Scribbler1

I've wondered about this for some time. There are always cries of bias from the right about the NYT and from the left about FOX and papers like the Washington times.

I ask the question because I don't believe I have any problem making a distinction between lies, spin and actual news. If I can see it, why can't everyone else?
Take FOX, for example. Their "news" is actually just as good as any other outlet's news. Where they get tricky is where they will present actual fact and then quickly cut to the obligatory talking head(s) who will "analyze" the news item with whatever biased spin they want to lay on it.

And the detractors, of course will label any medium as biased if it doesn't agree with their positions. Air/print something unflattering about the Bush administration and it is automatically biased reporting.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Tumbleweed

I'm pretty much like you Scribbler, I can wade through the spin any of the networks use to promote an agenda.I have sites I go to for conservative points of view and others for a liberal point of view. I usually compare the two before believing what either has to say.

Sometimes I even check overseas news about the same story for insight. But I have to say there does seem to be a certain amount of bias from all the networks. There are no fair and balanced networks as far as I'm concerned.

I don't watch any of the talkshow hosts very often. They are even worse than the networks they work for.IMO.

__________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine

Military might doesn't make up for political stupidity.

pinkperson

Maybe those crying about the different networks' biases are the ones who feel most threatened by these biases.

Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of distinguishing between a biased remark and an unbiased one. Some people just ingest whatever the networks offer them. I'm saying these based on the characteristics of the people around me. There have been a lot of times when I hear someone quoting arguments from media people and making it seem like the arguments are their own thoughts.

Slartibartfas

I really can not talk too much about FOX. I have not watched enough for doing so.

I though however I add something to your analyzes. Because its important even if it might be not specefically affecting FOX alone:
Its not just how they bring the news, but where they have the focus on. Thats an essential point. There are so many stories out there. And depending on the mindset of the paper, TV station etc, the focus will vary. Stories that make it up to the first page in one paper get sometimes only a 4 liner in the other one. And this is not necesssarely about the hot issues but about general stories.

It might be probably as much important which stories you choose to make big, as how you report about them.

For example Paper X reports every single terror attack and suspicions and prevention and danger etc. while bringing the side effects of the US military interventions, well, as side remarks. The other paper in contrast has its focus on how people suffer due to chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, human rights violations, while also bringing signficant news regarding terrorism. Both papers are hundred percent correct and fair in their articles, still I am sure you will reckognize the difference.

Thats now and extreme example perhaps, but I can watch it very clearly within the sortiment of Austrian newspapers. By a leftist paper and the focus will be shifted in comparision to the rightist one. Thats normal, but if its going to far it comes near to what one could call biased.


Dont underestimate this factor.

Scribbler1

I have often seen the BBC as pretty unbiased. I know a few Brits who disagree, but their point of view isn't the same as mine. They see the Beeb as delivering slanted national news, but it ain't MY nation so anything slanted internally there doesn't affect me. But they have a good reputation for international news which I like.

They are SUPPOSED to be "worse" (read:biased) than the news organizations. They are under no restraints to broadcast the truth. I almost never WATCH them but I listen to them on radio fairly often. Their racket is to be BLATANTLY one-sided and it's a no-brainer as to which side it is. My problem with talk show hosts is when people like Hannity say their show is a source of news, and people buy into that.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Scribbler1

That is exactly what I'm talking about. But that shouldn't be an issue with most media. It's a difference between reporting a fact and reporting the fact along with "analysis" from a biased commentator. People often have the difficult job of telling the difference between the two kinds of reporting.

I make it a point to at least TRY to see those differences. For some unknown reason I have spent my life trying to read between the lines. You should hear me bitch about TV commercials. It annoys the hell out of my Wife.

Actually, any paper that can even be CALLED "leftist" or "rightist" is ALREADY biased, regardless of what they print. If they get any kind of label the perception is already there, and that perception was probably deserved. Now, you can take that bias into account and interpret the news accordingly, but you can't say a bias isn't there.


I don't.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Slartibartfas

If I dont know a broadcast, I like to watch the commercials, as they are the most honnest message for whom the broadcast was tailormade.

The evil thing about commercials is that they really work, even if you hate them, the more you care about them, no matter if in support for them, or disgust against them. Thats why the worst thing you can do to a Ad-producer is to simply ignore and forget his ad... in theory this perhaps works at least
Than in fact nearly any news source is biased. You will find labels for nearly any European newspaper. Every paper has a focus. There does not exist something like real objectivity. You are always the product of the environemnt you live in.
I use to read both Austrian newspapers. On the left-centre side you have "der Standard" and on the right-centre side you have "die Presse". That might reveal to you the real centre. But just the Austrian one. On European and international issues there will still be a "bias".

Or how could you explain otherwise that rather "objective" news source on both sides of the atlantic could disagree from times to times so clearly on many points?

Scribbler1

Huh?
No, commercials ONLY work when you buy the product they advertise. If you hate them or are disgusted you generally don't buy the product. That is the sole reason for ads to exist in the first place.

Then it is your responsibility to see past it. It's as simple as that. Recognise whose side the media outlet is on and take that into account. It is not the newspapers responsibility to give you completely fair news. Their job is to sell papers and they will obviously cater to their readership. As long as you keep that in mind you will be okay.

I would need specific examples to debate that.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Slartibartfas

Weird?
Well, I do not watch ads full intendidly but when I see them I always think about what does those ads tell me about the target group. Often its already somewhat clear what it will be, but sometimes there are unexpected target groups.

I would not say that. You have to like the product not the advertisement. I mean the best point are washing powders. I am sure simply everyone does not like their ads. Still the ads work. Its not about how much you like the ad, its often enough just about recalling the name in your head again.

Of course the ad must not let you hating not only itself but also the product. But would you have examples of that?

Ads dont have to be loved, they have to show high remembrance rates for the product, while being not hated too much perhaps. Thats the goal that leads itself to more sold products.

Thats what I do.
But I have the view that something like a truth or total objectivity simply does not exist. At best there exists an "average" you can calculate out of the sum of subjective views.
The "average" taken from European papers for sure differs from the "average" from American papers".


I am sorry but I cant serve you one. I would have to look up the news as you would have to.

But perhaps it works already with how European media report about Saddams excution and how US papers report?

There is a very clear cut difference, even if you compare the "objective" ones. European papers report the largest part about the critical appliance of what in our opinion is a bad thing: capital punishment. I am talking not about analysis of those papers, but news, as there are enough insitutions in Europe and also the church who critized the capital punishment of Saddam.

On the other side, you have US papers that bring by far more postively looking news on the same event.

Scribbler1

No, not weird, not understood. I applaud your knowledge of English but sometimes you baffle me.
Sure, video game ads are targeted to younger people, luxury car ads are targeting affluent people and so on. That's not too tough to figure out.
You HAVE to say that. If you like the product you already know what it is and you sure as hell don't need a commercial to tell you that! It's when you don't KNOW the product that you need advertisements. If a commercial for an unfamiliar product turns you off you probably won't buy it, period.
And the ads don't work if you don't like them. To you the viewer, that ad IS the product if you don't already like it. If it doesn't make you think this is THE washing powder you would like to buy then you will buy some other brand. Study up on the Volkswagen ads from the 60s for a better understanding of the concept.

I'm not up on Austrian TV commercials just as I'm pretty sure you're not up on the Americans ads.

I never said ads should be loved. They should only not turn you off. There is an ad for a headache cream that screams "APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD" about 20 times in a 30 second ad. It doesn't make me want to even try it as long as my aspirin works. If it doesn't then you have the name recognition. But guess what? I have no CLUE as to what the stuff is called. I only know you "APPLY IT DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD."
To arrive at an average of something like a newspaper requires that you read ALL of them. Do you?

I know that because my media here reported there were a lot of people, such as the Pope, criticizing the execution.

News media reports the news the way the intended audience wants it to, otherwise they go out of business. You cannot compare European culture to American culture.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.