media bias

[stip]

This article was forwarded to me today

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/0 ... tail=email


I am less interested in commentary on the article and more curious to hear (especially from people who think that there is a liberal media bias) what stories they think should be getting coverage that aren't, or how the coverage they do receive is slanted?


For disclosure, I tend to believe that the media bias that exists is a bias towards power, rather than liberal/conservative. that, and the coverage is slanted towards narrative stories and infotainment.

[elliseamos]

i don't know if it's bias as much as it's branding and marketing.

[Norah]

I just hate the assumption that the media exists as one homogeneous entity.

[stip]

i don't know if it's bias as much as it's branding and marketing.

it's more than that, I think. Branding and marketing are how you sell a product, but this approach fundamentally alters the nature of the product itself. Would you call that marketing or branding?

[nyquillyn]

I just hate the assumption that the media exists as one homogeneous entity.

Team chud.

[Norah]

I agree with stip that most bias is towards power and status quo.

[stip]

I just hate the assumption that the media exists as one homogeneous entity.

Team chud.

for sure, but there is such a thing as the mainstream media and I think we can still make some broad generalizations about it.

[elliseamos]

i don't know if it's bias as much as it's branding and marketing.

it's more than that, I think. Branding and marketing are how you sell a product, but this approach fundamentally alters the nature of the product itself. Would you call that marketing or branding?

i think of it as branding b/c it forms false affiliation. like coke people vs. pepsi people... and nike/reebok/addidas people... they are brands that, for some, equate to identity. the corporate networks are selling you the larger corporate agenda (besides the obvious products during & in between shows).

msnbc (comcast), for example, runs their morning joe program (while peddling starbucks and certain newspapers during the actual conversation) and they're seeking to get you on board with the D & obama agenda b/c the ceo contributed to the campaign. they've also got former Obama staffers and campaign assistants on their panels. fox (news corp.) works in the opposite direction, right down to Bush staffers and campaign assistants (including the Mccain/Palin team). viacom (through comedy central) works another angle. CNN (aol/time/turner/warner), CBS, and ABC (disney/espn) work yet another. each of these networks, and the corporations above them, are looking to brand themselves as something you will identify with.

the thing that FOX does well, and the Rs by proxy, is that they are the only one's delivering their message, so they can constantly exist as the outlier among the networks, "they won't report on this b/c they don't want you to know the truth!" this approach is further establishing their brand, and the R brand through association, which is clearly an identity for 1/2 the country.

[nyquillyn]

In the past, I think media bias was mostly bullshit. It was just angry white people still pissed off by "the media's" coverage of the civil rights movement, Vietnam and its direct involvement in the take down of the Nixon administration.

Today, it seems many media outlets are pretty upfront about their leanings and anybody bitching about coverage is an idiot for not seeking that coverage out. I'm sick of hearing the right talk about "mainstream" media, the last time I checked, Fox News has been the No. 1 cable news network for more than a decade. Doesn't that make it the mainstream?

[elliseamos]

for me, the story i'd like to hear discussed until it ends is our endless war.

drone bombing, torture, rendition, mercenaries, CIA/FBI/NSA data-gathering & surveillance, the militarizing of domestic policing... that's just off the top of my head.

everybody's making money off of this, so nobody's going to work against it.

[Green Habit]

I think the fact that media has become a lot more consumer driven has naturally driven it to take sides more often--since people all have opinions. Thus, I also think that people are getting the news that they want--which you could certainly argue whether or not that's a good thing.

[elliseamos]

I think the fact that media has become a lot more consumer driven has naturally driven it to take sides more often--since people all have opinions. Thus, I also think that people are getting the news that they want--which you could certainly argue whether or not that's a good thing.

this part is what i'm talking about w/ affiliation/identity. i have an opinion about black people, oh look the person on Hannity is saying the same thing... "see, told you honey."

[harmless]

I agree with stip that most bias is towards power and status quo.

Team CHUD.

There are most certainly media biases, but they tend towards power, stereotype and status quo. Of course, you also have cases where a sizeable chunk of media venues are funded and supported by those with particular political allegiances, so those media venues will reflect those party lines. For example, the various papers and TV channels which have a Tory bias in the UK: The Telegraph, Daily Mail, BBC, etc. etc.

[stip]

I think the fact that media has become a lot more consumer driven has naturally driven it to take sides more often--since people all have opinions. Thus, I also think that people are getting the news that they want--which you could certainly argue whether or not that's a good thing.

more striking is possibly the increased invisibility and prominence of commentary and punditry. Because reporting is expensive and talk is cheap.

[nyquillyn]

I agree with stip that most bias is towards power and status quo.

Maybe you were speaking in more general and national terms, but I will say the complete opposite was true at the papers I worked at. We were a pretty vigilant watchdog towards anyone in power and that include business leaders, politicians, teachers and cops. Even our national coverage tended to be critical of those in power (Clinton at one paper, Bush at the other). Of course once the advertising left, we became more of a watchpuppy.

[Norah]

I agree with stip that most bias is towards power and status quo.

Maybe you were speaking in more general and national terms

Yeah, I'm talking more national terms.

[stip]

I agree with stip that most bias is towards power and status quo.

Maybe you were speaking in more general and national terms, but I will say the complete opposite was true at the papers I worked at. We were a pretty vigilant watchdog towards anyone in power and that include business leaders, politicians, teachers and cops. Even our national coverage tended to be critical of those in power (Clinton at one paper, Bush at the other). Of course once the advertising left, we became more of a watchpuppy.

what paper did you work at?

think about it like this though. If you criticized clinton or bush, who did you go to and source for those critiques? Others in power, or people outside the ruling hierarchy?

[nyquillyn]

I agree with stip that most bias is towards power and status quo.

Maybe you were speaking in more general and national terms, but I will say the complete opposite was true at the papers I worked at. We were a pretty vigilant watchdog towards anyone in power and that include business leaders, politicians, teachers and cops. Even our national coverage tended to be critical of those in power (Clinton at one paper, Bush at the other). Of course once the advertising left, we became more of a watchpuppy.

what paper did you work at?

think about it like this though. If you criticized clinton or bush, who did you go to and source for those critiques? Others in power, or people outside the ruling hierarchy?

I worked in Odessa (Slowdeatha), Texas and in the PHX-metro area. Both have won Pulitzers and, again, were known for their "watchdog" journalism. To be fair, I worked for an unusual company. We were owned by Libertarians and a lot of the crap that goes on at other newspapers didn't go on there. The publishers were old school news guys (and gal) through and through, there was no schmoozing with public officials or advertisers. We weren't Gannett.

To answer your question, on news pages we didn't go to anybody for sources on those stories. They were wire stories from NYT and AP. And there were plenty of stories critical of both Bush and Clinton, with quotes and sources from people in and out of the power structure.

The editorial pages had a Libertarian slant (mandated by the company) and pretty much beat the shit out of Clinton and Bush on a daily basis. In Odessa, bashing Clinton wasn't a big deal, but we took a lot of flak for taking on Bush in AZ. Again, this all changed once the advertising left.

[Green Habit]

I think the fact that media has become a lot more consumer driven has naturally driven it to take sides more often--since people all have opinions. Thus, I also think that people are getting the news that they want--which you could certainly argue whether or not that's a good thing.

more striking is possibly the increased invisibility and prominence of commentary and punditry. Because reporting is expensive and talk is cheap.

I'm pretty sure that I agree with you here, but it seems like you're missing a word or two.

It will be interesting to see what role social media can play on the reporting ground in the future. I'm not sure what path it will take.

[stip]

I think the fact that media has become a lot more consumer driven has naturally driven it to take sides more often--since people all have opinions. Thus, I also think that people are getting the news that they want--which you could certainly argue whether or not that's a good thing.

more striking is possibly the increased invisibility and prominence of commentary and punditry. Because reporting is expensive and talk is cheap.

I'm pretty sure that I agree with you here, but it seems like you're missing a word or two.

It will be interesting to see what role social media can play on the reporting ground in the future. I'm not sure what path it will take.

that should have said visibility, not invisibility

Social media can draw attention to stories and democratize (to an extent) what gets covered. But it cannot provide what is soley missing from journalism today, which is context (history, institutional knowledge, policy knowledge, process knowledge, etc) . Serious investigative reporting can do that because the authors of articles take the time to familiarize themselves with the subject they are covering.