Unbelievable Media Bias

[+susieice]

What ever happened to proof? Proof is physical evidence, not verbal bashing. Has anyone presented any? All this nonsense going on has my head spinning to the point I don't want to hear anymore.

[CrimsonKing]

20 minutes ago, pallidin said:

With all its discomforts, fragility and abuse, freedom of speech rocks!

Imagine a society without it... There are plenty around.

No sense in bringing Cal Berkely into this...  

[Paranormal Panther]

26 minutes ago, pallidin said:

With all its discomforts, fragility and abuse, freedom of speech rocks!

Imagine a society without it... There are plenty around.

The First Amendment is "kewl", bro'! Censorship sucks, bro'! 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

It sounds like wishful thinking. It's just like your take on Walter Cronkite. 

I know.  I was a kid.  He probably reminded me of my Uncle John, the only guy in my Texas family to have a mustache in the 50's.

[pallidin]

Mass-media without political bias seems unlikely for whatever reasons.

Not sure if true, but for example Fox leans towards Republicans while CNN leans towards Democrats is what I've heard.

 

 

[Lilly]

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

 

Not sure if true, but for example Fox leans towards Republicans while CNN leans towards Democrats is what I've heard.

 

 

I've also heard that the sky is blue and water is wet!

Obviously Fox goes to the right and CNN goes to the left. But, this isn't really the problem IMO. The problem that I see is the amount of unchecked horrific hatred being promoted by many media outlets. The 'Trump is as bad as Hitler' stuff, the calls for violent social action, the disgusting content thinly cloaked as being humor or satire, the labeling as 'racist' anyone they disagree with...this is what bothers me about the current media bias.

[The Caspian Hare]

On 11/13/2017 at 10:00 PM, Kismit said:

 

Yes.. but the reason behind keeping the status quo for what the viewers want is self serving. A journalist is not directly paid by the advertiser. An editor is more answerble to advertising Freelance journalists can say what they want the story just has to be picked up. That is where a lot of our ( in New Zealand) mainstream stuff comes from. The wall Street journal just recently purchased a nonsense piece about our new government from a freelance American writer living in NZ.

But Infowars or the creator of Infowars has a personal financial interest in keeping the punters eating. 

I think we are talking about two different things. Media selectively reporting events, well anybody can do that, big or small.

But it seems clear big corporate media all pushing a particular viewpoint, narrative, whatever. Small, independent media might do the same thing, but since they are diverse if you check them all you can see what the others are leaving out. And there are people who make a genuine attempt to be objective, see all sides and find the truth.

When your media operation is one guy (you) and you do not need to answer to a board of directors, you are more likely to give your genuine opinion rather than a carefully packaged one. It is not that I trust any particular source. It is that I think on a whole, having more voices is better. More likely that the truth gets out there into the open. Internet has been a great liberator for information.

 

[Kismit]

On 11/14/2017 at 8:26 PM, bee said:

 

and the reason that Info Wars has to rely on self funding...?

because there were shenanigans from advertisers who pulled the plug on them for political reasons -
no doubt pressure was brought to bear on them (the advertisers) behind the scenes -

Info wars has huge support world wide and, especially since they came out strongly in support of Trump
they have been attacked and censored  over the internet and shamelessly misrepresented when the Globalist
controlled media gets half a chance - Alex Jones might not be everyone's cup of tea with his style of presenting
BUT ---  like Trump he is targeted by never ceasing character assassination from the main stream -

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/major-setback-for-infowars-as-top-advertising-partner-cuts-ties-001492147.html

 

 

But there have been several incidences of, I want to say fake news, but I  feel the better term is irresponsible and blatant sensationalist, unsubstantiated and twisted, oh jeez I can't bring myself to connect the term news to it. If I where an advertising backer in today's climate and saw some of the s#@t stirring that is called journalism going on. I would certainly seriously consider pulling my support too. Especially when there is a world wide trend towards reliable, trustworthy, honest media coverage. How would you want your brand viewed for future proofing?

And as for Alex Jones has to self fund.. poor Alex Jones with his millions of followers, who may feel he is being given a raw deal. If only he made a dollar a week off of each of them, or five dollars off of 20% of them or $10/10%. I think you get my point. $20/5% is still a million a week. And still he does seem to put quite the effort into telling his viewers how hard done by he is and how he needs there support to survive. It's Evangalical in delivery. Alex Jones is a smart man a clever astute business man who has seen a way to extract money from his very own cultivated pulpit.

[Kismit]

On 11/14/2017 at 8:52 PM, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

How do you mean? They wouldn't talk about the Trumpmeister if they didn't have to for ratings? Surely he's been God's gift to satire ever since he announced his decision to stand. Although some might say that it's impossible to satirize him more he does himself, perhaps./  

If you watch them, a lot of the late show hosts are getting over Trump as the main digest of the evening. There are some who would find it harder to let go of Trump like Stephen Colbert who has a personal interest in making the POTUs look bad. But the likes of John Oliver or Jimmy Kimmel would rather be discussing other things. Unfortunately as you  pointed out Donald Trump does do things which make him easy to mock. Like buddying up with Duterte. 

Satire used to cover so much more. It was interesting to watch. Now it's just spot what the Trump's have done today, godz it must be doing their heads in.

You walk into the office to see what's on the news and to work out what your doing for the show, and the guy on Trump watch has the best material again. No wonder they grabbed on to the Moore story, in the same way they latched on to the Wienstien story.

[Kismit]

6 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

I think we are talking about two different things. Media selectively reporting events, well anybody can do that, big or small.

But it seems clear big corporate media all pushing a particular viewpoint, narrative, whatever. Small, independent media might do the same thing, but since they are diverse if you check them all you can see what the others are leaving out. And there are people who make a genuine attempt to be objective, see all sides and find the truth.

When your media operation is one guy (you) and you do not need to answer to a board of directors, you are more likely to give your genuine opinion rather than a carefully packaged one. It is not that I trust any particular source. It is that I think on a whole, having more voices is better. More likely that the truth gets out there into the open. Internet has been a great liberator for information.

 

I  agree with you in the most part. My point originally was on the business model of a News corporation and why it may have a biased lean to it.

I  think the only difference in our points is the position from where we discuss them. I  have spent a lot of years in "the popularity" game of hospitality, and I have a degree in business ownership as well as significant experience with  New Zealand biggest corporate entity. Let's say I have a fair idea about marketing and how big industry is effected by and how it effects a Government in real working life.

And I agree that the more voices the better when it comes to news coverage. Like what is happening in Myannamar at the moment. I am interested in that,  or indeed Zimbabwe, but alas everyone seems to want to discuss American politics. It's what's popular. So it's what the MSM cover.

[Space Commander Travis]

11 minutes ago, Kismit said:

And I agree that the more voices the better when it comes to news coverage. Like what is happening in Myannamar at the moment. I am interested in that,  or indeed Zimbabwe, but alas everyone seems to want to discuss American politics. It's what's popular. So it's what the MSM cover.

Absolutely, I mean heck, Mugabe's one of the biggest monsters out there, but the Western media have almost completely ignored him for years, being obsessed with Assad and Putin, oh, and Trump. 

[Kismit]

Let's look at the practicality of covering both of the stories which where discussed in the OP.

One story is about an employed Government official the other is for a man who is applying for a job as an employed government official. The general populace appear to be aware of the Bob Menendez case, so it must have been covered. A trial, especially for fraud and dishonesty is boring and has very little entertainment value.

The man who is applying for the job has had some mud raked up. It's shocking, it's sensational, it has entertainment value.

The timing of the muck raking is as convenient as the timing of the comparison piece in the OP. Both are political. Both have an agenda. 

One more reason the MSM may not be covering the child prostitute angle of Bob Menendez is that they could well be sued for it. Negative media influence during a trial on subject matter unrelated to the trial. Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

[Kismit]

21 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Absolutely, I mean heck, Mugabe's one of the biggest monsters out there, but the Western media have almost completely ignored him for years, being obsessed with Assad and Putin, oh, and Trump. 

Because we eat it up. We eat it, we think it's delicious and it doesn't matter which side of the table we sit at,  the coolaid is free to everyone and comes in a variety of flavours.

Question. How many times can you report on Robert Mugabe in an entertaining way? People really only care about the news they feel effects them. Most of us are not even aware of how Zimbabwe and South Africa are not actually the same country. There is a disconnect between what we should know and what we want to know. If you are running a media based business you have to cover what appeals to your market share.

There is an old saying, "faces sell news papers". It means we buy a paper based on the people in it. You are more likely to buy a paper with a news story in it you identify with.

[Space Commander Travis]

Just now, Kismit said:

Question. How many times can you report on Robert Mugabe in an entertaining way?

If they can't make an entertaining story out of someone who dresses like this, they really ought to give up and take up turkey farming or something.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/will-mugabes-jacket-juju-save-him-one-more-time/

[Kismit]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If they can't make an entertaining story out of someone who dresses like this, they really ought to give up and take up turkey farming or something.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/will-mugabes-jacket-juju-save-him-one-more-time/

LOL.  But still we are talking about years of atrocities and the jacket is really only a week of laughs. You can only tune into the suffering of people you don't know so many times. We have our own closers to home dramas to deal with.

By the way, those jackets do have a little bit of awesome appeal to them.

[Uncle Sam]

Fusion GPS briefed Media on Trump Russia Claims in Summer 2016, but did not verify dossier source.

Well well well...

 

[pallidin]

7 hours ago, Lilly said:

I've also heard that the sky is blue and water is wet!

Obviously Fox goes to the right and CNN goes to the left. But, this isn't really the problem IMO. The problem that I see is the amount of unchecked horrific hatred being promoted by many media outlets. The 'Trump is as bad as Hitler' stuff, the calls for violent social action, the disgusting content thinly cloaked as being humor or satire, the labeling as 'racist' anyone they disagree with...this is what bothers me about the current media bias.

It doesn't "help" mass-media etiquette when ones commander-in-chief is globally noted for acting like a child.

[Kismit]

Here is a positive news piece CNN recently covered on Donald Trump. 

US pledges to help people of Myannamar

Why haven't we discussed this? It's the Liberal news media and it's a good story? But it does not quench our thirst for outrage. 

Outrage at the ridiculousness of the President or outrage at how the President is being portrayed as rediculous. Pick your particular brand. 

Who wants boring news anyway, it appears we really want intrigue and reality television.

[pallidin]

Donald Trump has a unique ability to create his own demons.

Help from others is not necessary.

[Paranormal Panther]

20 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I know.  I was a kid.  He probably reminded me of my Uncle John, the only guy in my Texas family to have a mustache in the 50's.

Tom Brokaw was my "Walter Cronkite" back in the day. He was a part of our daily dinners just like reruns of "Benny Hill". 

[Paranormal Panther]

9 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

I think we are talking about two different things. Media selectively reporting events, well anybody can do that, big or small.

But it seems clear big corporate media all pushing a particular viewpoint, narrative, whatever. Small, independent media might do the same thing, but since they are diverse if you check them all you can see what the others are leaving out. And there are people who make a genuine attempt to be objective, see all sides and find the truth.

When your media operation is one guy (you) and you do not need to answer to a board of directors, you are more likely to give your genuine opinion rather than a carefully packaged one. It is not that I trust any particular source. It is that I think on a whole, having more voices is better. More likely that the truth gets out there into the open. Internet has been a great liberator for information.

 

There's a great bias chart that divides news sources. It shows the ones that lean to the left, and it shows the ones that lean to the right. It also shows the unbiased ones. Real Clear Politics and Roll Call are two of the unbiased ones. It's telling that they're not big names compared to the more biased sources. C-SPAN is right in the middle too, as are two military news sources. UPI is shown as unbiased too. It's an accurate and fair chart, in my opinion.

[Space Commander Travis]

On the subject of media bias, undoubtedly Socialist Media like Face Book and Twitter are undoubtedly the dominant forms of media nowadays, are they not. So does this worry anyone, or if it doesn't, perhaps it ought to?

Quote

 

In a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, plutocrat-sponsored senators spoke with top legal and security officials for Facebook, Twitter and Google in a very disturbing way about the need to silence dissenting voices.

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii demanded that the companies adopt a “mission statement” declaring their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.”

 

More about Face Book's commitment to diversity of opinion here --> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-16/ive-been-banned-facebook-sharing-article-about-false-flags

Got that?  Senator ("Democratic" in this case, but it doesn't really matter) is quite openly recommending that "the fomenting of discord", any dissenting voices against what the Government wants you to believe, should be prevented. Anyone remember freedom or democracy?  

Edited November 17, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[bee]

37 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Got that?  Senator ("Democratic" in this case, but it doesn't really matter) is quite openly recommending that "the fomenting of discord", any dissenting voices against what the Government wants you to believe, should be prevented. Anyone remember freedom or democracy?  

 

yeah I got it -

the slippy slope leading to totalitarianism - 

[bee]

 

A thoroughly modern kind of totalitarianism -

all rainbowy and Facebooky and Twittery and aren't we all great and cool and clever and right about everything-y
kind of totalitarianism -

the March of the Mind Controlled into a Bright and Better Future - 
where democracy and freedom of thought and freedom of speech doesn't get in the way of the Brave New World -

  

[bee]

but at least Alex Jones and the Infowars team will have been completely censored and put in their place so it will all be worth it -- eh

*contented sigh*

/sarcasm -