Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Media basis

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Thu, Aug 30, 12 at 11:58

While it is obvious that Fox News is biased conservative and many people accuse MSNBC of being liberal, there are other sites/publications that I am not sure of.

Of the major internet news and paper media, what are the known slants?

Wall St. Journal, Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, Yahoo, etc.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Media basis

Doesn't it depend on the viewer's slant? I'm sure many here will call the NY Times liberal. I find it conservative. Good old small-c conservative.
And I find Fox news right wing, not conservative. Fox News antigovernment, pro big business slant is radical - a far departure from conservatism.


 o
RE: Media basis

I agree in the main with ninamarie.

I, who am liberal, am astonished when people will label some news outlet as liberal when to me it is nothing more than shill-I personally believe most news outlets these days will say anything that sells. It is in the best money making interests of the media for elections to be close and they will spin the news and the polls to give that impression. Only Fox seems to be purely in the business of seling a specific ideology. MSNBC has some liberal shows but some are not. Mostly its about making money.


 o
RE: Media basis

WSJ is a little right of center, WaPo liberal, NYT liberal, Huffington Post liberal, Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, NPR all liberal - probably same for ABC,CBS,NBC, Fox and the Washington Times ultra conservative, Yahoo liberal, Daily Kos liberal.

Pretty sure of those above, but don't read much from other major city newspapers like LATimes, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore, Denver, Chicago...


 o
RE: Media basis

Wall St. Journal, Washington Post, NY Times

At one time - pre-Murdoch - the opinion page of the WSJ was considered the most slanted and least likely based in fact. The critique was something like this -- they don't lie to their own who are looking for business news, but all bets are off for the opinion page. I imagine the post-Murdoch, the op-ed page is even more so.

I've read critiques of the WaPo opinion page as featuring neocons for foreign policy pieces. NYT is centrist, slightly left-leaning on social issues, and not particularly to be trusted on any ME reporting. LAT is good for cleaning windows, although occasionally there's a decent article or two.


 o
RE: Media basis

I find most all media to be unrealiable and find that fact very sad
indeed that the American people can not be given
the actual facts to decide on their own....
with no help
and steering from biased outlets what to think.

I think we are all being spoon fed to a huge extent.
Our media from any outlet is biased and we the people
are the puppets. Sad but true.

The left has so many more outlets that feeds into their
mantra that is it any wonder the extent of the
brain-washing we now see still prevalent for a
President that is clearly a liability.
*********************************************************

The leftwing bias of the American mass media is pervasive and quantifiable. Since the 1980s, studies have consistently shown that the professionals who constitute America�s mainstream news media � reporters, editors, anchors, publishers, correspondents, bureau chiefs, and executives at the nation�s major newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks � are preponderantly left-oriented and Democrat. These studies have excluded commentators, editorialists, and opinion columnists � all of whom make it clear that they are giving their opinions and analyses of the news as they view it.
Rather, the focus of the research has been on those individuals whose ostensible duty is to impartially and comprehensively present the relevant facts to the readers, listeners, and viewers.


We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:


In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.
Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies, but is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As media researchers Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: "[F]or every sin of commission�we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission � cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention."




 o
RE: Media basis

The Canadian version of Huffington Post is very conservative. Actually, it's very Conservative, because it supports the misnamed Conservative Party of Canada. I never look at it anymore because they censor negative information about the Conservative Party.


 o
RE: Media basis

I went looking for the story about the black CNN camera woman who had peanuts thrown at her at the RNC. I could not find the story ANYWHERE on FOX News.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Media basis

Only Fox seems to be purely in the business of selling a specific ideology.

Don't ask why, but I caught a moment of "Fox & Friends" one AM and the ever stunned looking Steve Doocy was defending ideologues - "they stand for something."

I think Fox conveniently ignored the nut throwing incident - no trace of their even mentioning it anywhere I can find.


 o
RE: Media basis

I saw this the other day, which is rather sad.....

"On the eve of the conventions, the portrayal in the news media of the character and records of the two presidential contenders in 2012 has been as negative as any campaign in recent times, and neither candidate has enjoyed an advantage over the other, according to a new study of mainstream media coverage of the race for president.

More of what the public hears about candidates also now comes from the campaigns themselves and less from journalists acting as independent reporters or interpreters of who the candidates are.

An examination of the dominant or master narratives in the press about the character and record of presidential contenders finds that 72% of this coverage has been negative for Barack Obama and 71% has been negative for Mitt Romney. The study, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, examined the personal portrayal of the candidate in 50 major news outlets over a 10-week period.

These numbers make this as negative a campaign as PEJ has seen since it began monitoring the master narratives about candidates in press coverage in presidential campaigns in 2000. Only one campaign has been comparable-2004 when coverage was filled with the controversy over the war in Iraq, the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib and the Swift Boat documentaries. That year, 70% of the personal narrative studied about Democrat John Kerry and 75% of that about incumbent George Bush was negative, numbers similar to now.

Journalists themselves now a play a smaller role in shaping these media narratives than they once did. Journalists are the source for about half as much of the statements about the candidates as was the case 12 years go. The campaigns, by contrast, have come to play an ever larger role in shaping these narratives.The candidates and their partisan allies are the source for nearly a third more of the personal narrative about the candidates than in 2000.

Only some of these narratives, however, seem to be sticking with voters-at least so far.

Read the full report at journalism.org"

Here is a link that might be useful: linky


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here