Is it even worth complaining about?

I hear terms like "media bias" all the time. Last night doinking around on the computer the TV was on the national news. NBC started with coverage of the Republican convention for 5 minutes, so & so is speaking this day, tomorrow is that, and then on to the hurricane.

Commercial.

Flipped it to whatever channel Katie Couric is on, CBS?. They went on for five minutes about Gov. Palin's pregnant daughter, talked to three different people on the subject, and I was pissed. When talking about Barak Obama, Mrs. Couric smiled and got all giddy, but when referencing President Bush, she used his last name only, no title and couldn't keep the disdain out of her voice. I'm actually surprised she didn't roll her eyes. There was references to Katrina and Bush's response.

Your job is to deliver information, not editorials. In the past I've seen the same talking head, not a reporter, talk about Bush and Clinton in a story, Bush gets "Bush", Bill Clinton is referred to as "President Clinton". I'm not riled because I'm a big fan of G.W., nor am I a follower of ANY Clinton; I'm just torqued at the obvious slight.

Dan

Your first mistake was thinking of Katie Couric as a journalist.

Tim Baxter wrote: Your first mistake was thinking of Katie Couric as a journalist.

You've got a point there...

Seriously, the only broadcast news I ever watch is BBC

There's always Fox News if you prefer your bias in the other direction. We're all biased in our presentation of information.

I think its all a bunch of handwringing to really complain about it.

And BBC is good I think, but that's probably because I like their accents,

CBS and Fox are BS news channels, nothing new here. Also while I haven't noticed any bias on CNN America, it's significantly dumbed down compared to CNN International.

Even when the Repubs were on Clinton's tail, they still referred to him as Mr. President. The Dems don't return the favor to Bush II.

I don't recall NPR referring to Pres. Bush as just "Bush". "Bush Administration" - okay. "President Bush" - of course. At least, that's how I hear him referred to in news reports.

I'll have to listen closer and see how he's referred to when there's a guest commentator speaking.

Tim Baxter wrote: Your first mistake was thinking of Katie Couric as a journalist.

Journalistic experience and training aside, wouldn't you think a large company like CBS would want to be "fair and balanced"? By leaning toward Obama or Clinton or any faction for that matter, aren't you as an allegedly neutral third party running the risk of becoming a target yourself by slanting reports?

Could they become the National Enquirer of news organizations?

Dan

Your second mistake was expecting a large company to care about being "fair" or "balanced". Large companies care about: Making money.

Bingo. The major news organizations in this country don't have a political bias, they have a corporate bias, based on who owns them and what they think will be most profitable.

In England they refer to them as "news readers", perhaps that is something we can strive for here, both in name and function.

GameboyRMH wrote: CBS and Fox are BS news channels, nothing new here. Also while I haven't noticed any bias on CNN America, it's significantly dumbed down compared to CNN International.

You're kidding, right?

MSNBC is bad, too. Hell, they all are, and it's pretty scary how people lap it up.

Maybe I haven't watched it long enough. I usually avoid it at all costs.

I have to agree with Baxter. The media companies are looking for an audience. Little sleep seems to be lost these days worrying about balance and fairness. Its about getting and keeping the attention of whomever the advertisers care about.

The most dangerous bias I see all the media is one of gross over simplification. Not everything can be broken into two competing catch phrases. It seems to me that often you have reasonably intelligent, but arrogant, people that believe somehow, in a matter of a couple of days or couple of hours, they can understand some topic well enough to do a 90 to 120 second story that is going to give people information they can actually use. Look at reporting that is is done about automotive issues. How many Bob and Betty blowdrys out there have ever taken the time to understand something like vehicle dynamics well enough to report intelligently. Get soundbites from spokespeople carefully crafted to placecate or piss-off the audience. Doesn't matter as long they watch the commercials.

Enough of my ranting. The good news is that we don't have put up with this crap. There are more information resources than ever before available. Which means that if you are willing to exercise your brain a little bit, you can find information that is useful.

Wow. After reading this I would think I've been living in a cave or something. How do you spell naive? Maybe I just expect too much from fellow humans.

Oy.

914Driver wrote: Wow. After reading this I would think I've been living in a cave or something. How do you spell naive? Maybe I just expect too much from fellow humans. Oy.

As H.L. Mencken said: "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

914Driver: I noticed the same thing last night. We're "flippers" now, as we downgraded to basic cable to save a few bucks. I couldn't get away from the DNC. I couldn't find the RNC last night. I do think there's some creedence to the "golden boy" idea though. Who would you pick to sell your product? Mr. Hip & "Articulate," or Grandpa McCain. There are lots of folks (including Krunty Couric) who are really amped up about voting for Obama. Not so much w/McCain.

914Driver wrote: Wow. After reading this I would think I've been living in a cave or something. How do you spell naive? Maybe I just expect too much from fellow humans. Oy.

I don't think you are expecting too much. I think we are being given too little. Read polical threads on this or any other message board and its clear there is lots of unhappiness. Many people feel like they are not being listened to or represented fairly.

As I understand it, news used to be, at most, a break even proposition for TV networks. It was provided by networks as public service in exchange for getting the broadcast spectrum for free. Somewhere along the line, news broadcasting got profitable. Several all-news channels started up. Things got competitive and standards of journalist and editorial conduct gave way to "find an audience and pander to them."

Type Q wrote:

914Driver wrote: Wow. After reading this I would think I've been living in a cave or something. How do you spell naive? Maybe I just expect too much from fellow humans. Oy.

I don't think you are expecting too much. I think we are being given too little. Read polical threads on this or any other message board and its clear there is lots of unhappiness. Many people feel like they are not being listened to or resented fairly. As I understand it, news used to be, at most, a break even proposition for TV networks. It was provided by networks as public service in exchange for getting the broadcast spectrum for free. Somewhere along the line news broadcasting got profitable. Several all-news channels started up. Things got competitive and standards of journalist and editorial conduct gave way to "find an audience and pander to them."

That "somewhere along the line" occurred a few decades ago when ABC transferred Roone Arledge from its' sports division to the news department. The intent/hope was to infuse his influential "style" and increase the ratings of a dismally perfoming network news operation.

Sports-entertainment productions like the Wide World of Sports had consistently received high ratings and ABC expected Arledge to shake-up the status quo by introducing a different "production" standard. Higher ratings meant higher advertising revenues, so like most everything else, the evil root (here) is money.

The fledgling cable news outlets quickly realized they had a news-hungry audience 24/7 and an opportunity to sell more advertising spots. It took some brave entrepeneurs and patience (CNN for example lost money for more than a few years) but now cable news rivals or surpasses traditional network offerings.

Journalism standards changed when Cronkite openly challenged the US' involvement in Vietnam and paid little to no penalty. Editorial standards always get questioned when what is claimed as policy is refuted by practice.

Yeah, a lot of it is pandering to a target audience, but it mitigates any idea of impartial journalism.

Ever watch any of the old Edward R. Murrow stuff? He was one classy guy. I wish we could have that now. One quote:

'Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.'

'To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.'

Put it on FOX news then, it will make you happier.

I stopped reading the papers, and watching the news for the same reason. That was in the early 80's, and I don't miss it. Its infotainment now. Whatever sells, makes the news.

I blame Geraldo. Every since I talked my mom into letting some of us get a pizza and watch Al Capone's Vault I feel like the news is lying to me.

Other than conservative recovering alcoholic deejay Glenn Beck (on CNN!), I don't think any of the major media outlets reported on our success in Ramadan(sp), Iraq this week. It's a huge story about the success of our troops and the surge, yet the media is so involved in getting their boy elected prez they ignored it to run trash stories about Mrs Palin and her family.

Yes, it's come to this. I have to get my news from a radio shock jock. And you know what? He does a damn good job while admitting he has a bias, unlike Keith Olbermann who pretends he's some kind of journalist.

Regular news broadcast? Fuhgeddaboudit.

I still (tragicly) look to John Stewart for the most honest assesment of what is happening. Despite his obvious and unaplogetic leanings, he realizes as a satirist that he must call out both sides when they screw up.