snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Rantidote » Fake news - why is this not important? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Fake news - why is this not important?
Biggles
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 02 posted      Profile for Biggles   E-mail Biggles   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If this Story (which was covered by quite a few newspapers & blogs around the world) about the Bush administration and companies in the USA who were caught releasing fake news stories/propaganda is true.. and it sounds true, why is this not a huge issue in the US?

I can understand some companies having little enough ethics to try this sort of thing, but any government found pumping propaganda to its own people deserves to be roasted. I associate governments making their own news more with Cuba or Saddam's Iraq rather than the USA.

What really bothers me about this too, is that more and more we require the media to be the watchdog for society. The Time magazine article on Haditha shows this. Governments like the Bush admin understand this & the general feeling I get is that their solution is to control and track the media more - for instance if you are a reporter you require a special visa to enter the states - unusual for a free country. The NSA call tracking issue also shows a scary glimpse into the future; a call or a package from Iraq (such as the Haditha video tape) to a media outlet in the US could have set off an 'anti-terrorism' response where a news item that would set back the 'war on terrorism' (as this one would) maybe suppressed by a ruthless government in the future.. for your own protection of course.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10384036

Posts: 83 | From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rei
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rei   E-mail Rei   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Very worrying.

Of course, I remember going to America when I was 11 and thinking how very biased the news channels all seemed to be, one way or another. I doubt this is a new thing, but it's good if someone is actually starting to realise what's going on.

If there's one thing I like about the BBC, it's that they're generally pretty good at reporting the news regardless of who it'll annoy. I was a bit worried a couple years back, when the government got annoyed at something one of the news people said and had this big fight with the BBC. I certainly hope it's still true.

Posts: 29 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad.
I wonder if that's the picture that Squishy0405 linked to in this post, captioned (somewhat ironically if so) "Definitely won't see that on the news..."

(edit) Hmm, probably not - it doesn't actually say it was a picture or a sign; I misread it.

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Biggles:
If this Story (which was covered by quite a few newspapers & blogs around the world) about the Bush administration and companies in the USA who were caught releasing fake news stories/propaganda is true.. and it sounds true, why is this not a huge issue in the US? [...] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10384036

I don't know why but I reckon most Americans have become numb to new news. They hear stories of torture and murder and domestic snooping and a story about a propaganda ploy seems to be just another one of the idiotic things the administration is doing. Kinda sad.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
8Ball
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for 8Ball   Author's Homepage   E-mail 8Ball   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rei:


Of course, I remember going to America when I was 11 and thinking how very biased the news channels all seemed to be, one way or another. I doubt this is a new thing, but it's good if someone is actually starting to realise what's going on.


[flame] The news is very biased here in the U.S. Most of it towards the left, but there is also a lot to the right. Whatever your take may be on a subject you can probably find a "news report" that agrees with your way of thinking.

The news makes too much money and it is owned by corporations that have a lot of money.

--------------------
Pool, Poker, and Life - it is all about using the odds to your favor - sometimes you win sometimes you don't but as long as you learn something new you really didn't lose

Posts: 12 | From: Womelsdorf, PA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
People in the U.S. have stopped caring. The republicans spent so long shining that the media was out to get them, people began to beleive it, In short, anything critical of the Republicans is considered to be biased. Evne respected news agencies like the BBC are considered liberal in the U.S. because they dare to ask tough questions and try not to let people waesle out of things. The closest we have in the U.S. is Nationa Public Radio, which tries to do a balanced job.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the media as displaye by 8ball. It is an oxymoron to say on one hand that the media is mostly tilted toward the left, and on the other hand say that they are run by big money corporations which color their reporting. Big money corporations, almost without exception support the republicans who are by and large more favorable to big corporations.

The big problem is that the American media is lazy. The people propducing the VNRs know this and are capitalizing on it. They know the media is not going tol check the validity of the information on the VNRs, and so you can get almost any message you want presented in the media. In America, the government watchdog has fallen for the oldest diversion in the book - throw the dog some red meat and he will not notice what you are really doing.

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
.... It is an oxymoron to say on one hand that the media is mostly tilted toward the left, and on the other hand say that they are run by big money corporations which color their reporting. Big money corporations, almost without exception support the republicans who are by and large more favorable to big corporations....

Okay, whip out some statistics on that one.

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
That big money corporations tend to support the Republicans? That the Republicans tend to support big money corporations? This comes as such a surprise to you that you demand statistics?

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
That big money corporations tend to support the Republicans? That the Republicans tend to support big money corporations? This comes as such a surprise to you that you demand statistics?

Those things that "everybody knows" might be the ones that need verification the most. Since "everybody knows" it, no one is going to check if it is actually true. How many untruths that everybody knew turned out that everybody was wrong?

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
That big money corporations tend to support the Republicans? That the Republicans tend to support big money corporations? This comes as such a surprise to you that you demand statistics?

Those things that "everybody knows" might be the ones that need verification the most. Since "everybody knows" it, no one is going to check if it is actually true. How many untruths that everybody knew turned out that everybody was wrong?
That's exactly my point. If almost without exception all 'big money' corporations give money exclusively to Republicans it should be very easy to prove. But, I don't think that is the case at all.

But I'm obviously throwing you a soft ball Christie, so hit it out of the park.

Beach...I'll wait over here...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
.... It is an oxymoron to say on one hand that the media is mostly tilted toward the left, and on the other hand say that they are run by big money corporations which color their reporting. Big money corporations, almost without exception support the republicans who are by and large more favorable to big corporations....

Okay, whip out some statistics on that one.
Well, this for starters.

I would say a 59-41 split is pretty tilted toward the GOP.


ETA: By the way, my post never said anyting about giving exclusively to the republicans. That was youir pharse, not mine.

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ali_marea
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ali_marea   E-mail ali_marea   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
That was youir pharse, not mine.

Yeah, don't whip out your pharse unless you intend to use it. [Razz] [Wink]

(Just in case anyone takes offense here...I'm just joking. Not making fun of the typo. I make them constantly.)

--------------------
28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. That is when the world will end.

Posts: 7158 | From: D.C. | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Cowboy Joe, unless I am reading that chart wrong, it shows that the media contributions are 59% to the Democrats and 41% to the Republicans, making them tilt towards the Democrats, not the GOP.

Also, AOL Time Warner is the company that owns CNN and Headline news, two of the three major 24 hour cable news stations. And their contributions are heavily Democrat, lending authority to the supposition that they would lean left.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NeeCD
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NeeCD   E-mail NeeCD       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I reading the link correctly? I got a 59-41 split towards the Democrats. Isn't that the D% and R% at the top of the column? I see that the New York Times is solidly in the Democratic camp, as well as NBC and Discovery Communications. How does that translate to being tilted toward the GOP?

--------------------
I wondered why the Frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
What does "Bookachow", "YOMANK!" and other lingo mean?

Posts: 1720 | From: Stafford Hamlet, OR | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ali_marea
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ali_marea   E-mail ali_marea   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
In response to the original article, the only thing I found even remotely disturbing is the idea of the government pushing out propoganda about the war. But there wasn't enough information for me to get what really happened, except that some stuff was filmed for propoganda purposes. But that happens with all governments, so I need more info.

The other stuff...I don't get where the misleading part is. Candy companies doing ads for a 'safer Halloween' isn't exactly big bad news. It makes total sense to me.

So where's the bad?

--------------------
28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. That is when the world will end.

Posts: 7158 | From: D.C. | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Logoboros
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Logoboros   E-mail Logoboros   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd add an additional comment to the "media are lazy" idea:

It's not just that the media are lazy. It's that they have so much more time to have to fill. We have several 24-hour news channels now on cable. That's a far cry from an hour or two of nightly news on four major networks, like we once had.

You get an additional three minutes of new material to put into your lineup -- that you don't have to pay for to produce -- you're all the more likely to run it rather than rerunning old material.

It's still a kind of laziness or failure to maintain the proper degree of journalistic responsibility, but brought on by a specific circumstance.

--Logoboros

--------------------
"If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."

--William Blake

Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops.

I did indeed read the chart wrong, and accept all fallout for my dumb-assedness as well as any flaming coming my way.

We now retur to the regularly scheduled program.

[fish] [fish] [fish] [fish]

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So is that an admission that you were wrong CJ?

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kev
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kev   E-mail Kev   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ali_marea:
The other stuff...I don't get where the misleading part is. Candy companies doing ads for a 'safer Halloween' isn't exactly big bad news. It makes total sense to me.

So where's the bad?

It's because they are not presented as ads they are presented as news stories with great effort to make them look like real news stories. You think you are watching a legitimate news story produced locally (or at least produced by the network) that just happens to show some Mars products, but in fact you are watching what amounts to a commercial for Mars without being told that is the case. Is that not misleading?

--------------------
Austin Stars Drum & Bugle Corps | Kev's MySpace

Posts: 1126 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ali_marea:
The other stuff...I don't get where the misleading part is. Candy companies doing ads for a 'safer Halloween' isn't exactly big bad news. It makes total sense to me.

The misleading part is that TV stations are running the promotions not as ads but as news segments without disclosing that they were produced and paid for by businesses. Nothing wrong with running ads for safe Halloween produced by a candy company. But news segments should be free of built in biases like that.

ETA spanked by Kev. The board is loading soooo slow for me. **sigh**

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ali_marea
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ali_marea   E-mail ali_marea   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Kev, I never said it wasn't. I was asking. Thanks to you (and Sara) for clearing it up. [Smile]

I still don't see it as a horrible thing, but it is misleading. I agree with Sara that news should be free of built in biases. Unfortunately I don't think most news is. [Frown] Local news, I mean. I haven't seen any real issues with the stories (note I'm not talking about programs) run on CNN or MSNBC or stuff like that.

--------------------
28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. That is when the world will end.

Posts: 7158 | From: D.C. | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 8Ball:
Most of it towards the left, but there is also a lot to the right.


That's the claim, but the reality is the opposite. The news favors the right and has at least since the Clinton debacle. The Republican Common Tators and Talking Points dominate the news. In recent years the media has repeatedly failed to investigate or stand up to the Bush Machine and it's doings.

quote:
The news makes too much money and it is owned by corporations that have a lot of money.
One of the biggest problems with the news in the US is that there are constant budget cuts for news programing so investigative reporting is disappearing. Good investigative reporting is neither right nor left.

ETA: Budget cuts for reporters while increasing air time for news coverage may be why TV stations are running these canned segments as "news".

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
abigsmurf
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for abigsmurf   E-mail abigsmurf   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
in the UK, the TV stations are closely screened so their news doesn't overtly display bias (although it IS sneaking in on Sky news).

The tabloids are really bad though, twisting quotes and facts and reporting half-truths.

The press complaints commision is run by members of the press so that aspect won't change any time soon

Posts: 824 | From: England | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
So is that an admission that you were wrong CJ?

Sure. I admit I was wrong about where media companies, for the most part, contribute political donations.


I still believe that the republicans are more likely to be in support of big corporations, and thus, big corporations are most likely to support the GOP. I don't understand why that is contoversial.

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
So is that an admission that you were wrong CJ?

Sure. I admit I was wrong about where media companies, for the most part, contribute political donations.


I still believe that the republicans are more likely to be in support of big corporations, and thus, big corporations are most likely to support the GOP. I don't understand why that is contoversial.

Not controversial, just not as true as 'everybody' seems to thnk. And to go back to my original issue, it was with your commment that "Big money corporations, almost without exception support the republicans;" which is clearly not the case.

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
So is that an admission that you were wrong CJ?

Sure. I admit I was wrong about where media companies, for the most part, contribute political donations.


I still believe that the republicans are more likely to be in support of big corporations, and thus, big corporations are most likely to support the GOP. I don't understand why that is contoversial.

Not controversial, just not as true as 'everybody' seems to thnk. And to go back to my original issue, it was with your commment that "Big money corporations, almost without exception support the republicans;" which is clearly not the case.
Fair enough. Perhaps I didn't add enough of these

[fish] [fish] [fish] [fish]

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay good enough then. [Big Grin]

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
prof. yanaibara
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for prof. yanaibara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by 8Ball:
Most of it towards the left, but there is also a lot to the right.


That's the claim, but the reality is the opposite. The news favors the right and has at least since the Clinton debacle. The Republican Common Tators and Talking Points dominate the news. In recent years the media has repeatedly failed to investigate or stand up to the Bush Machine and it's doings.

Can you provide any evidence for this at all? As far as unbiased studies go, I've only seen one, and that found that the vast majority of news outlets quote the liberal think-tanks preferred by democratic senators more than they quote the conservative think-tanks preferred by republican senators. As far as my personal observations go, the media coverage of Iraq has been significantly more negative than positive, as has coverage of the majority of things that Bush has done. Where have you seen the positive coverage of the "Bush machine"? When you whine about bias not because they support him, but because they don't attack him as much as you would, your case looks pretty weak.


quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
One of the biggest problems with the news in the US is that there are constant budget cuts for news programing so investigative reporting is disappearing. Good investigative reporting is neither right nor left.

Yes, "good" investigative reporting is neither right nor left, as is "good" anything in news other than editorials. But considering the fact that your average reporter is 10 times more likely to be a supporter of democrats than a supporter of republicans, I wouldn't automatically assume most investigative reporting to be unbiased. Especially not in the topics they choose to investigate.

--------------------
away...

Posts: 640 | From: elsewhere | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Woofer
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Woofer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Woofer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nwataya:
But considering the fact that your average reporter is 10 times more likely to be a supporter of democrats than a supporter of republicans, I wouldn't automatically assume most investigative reporting to be unbiased. Especially not in the topics they choose to investigate.

Cite please?

--------------------
Like men riding dragons throwing wolves at maggots.

Posts: 204 | From: Florida | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nwataya:
Can you provide any evidence for this at all? As far as unbiased studies go, I've only seen one, and that found that the vast majority of news outlets quote the liberal think-tanks preferred by democratic senators more than they quote the conservative think-tanks preferred by republican senators.


No, I can't without a doing the research and I just don't have the time or inclination to do that at the moment. But it isn't just about quoting think tanks. It's about a lot more than that. It's also about guests on talk shows. You rarely see a liberal alone on a talk show; the so-called "left wing media" is bending over so far backwards in response to that charge that they always "balance" liberals with conservatives. On the other hand, conservatives -- even multiple conservatives -- can appear without liberal balance. The constant incorporation of the Republican "talking points" and buzz phrases in newscast vernacular -- "flip-flop" being the most common -- is another example. I could go on and on about the right wing tip of our news coverage but I doubt you will be persuaded.
quote:
As far as my personal observations go, the media coverage of Iraq has been significantly more negative than positive, as has coverage of the majority of things that Bush has done.

This is an error I see constantly from the right: negative coverage is not necessarily biased coverage. Negative coverage can be quite accurate.

quote:
Where have you seen the positive coverage of the "Bush machine"? When you whine about bias not because they support him, but because they don't attack him as much as you would, your case looks pretty weak.

I didn't say anyting about "positive" coverage. I'm criticizing the failure to stand up to or properly investigate the crap the Bush Machine has pulled in the past ....oh, 8 years. Even the press acknowledged it was a tool of the Bush Machine in the run up to the Iraq War and that they should have been more questioning. But they weren't.

quote:
Yes, "good" investigative reporting is neither right nor left, as is "good" anything in news other than editorials. But considering the fact that your average reporter is 10 times more likely to be a supporter of democrats than a supporter of republicans, I wouldn't automatically assume most investigative reporting to be unbiased. Especially not in the topics they choose to investigate.
A good investigative reporter is going to be more interested in being an investigative reporter than a political partisan. And, as is often pointed out on this board, we liberals are as digusted by wrong doing in our ranks as in the opponent's ranks. That rationalization doesn't fly.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mosherette
Deck the Malls


Icon 05 posted      Profile for Mosherette     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kev:
quote:
Originally posted by ali_marea:
The other stuff...I don't get where the misleading part is. Candy companies doing ads for a 'safer Halloween' isn't exactly big bad news. It makes total sense to me.

So where's the bad?

It's because they are not presented as ads they are presented as news stories with great effort to make them look like real news stories. You think you are watching a legitimate news story produced locally (or at least produced by the network) that just happens to show some Mars products, but in fact you are watching what amounts to a commercial for Mars without being told that is the case. Is that not misleading?
I don't really want to hijack, but can you give me an outline of what your talking about here? I've never seen such a thing and don't really understand what the concept might be.

--------------------
Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave

Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Gibbie
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gibbie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, from the original article:
quote:
Many of the corporate reports, produced by drugs manufacturers such as Pfizer, focus on health issues and promote the manufacturer's product.
So say Pfizer produces a little report on erectile dysfunction and talks all about the benefits of Viagra to take care of it. They sell it to tv stations who in turn air it. But they are supposed to put a disclaimer saying it came from Pfizer. Instead they show it as if it were a regular news report and the viewer is unaware that they are watching what amounts to a commercial. They are left with the idea that Pfizer's product is factually superior to other peoples.

Another one from that article:
quote:
In October 2005, KTVI-2 (St Louis) aired a two-minute segment on how to plan a fun and safe Halloween for kids. The story, which featured numerous tips from 'lifestyle expert' Julie Edelman, was teeming with product shots for Snickers and M&Ms and flowers. The video was lifted straight from VNR created by D S Simon Productions and jointly funded by Masterfoods (formerly the M&M/Mars Company) and 1-800-Flowers.
So here they Mars produced a little piece about Halloween with a lot of convenient product placement in it. Again, it runs on a news show but the viewer is not told that it's produced by Mars, and they are supposed to be.

The networks are not going to get involved in this, they know better, but it sounds like the affiliate stations are engaging in a lot of sloppy news production.

Gibbie

--------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Posts: 3993 | From: Indiana | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Logoboros
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Logoboros   E-mail Logoboros   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
There's also a difference between leaning towards one ideology over another and being partisan . Partisan news is a problem. But journalistic ethics and even objectivity are based on ideological assumptions. The traditional Fifth Estate has a built in skepticism of political authority. That is a liberal slant (liberal here being opposed with authoritarian).

News agencies have ideologies -- they have constructions of epistomology and codes of ethics. They believe in maintaining certain approaches to truth, knowledge, and action. They cannot be ideologically neutral. And their ideology can come into conflict with those held by parties and administrations.

But they can be politically neutral in as much as they won't distort their codes to protect specific parties or party members.

But if a political party holds a view of truth that is in contradiction with journalistic ethics, then the journalists are not obligated to redefine their ideology to facilitate this "opposing viewpoint" in the name of "balance." They may need to allow the viewpoint to be aired, but they can contextualize it (and even refute it) within their own ideological assumptions.

So how should journalist Ron Suskind react to this encounter with a White House aide:

quote:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
And news agencies can have different ideologies. How about this example from an interesting piece on Salon.com:

quote:
One small example, the type that occurs almost hourly on Fox, came during the recent controversy over comments by CNN's news president Eason Jordan about U.S. troops targeting journalists in Iraq. (The comments eventually led to his resignation.) On Feb. 14, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade interviewed Reese Schonfeld, one of CNN's founders, who years ago left the company.

Schonfeld: "But remember that a U.S. tank [in April 2003] rolled up in front of the Hotel Palestine, which is where all the journalists were, turned the turret around, pointed its gun, and fired up at the building."

Kilmeade: "That's what CNN reported."

Schonfeld: "No, that's what is reported. The guy from Reuters was killed, and a Spanish journalist was killed. Nobody knows why. The U.S. Army has never completed its investigation into that incident."

Schonfeld was correct on the facts regarding the Hotel Palestine incident, which are not in dispute. But the Fox host wanted to suggest the facts were in dispute, or subject to CNN's bias, therefore making them easier to set aside. "They have an ability to confuse an issue and neutralize the facts that aren't in their favor," says Brock. "When a reader looks at a story and does not know what to make of it, then Fox has done its job."

The consequences are enormous, says Auletta. "In a democracy, you need a common set of facts."

Is it partisan to challenge the administration (or its advocates) on their interpretation, when that interpretation employs a different set of ideological criteria? I believe so. I think it's fair to challenge or even attack the beliefs of politicians. But attacking them ad hominem strictly because of party affiliation is inappropriate partisanship.

I think the most devious use of the term "balance" is when people seem to think that it means that someone listening to the news should be unable to form a clear opinion about it afterwards.

--Logoboros

--------------------
"If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."

--William Blake

Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grand Illusion
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Grand Illusion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Grand Illusion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Pick any controversial issue. If you want badly enough to find statistical support for whatever your position is, you'll find it somewhere. The article in Cowboy Joe's link used campaign contributions to show that the media has a slightly conservative bias. With a few clicks, I found an article stating that the media has a liberal bias using a survey of journalists' declared political affiliation, as well as some personal anecdotes from the author. This will also address Woofer's request for a cite on what affiliations reportes support. Take it for what it's worth.

My point is not to agree or disagree with any statistics or viewpoints, but just to say that there's data out there to support most any popular position. People tend to lend credence to (and seek out) statistics that reinforce their current beliefs.

Furthermore, I would love know what people (not Snopesters, but people in general) believe to be the best approach to journalism: unbiased vs. biased in their direction, and whether people are really able to discern between the two. I've also heard people say things like, "Of course xxx TV station is one-sided...it has to be to stand against the barrage of news outlets biased in the other direction."

--------------------
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.

"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" - The Brain

Posts: 587 | From: Colorado | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Logoboros
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Logoboros   E-mail Logoboros   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grand Illusion:

My point is not to agree or disagree with any statistics or viewpoints, but just to say that there's data out there to support most any popular position. People tend to lend credence to (and seek out) statistics that reinforce their current beliefs.

But are you saying that all data is subjective? Can't that range of data sources be divided into better and worse (or more accurate/less accurate) sources? Is there no factual truth, only the dominance of certain opinions?

I think you're right about the way statistics are often used, especially by pundits and debaters. But I'd like clarification on what you think the nature of statistics are themselves.

--Logoboros

--------------------
"If Men were Wise, the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them. If they are not wise, the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."

--William Blake

Posts: 1025 | From: Memphis, TN & Columbia, MO | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2