Media Bias II

Posted by: MattMac112

Media Bias II - 02/02/03 09:11 PM

You often hear about Media Bias. Sometimes its just one of those things you hear about but rarely see in action. Last week it was a report on the NBC Nightly News. This week it's in the pages and on the website of TIME.<br><br>I just read about this, did some research, and it leaves me shaking my head. In this episode of "Media Bias", the FACTS be damned, the GOP is full of racists!<br><br>Last week (Jan 27th) in an article titled "Look Away, Dixieland", Time "reports" that President Bush "quietly reinstated" a tradition of having the White House deliver a floral wreath to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery--A practice "his father had halted in 1990." Here's how Time promoted the story on their website:<br><br>Bush may have rebuked Lott for his praise of Strom Thurmond, but the President recently revived a practice of paying homage to an even greater champion of the Confederacy.<br><br>Pretty serious charges. Can you hear the furthering cries of racism not only in the Bush White House but the Republican party? The odd thing is, their story was wrong and they've since yanked it from their website and issued a correction. Don't these guys check their facts or do they just get giddy about this stuff?<br><br>Their retraction:<br><br>The article "Look Away, Dixieland" [Jan. 27] stated that President George W. Bush "quietly reinstated" a tradition of having the White House deliver a floral wreath to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, a practice "that his father had halted in 1990." The story is wrong. First, the elder president Bush did not, as TIME reported, end the decades-old practice of the White House delivering a wreath to the Confederate Memorial; he changed the date on which the wreath is delivered from the day that some southern heritage groups commemorate Jefferson Davis's birthday to the federal Memorial Day holiday. Second, according to documents provided by the White House this week, [color:red]the practice of delivering a wreath to the Confederate Memorial on Memorial Day continued under Bill Clinton as it does under George W. Bush.</font color=red> <br><br> Here's a link to the archives where you can search for "Look Away, Dixieland":<br><br>LINK<br><br>Here's the link to their retraction:<br><br>LINK<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/02/03 11:30 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> You often hear about Media Bias.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Mostly from you Matt.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/02/03 11:33 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Mostly from you Matt.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, if you count the two times I've posted about Media Bias (this being the second time), you'd be 100 precent correct.
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/02/03 11:42 PM

Well I knew if I kept going for long enough, I'd eventually be right about something. So thanks for the grade. <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/02/03 11:42 PM

Not a problem.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/02/03 11:44 PM

BTW, where's Media Bias 1? I seem to have missed that...<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/02/03 11:50 PM

What? You missed my first post? So when you said:<br><br>"...Mostly from you Matt."<br><br>You were referring to just this post? WHEW!! You had me worried! For a second there I thought I'd mistakenly posted about media bias 948 times and this "latest" post was the last straw for you. <br><br>At any rate, here's the first one which you missed:<br><br>link
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:12 AM

You need more than 1 post to extrapolate accurate percentages? When did they bring in that rule? Sheesh...the gaul of it all.<br><br>I think what I meant was actually "Only from you, Matt."<br><br>Is that better? <br><br>(You have mentioned the dreaded "Media Bias" issue over at MCF on several occasions, the only poster I can think of who has done so. Am I mistaken?)<br><br>Thanks for the link. I'll read it presently.<br><br>Edit: Read it. (Poetic, no?)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Reporter: Teens are sometimes naive and immature and, say teachers, need to be taught that war means death and economic hardships.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't know how accurate your transcript is Matt but taking it at face value it seems to be quoting 'teachers' opinions, rather than offering an opinion of the reporter or channel.<br><br>Is this more of a case of teacher bias rather than media bias perhaps?<br><br><br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MachOne on 02/03/03 03:23 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:18 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>(You have mentioned the dreaded "Media Bias" issue over at MCF on several occasions, the only poster I can think of who has done so. Am I mistaken?<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, you're quite correct. Amongst the rabid and slobbering anti-President / GOP / America daily ravings I did post about media bias every once in a while, though not often. At any rate, I didn't mean to interrupt that flow for you and thus get on your nerves. My belated apologies.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:27 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I didn't mean to interrupt that flow for you and thus get on your nerves.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sorry Matt, I don't know what you mean here by "flow". And apology is certainly not necessary, whatever the above refers to. You haven't gotten on my nerves either. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:35 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't know how accurate your transcript is Matt<p><hr></blockquote><p>The quote from the reporter is word-for-word. The report slanted favorably toward students in opposition to war, interviewing two teens and calling them "thoughtful". The one teen in support of the government was called "immature" "naive" and "aggressive." It was shocking to see how slanted the report was toward anti-war. I had it on TiVo and kept watching, trying to be objective about what I was seeing. <br><br>A letter was sent to NBC. I'll post any response.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 05:10 AM

well, i searched for the original article and found the link, which promptly fail as the article no longer exists. <br><br>the retraction seems to rigth the wrong, eh?<br><br>in any regard, i don't know why memorial day wasn't good enough...i think the whitehouse giving them a special separate day is news (fwiw), so i think the retraction should have gone on to make a bigger deal of this. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 07:01 AM

No, he's right about that. I've often brought up topics and based my judgment on what I viewed on some of the more popular news channels, only to be lectured to death that I shouldn't believe most of the stuff that comes across our airwaves because it was 'biased'...<br><br>Matt's just one of the few people to dedicate a whole thread to it...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 07:04 AM

I take everything I see on TV as 25% reality, 25% distorted reality and 50% complete bullsh!t.<br><br><br>Visit Me At My .Mac Site
Posted by: squareman

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:27 PM

Why is delivering a wreath to a Confederate memorial racist? They were still Americans and they died defending their beliefs (that their rights as sovereign States were being violated by a Federalist government).<br><br>Don't get me wrong, I'm Yankee all the way, but the Confederate War was NOT about slavery. It was about sovereignty and the rights of each and every sovereign state in the Union to withdraw from that union if they wish (as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence). Lincoln himself was not even in favor of Abolitionism, but signed on to it to get more support for his actions by the large Abolitionist movement in the North. I'm not saying slavery should have continued; but all indications were that it would have ended on its own. The Abolitionist movement was gathering steam without the need for war.<br><br>Look here for a good essay on this. One of the most interesting observations the essay makes is that the US is the ONLY country to end slavery by forcible means (and probably not so coincidentally, we continue to have more "white-black" tension, racism and reverse-racism than any other 1st-world nation). <br><br>I doubt George W is as much of a racist as he is an elitist. I think the only color he cares about is green (or black if it's petroleum based) - it just happens to be held by rich old white-haired guys. And I agree with you there, most of the power players in the GOP are concerned only with keeping the people with the most money happy. Until we stop voting for people that are part of this old white boys' club, only rich old white boys will have the money.<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:31 PM

So if you choose to watch it only 25% of the time you're okay, right? :-p<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 12:49 PM

Okay, duh! Shoot me. I just realized that you were complaining that the STORY was originally trying to imply that honoring the Confederate soldiers was racist. Ahhh. <br><br>Bush delivering a wreath - as much as a putz I think the guy is - is not what proves him a racist. But this proves him a bigot http://uspolitics.about.com/library/weekly/aa040800a.htm<br><br>Yes, the ARTICLE was stupid and was trying to fabricate a stituation that didn't exist.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 02:00 PM

I wouldn't say anything on that page proves him to be a bigot, a racist or anything else. My guess would be, looking at the dateline, this is rhetoric as the Presidential campaign was heating up. <br><br>The TIME article, however, seemed to be exploiting the Trent Lott fiasco doubling off Hillary Clinton's political charge that the entire Republican party is full of racists.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 02:02 PM

I think news outlets invent News. In some cases they don't check the facts to fill newspapers like this. But in most cases they are inventing scenario from much ado about nothing stuff.<br><br>They are no longer reporting news, but selling commecials or ad space.<br><br>Somedays I think the news guy that comes on at 6 should just say - "Well nothing really happened today, so we're going to show a rerun of Gilligan's Island - enjoy"<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 02:05 PM

Somedays I think the news guy that comes on at 6 should just say - "Well nothing really happened today, so we're going to show a rerun of Gilligan's Island - enjoy"<br><br>Talk to some people old enough (not me), and they'll tell you that the Tonight show didn't always start at 11:30. You had to wait for the news to end. If a lot happened that day, it came on near midnight. If not much happened, it came on closer to 11. <br><br>I'm with you. That's exactly how news should be. Just the facts ma'am.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 05:09 PM

Yep. I agree. All I want are the facts. Let me draw my own conclusions.<br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 05:33 PM

There was a reason we didn't have 24-hour news channels 25-30 years ago- it's because important stuff wasn't HAPPENING 24 hours a day...<br><br>They fill the other 21 hours with mindless babble and sepculation about what could happen next or wondering why what happened in the first place, happened at all!<br><br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: snag

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 07:44 PM

Now over to Dick Head on Capitol Hill.<br><br>Nothing here Bob. Back to you.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 09:54 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Nothing here Bob. Back to you.<p><hr></blockquote><p>OK. Thanks Dick. Digg Deeply is on the scene. For a live update, we're crossing to Digg. Digg? Whadda you got for us?<br><br>"Bob, this morning at 8.47 eh emm in the morning, about four miles from where I'm standing Bob, behind me, a seventeen year old, Bob, in front of a schoolbus full of schoolchildren on their way to school, shot no-one and wasn't observed to inflict any injuries upon himself, or anyone else, Bob, with a home made automatic weapon. Bob?"<br><br>Digg, could you confirm that a multiple homicide with a home-made automatic weapon did not, indeed, take place in front of a schoolbus full of schoolchildren on their way to school at 8.47 am in the morning, Digg?<br><br>"That's right, Bob. As far as the local police authorities are aware, it was 8.47 eh emm in the morning when it didn't happen. Bob?"<br><br>OK Digg...We'll come back to you when we've had a chance to have a few words with witnesses. Thanks for the insight...now over to our weapons analyst, Hy Caliber, who's in the studio talking with Vester Gaytion. vester...?<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 10:12 PM

You've hit it on the head. I hate, with a passion, news anchors who ask a question, answer it and then ask another question. There is one guy who gets it right; Larry King. He is the master of the interview:<br><br>How everyone else does it:<br><br>anchor: So what was it like winning the Superbowl? Did you have a rush of exhilaration, of excitement too hard to put in to words? Or has it not yet sunk in that you're World Champions and that this will probably hit you after you've had a few weeks to reflect on the game? Either way, what an outstanding performance.<br><br>What the hell is the guy supposed to say after the anchor just masturbated all over the air like that? <br><br>How Larry King does it:<br><br>Larry King: You just won the Superbowl. What was that like?<br><br>Again, he is the master.<br><br>
Posted by: bganey

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 10:17 PM

Larry King is the best interviewer in broadcasting history. Nobody comes close. <br><br>No one touches King..also, his CNN show is the best-screened call-in talk show anywhere. <br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 10:17 PM

Yuss. He is one righteous interviewing dude. Always a pleasure to watch LKL on the tube. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: bird

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 10:23 PM

How would you have felt if the reporter would have reversed the wording for the teens involved, would you have been as upset? Depends sometimes what side of the fence were on. I guess what I,m asking would you still have written your letter. ?<br><br>When everything is coming your way .....your in the wrong lane
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/03/03 10:28 PM

Of course. I want the news reported with just the facts. There was no reason to clarify those against war as thoughtful and those supporting the government as "aggressive", "naive" or "immature." <br><br>I don't care what the network or the reporters politics are, just report the story without the bias. <br><br>Some Teens are against military action. Some teens support it. Here's how the teachers see it<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Media Bias II - 02/04/03 03:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I want the news reported with just the facts<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Yeah that would be the ideal thing to just get the straight facts, uncensored and unbiased. Unfortunately our news is anything but that.<br><br>
Posted by: MaxMacDonald

Re: Media Bias II - 02/04/03 04:28 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yeah that would be the ideal thing to just get the straight facts, uncensored and unbiased. Unfortunately our news is anything but that.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I would go a step further than that, Mike, and argue that this really touches on a dirty little secret: that biased news coverage, from the left or the right, actually sells. It puts bums in seats. It provides audiences for commercials, the revenue generators of the media machine. Bias sells because it's so entirely human. It's reassuringly tribal. That's how I see it, anyway.<br><br>Interesting point about Larry King however. I don't watch him much, but I'll keep in mind the positive remarks made in this thread. I too hate leading questions that are immediately followed by pseudo-answers from the supposed interviewer. I've been seeing this a lot lately on CNN and it annoys me to no end. I'd like to be able to tune into a FOX newscast, just for comparison purposes - I'll have to see if it airs up here. Do they have a total news channel like CNN? We get FOX shows but I don't recall ever seeing a news program during my moments of channel-surfing.<br><br>max
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Media Bias II - 02/04/03 07:33 AM

Right. It is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.<br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: Media Bias II - 02/04/03 07:48 AM

Well, let's look at the current state of news reporting this way:<br><br>Which sells better? <br><br>1) Encyclopedias and 'fact' books, with nothing more than the events as they happened in history?<br><br>2) 'Historical account' books, where the events of the past are put into the form of an anecdote as told by one person or set of persons- and all the facts may or may not be true?<br><br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Media Bias II - 02/04/03 08:44 AM

I remember that in Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land there were a group of official witnesses called Truth Tellers who reported only facts as they knew them. In one scene of the novel, to demonstrate what the Truth Teller's function was, one of the characters (Jubal Harshaw was the name, I think) asks a Truth Teller to say what color a house is. Her response is, "Red on this side, Jubal."<br><br>I bring this up because it seems to me that the idea of an entirely factual report is much more difficult to achieve than we're allowing for. We make assumptions, I guess more like inferences, all the time--about what color a house is on the side we can't see, for instance. But it goes beyond that. It seems to me that more often than not the questions I ask, the things I actually notice enough to see or hear, say more about my interests and habits than about what's objectively out there.<br><br>As an example, in which I wansn't involved, but which gets to the point, a group of folks from my schol spent three weeks in January travelling through the Caribbean (I wan't in it, alas!) in order to prepare themselves to revv up and expand our Latin American Studies program. I talked to one of the people, an economist, and she told me that it was particularly useful to her to go with people in other disciplines because what she saw was nothing at all like what the person from the Art Dept. saw.<br><br>I think that kind of difference happens much more often than we imagine. I guess reporters could be trained as Truth Tellers--but then maybe we wouldn't have much in the way of news <br><br><br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"