when they got there.

the media (print and online) are just another business. they are there to make money and gain market share.  thats it. if you think its something noble, you are severely naive.  Without big stories they dont make money, so any way to make a story more appealing will happen.  Its just teh way it is folks. plain and simple like that

Marconius wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq

Someone please show me some good news in iraq. All I ever read about is quagmires and dead troops. Yet every soldier I have spoken to says the place is a lot better. Schools, power and the like. They said it's a shithole, but a better one than when they got there.

Watch our news.  Watch the BBC's reports, and watch Al Jazeera's reports.  Take an average between the positive and negative stories and you'll see which way everything is faring.

This is what I do. However at our home we also add the Cartoon network a lot. They know how to use the remote and I can't stop em. They even notice when the Commercials are different.

Well, the fact that what the media says, and what the personnel say that are actually there, are 2 different things, I think a bias is obvious.

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-30 16:53:42)

The only reason I've ever seen for fox's being labelled a conservative outlet is that they simply don't agree with the liberal networks, have tried to bust the other networks for their indoctrination of the spoon fed masses, so obviously they must be biased (sez their competition). I have also seen them report stories that criticize many conservatives, but these are brushed by the wayside when this argument is brought up. Where people get confused is when they consider FOX's EDITORIAL programming as newscasts, however even in this respect they go out of their way to provide some balance to the spectrum, Brit Hume's panel is always balanced 50/50 with conservatives and libs, for every Charles Krauthammer there is a Juan Williams, for every Hannity there is a Colmes (I love it when they find someone they both disagree with and install a new hole for them), and O'reilly just bounces from one political description to the other, libs call him conservative, conservatives call him lib. What's so wrong about them being the one news outlet that will take the time to show the positive side of world events?

This clip illustrates a tactic commonly found on liberal programs where when they are being proven wrong they interrupt the dissenter and don't let them finish. Note how many times Chris Matthews interrupts Zell Miller, who has committed the ultimate sin of calling out the lib talking heads of his political party, who Matthews has a tremendous boner for. The good stuff doesn't happen until about 6 minutes in, Zell, the good southern Marine he is, has had enough of Matthews' tactics and lets him have it, unfortunately the effect was short lived and Chris Matthews has gone back to being a cocktard disguised as a journalist.


Edit: God I love watching that clip, the look on Chris Matthews' face when Zell loses a boot in his ass is pricless, "Are you gonna let me finish? Are you gonna let me finish? Don't pull that sh...stuff on me."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/mult … erduel.htm

As for liberal bias in the media, I don't have to prove it exists, Dan Rather did it for me when he chose to run  the air guard story based on documents he knew to be forged.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-02 06:35:59)

The United States boasts the most sophisticated propaganda machine the world has ever seen.  It is capable of mobilizing public opinion on a scale unparalleled in all recorded history.  It gets the job done.

And if people knew, it wouldn't be true.

British media has a mixed bias ... at least in terms of newspapers. Papers like The Times (which is in essence The Sun for 'grown ups') or the Daily Telegraph have a conservative bias. Papers, if you call them such a thing, like The Daily Mail or The Daily Express are strongly conservative and very anti-Blair and anti-European. Then you have The Guardian which has a liberial bias and The Independent which leans ever so slightly to the left.

Of course, the best papers are The Daily Sport or The Daily Star ... low on news and high on boobs (j/k)

Anyway, just put that up for informational purposes

Last edited by Viper38 (2006-06-13 08:27:38)