Balanced media coverage ?

[Bumrush99]

Even with the Internet it seems like partisianship has become the new standard when it comes to the media. If I read the Nytimes on a daily basis, especially the Op-Ed, I feel a tremendous sense of doom and gloom, that this country is headed towards disaster on every issue from the environment to social security, to the war on terror. If I go to Fox News or other media outlets, I see well-thought out justifications for how this country is being run. I can honestly say that I can't find balanced news, that I'm constanty having to take every piece of information with a sense of skepticism.

It is very shameful that our privately held media has resorted to such extremes, what happened to covering the news with a non-objective lens? I mean I consider myself a middle leaning liberal, but sometimes I wonder if the media is involved in a campaign of fear-mongering to pursue different agendas.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Fox News and radio is completely right-wing biased and is leading the charge of other stations and networks down that road.

All major networks and radio stations are owned and operated by corporations and executives that openly support RNC candidates.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Is an oxymoron.

 

[Gravity]

I expect bias. I'm getting to the point where I almost don't believe myself for fear of bias.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
FAll major networks and radio stations are owned and operated by corporations and executives that openly support RNC candidates.

Dan Rather

:laugh:

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
FAll major networks and radio stations are owned and operated by corporations and executives that openly support RNC candidates.

Dan Rather

:laugh:

He owns a major network?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
FAll major networks and radio stations are owned and operated by corporations and executives that openly support RNC candidates.

Dan Rather

:laugh:

He owns a major network?

Don't be obtuse. If the owners of the major media outlets openly support RNC candidates, they obviously aren't getting their money's worth.

 

[Zebo]

Everyone can feel somethings wrong no matter where you sit poltically. That's because there is no right or left anymore. It's an illusison on the wedge issues such as abortion. The real job of the media is to tell lies for the powerful and allow thier lies to go unchallenged by facts staring our journalists right in the face. Democrats are as thoroughly bought off as Republicans. Thier goal is simple, oligarchy, police state, 1984.. . We need look no futher than cheerleading into to Iraq war run up. If you're right, you should question the growth of the state, MIC and intervention. That was'nt done. If you're left you should question war besed on economics too and pacifist nature. Also never shown.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
FAll major networks and radio stations are owned and operated by corporations and executives that openly support RNC candidates.

Dan Rather

:laugh:

He owns a major network?

Don't be obtuse. If the owners of the major media outlets openly support RNC candidates, they obviously aren't getting their money's worth.

Sure they are, it is the old "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" adage.

 

[Kibbo]

Try "The Economist." It has a right-wing economic bias, but it is quite open with the fact that it has a neo-liberal bias. On social issues it has a slight liberal bias, but more from a position of Libertarianism than anything else. It opposed the Iraq war, but just by a hair, and it acknowledges the reasons that suported the decision. And it's British, so it has an outsider's view. It also covers economic issues with a large degree of depth. And it covers world affairs like no other publication; it's not surprising to find a three-page article on the political situation in Angola. I reccommend it highly.

 

[Bumrush99]

Kibbo, I have read the Economist, and while I found it to be a great read, I also found that their international perspective was skewed very heavily towards the left, especially if you are looking at things from an American perspective. Now perhaps to the average European it may seem like centrist commentary..

 

[deadpan]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I expect bias. I'm getting to the point where I almost don't believe myself for fear of bias.

 

[nageov3t]

IMO, The NY Times is fairly unbiased everywhere except for the editorials/oped's, where bias is expected/encouraged.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Kibbo, I have read the Economist, and while I found it to be a great read, I also found that their international perspective was skewed very heavily towards the left, especially if you are looking at things from an American perspective. Now perhaps to the average European it may seem like centrist commentary..

Umm. . .I don't know what to say to that. When it talks about international issues, it tends to have a bias towards the reccommendation that these countries cut their social program budgets in order to satisfy the international investment community. It does so even w/r/t those countries where the populace is already in a state of absolute poverty. This follows from their neo-classical economic bias(which is readily admitted by the editorial comments).

Maybe we're talking about different definitions of "the left." I'd appreciate you stating explicitly what you think defines the difference between the international definition of "the left" and the American definition.

I think that on a rational evaluation of "The Economist's" editorial position, you will find that it tries to balance their evaluation of the United State's interests strategically, economically and morally. And it does admit to some doubt on all those points. And iI've read articles that have come to some pretty "Realpolitik" conclusions on the US's position both in the middle east, and more broadly internationally.

As an aside, it has been very critical of the "oil for food" scandal, if that is onw of your benchmarks.

Edit: To clarify: What do you mean by "left wing bias?" What is the American perspective on this? Why does it differ from Britain's? Are you basing your claim on one or two readings of the magazine?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

As far as the major TV news networks in America?

Fox - Most conservative of the three
CNN - Most centrististic of the three
MSNBC - Most liberal of the three

That being said, yes, the partisanship is noticeable

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I expect bias. I'm getting to the point where I almost don't believe myself for fear of bias.

good ish

 

[catnap1972]

They're ALL corporate right wing shills (some worse than others, some GETTING worse by the day)

 

[HombrePequeno]

I think for the most part it is balanced out. Granted the biasness is going to vary from source to source but I think it evens out overall. At least that's what I think of internet news sources and newspaper, I don't really watch TV news that often so I couldn't really tell you about that.