What The Liberal Media Hides

[JacktheHat]

On the topic ...

The media is not in business to report the news - they're in business to make money. The thing that makes the most money is picking on the president. Why would they do anything to uplift and support him when they make more money tearing him down?

That would be sensationalism as opposed to liberal bias, and I think you'll find that there are quite a few American media companies that prefer to have a republican president.


As for the BBC, they are a non-profit organisation funded by public money.

 

[Touring Mars]

On the topic ...

The media is not in business to report the news - they're in business to make money. The thing that makes the most money is picking on the president. Why would they do anything to uplift and support him when they make more money tearing him down?

That's pretty much what makes the likes of Fox News so laughable. It's 'infotainment', not 'News'...

Atleast the BBC is publicly funded and is not a money-making machine. Fox and CNN have their own agendas. The BBC doesn't....

 

[JacktheHat]

Off topic -

Touring Mars how long are your legs if you're in London and Edinburgh?

 

[///M-Spec]

Sorry, but I find this whole line of argument fairly ludacris.

Everyone in this thread seems to agree on one thing: the media is not only biased in its coverage of events around the world, but is motivated to pick and choose what you see based on it's own (nefarious, I'm sure) agendas.

Of course , the implication inherant in this philosophy is that all the independant critical thinkers here have a MUCH better handle on what's going on around the world than media outlets with millions in news assets actually there. That they manage to achive this level of clairvoyance while sitting at their computers half way around the world is astonishing indeed.

But in my mind, the truth of the matter is simply that people choose to believe what they want to believe or whatever makes them feel good. If the media happens to coincide with their views, they award credibility; if it doesn't, they ignore it or discredit the source. It's just a variation on a person's child-like ability to make something true simply by wishing it so.


M

 

[JacktheHat]

Sorry, but I find this whole line of argument fairly ludacris.

What exactly does this arguement have to do with a third-rate rapper?

 

[///M-Spec]

What exactly does this arguement have to do with a third-rate rapper?

Nothing, except for people who want to make an issue of my misspelling of ludicrous. Thank you. That was very helpful.


M

 

[JacktheHat]

Nothing, except for people who want to make an issue of my misspelling of ludicrous. Thank you. That was very helpful.


M

As was your comment that people make up their minds on issues without external influences. That's worse than ludacris, it's Ja Rule...

 

[///M-Spec]

As was your comment that people make up their minds on issues without external influences. That's worse than ludacris, it's Ja Rule...

Without ANY external influences? When did I say that?


M

 

[LoudMusic]

Sorry, but I find this whole line of argument fairly ludacris.

Everyone in this thread seems to agree on one thing: the media is not only biased in its coverage of events around the world, but is motivated to pick and choose what you see based on it's own (nefarious, I'm sure) agendas.

Of course , the implication inherant in this philosophy is that all the independant critical thinkers here have a MUCH better handle on what's going on around the world than media outlets with millions in news assets actually there. That they manage to achive this level of clairvoyance while sitting at their computers half way around the world is astonishing indeed.

But in my mind, the truth of the matter is simply that people choose to believe what they want to believe or whatever makes them feel good. If the media happens to coincide with their views, they award credibility; if it doesn't, they ignore it or discredit the source. It's just a variation on a person's child-like ability to make something true simply by wishing it so.

M

Well you're right. But that doesn't change the fact that the media outlets are businesses attempting to turn a profit. The best way to do so is to appeal to the audience. It's been long standing that controversy catches more attention than conformity. They'll sell few commercials by telling us that the world is a wonderful place, but if they tell us that we're all going to die and we're being led to death by a bafoon, everyone is suddenly watching.

For the first year after 9-11 all we saw on TV was "WE'RE BEING TERRORIZED! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" - You know what? The only thing terrorizing me was my television. So I turned it off. My life has been better ever since.

 

[JacktheHat]

But in my mind, the truth of the matter is simply that people choose to believe what they want to believe or whatever makes them feel good. If the media happens to coincide with their views, they award credibility; if it doesn't, they ignore it or discredit the source. It's just a variation on a person's child-like ability to make something true simply by wishing it so.

Could it have been here?

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not sure where the thrust of ViperZero's original post was intended to go, but he seems to be equating the word 'liberal' with biased... in my view, the most biased channels I've seen are pretty far from liberal i.e. Fox News. Hardly surprising since it is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Just as I don't read his newspapers, I don't watch his TV news either. For me, as soon as a broadcaster starts to voice their opinions about stuff, it loses any credibility...

@JackTheHat - I commute... I was meaning to change that, I live in London, but I'm from Edinburgh... 👍

 

[JacktheHat]

I'm not sure where the thrust of ViperZero's original post was intended to go, but he seems to be equating the word 'liberal' with biased... in my view, the most biased channels I've seen are pretty far from liberal i.e. Fox News. Hardly surprising since it is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Just as I don't read his newspapers, I don't watch his TV news either. For me, as soon as a broadcaster starts to voice their opinions about stuff, it loses any credibility...

@JackTheHat - I commute... I was meaning to change that, I live in London, but I'm from Edinburgh... 👍

I agree but you have to remember we're extremely privileged to have an independant news agency - do any other countries have this?

Even our other terrestrial channels produce good, (relatively) unbiased news coverage.

 

[Duke]

As was your comment that people make up their minds on issues without external influences. That's worse than ludacris, it's Ja Rule...

Have you actually read any of the threads in this forum? I'd say it's pretty much dead-nuts accurate that people make up their minds with minimal information and then justify it by choosing sources afterward.

M's comment actually advanced the discussion. Can you say the same? I certainly won't say it for you.

 

[///M-Spec]

Could it have been here?

Nope. I'm sure a few posts arguing over what I meant to say and how you took what I wrote would be a thrill, but maybe we should just save ourselves all the excitment.

People tend have firm opinions about issues (like Iraq). They have a strong tendancy to focus on information that helps them validate their viewpoint and a strong tendancy to ignore or argue information that conflicts with it. The very reason this thread even exists is a perfect example of that.


M

 

[LoudMusic]

BBC is by far the largest, I believe.

In the United States we have several "public news services". NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) to name a couple.

 

[JacktheHat]

Have you actually read any of the threads in this forum? I'd say it's pretty much dead-nuts accurate that people make up their minds with minimal information and then justify it by choosing sources afterward.

M's comment actually advanced the discussion. Can you say the same? I certainly won't say it for you.

Well I'm sorry for disagreeing with the thread's originator and having an opposing point of view to a moderator. Slap my wrists, I am a naughty boy.

How exactly has it advanced the discussion, by taking the limelight of of the fact that not all media is liberally biased? By sidestepping the issue of the BBC being unbiased and yet is perceived as anti-American (how can that be?)?

Please explain. I look forward to reading your diatribe, oops, I mean explanation.

 

[JacktheHat]

People tend have firm opinions about issues (like Iraq). They have a strong tendancy to focus on information that helps them validate their viewpoint and a strong tendancy to ignore or argue information that conflicts with it. The very reason this thread even exists is a perfect example of that.

And has nothing to do with mis-information, with-holding information etc. propagated not only by news agencies but governments and other influential bodies?

 

[LoudMusic]

Alright, ///M-Spec, JacktheHat, Duke ... take your little spat into a Spat Thread. We're talking about what's going on with our news outlets here.

 

[Arwin]

Nope. I'm sure a few posts arguing over what I meant to say and how you took what I wrote would be a thrill, but maybe we should just save ourselves all the excitment.

People tend have firm opinions about issues (like Iraq). They have a strong tendancy to focus on information that helps them validate their viewpoint and a strong tendancy to ignore or argue information that conflicts with it. The very reason this thread even exists is a perfect example of that.

M

Viewing the OP, I agree.

 

[///M-Spec]

And has nothing to do with mis-information, with-holding information etc. propagated not only by news agencies but governments and other influential bodies?

What you propose is that people have a tendancy to swallow what the news tells them without question.

What I propose is that people have a tendancy to choose what they want to swallow and swallow it whole without any real concern over whether or not it may be truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In my experience, particularly with a situation like Iraq, is that someone who supports the war tends to ignore articles which cast the situation in a negative light --civilian casualties, high rates of unemployment and poverty, rampant lawlessness, lack of basic services throughout the country-- and people who are against the war tend to ignore articles which cast the war in a favorable light -- advancements in government, women's rights, improvement in basic services, relative peace and calm in most of the country, the lack of Saddam's deathsquads killing people, etc.

Alright, ///M-Spec, JacktheHat, Duke ... take your little spat into a Spat Thread. We're talking about what's going on with our news outlets here.

So was I. But apparantly my post was more interesting to some as a model of improper spelling.


M

 

[JacktheHat]

What you propose is that people have a tendancy to swallow what the news tells them without question.

What I propose is that people have a tendancy to choose what they want to swallow and swallow it whole without any real concern over whether or not it may be truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In my experience, particularly with a situation like Iraq, is that someone who supports the war tends to ignore articles which cast the situation in a negative light --civilian casualties, high rates of unemployment and poverty, rampant lawlessness, lack of basic services throughout the country-- and people who are against the war tend to ignore articles which cast the war in a favorable light -- advancements in government, women's rights, improvement in basic services, relative peace and calm in most of the country, the lack of Saddam's deathsquads killing people, etc.


M

And where do they learn what it is they want to swallow? You're not taking into account how people develop their personal philosophies.

 

[///M-Spec]

And where do they learn what it is they want to swallow? You're not taking into account how people develop their personal philosophies.

How people develop their personal philosophies is not the concern of my post here. I'm sure like with most things human, they have certain in-born traits that are modified over time within their environment.

I am commenting on the average person's ability to view news objectively. Or rather the lack thereof. In my opinion, most of the bias is not in the media, but rather, in the person.


M

 

[Danoff]

Viper,

👍

Thanks for posting that picture. It's quite touching - it is amazing that I haven't seen it before. I'd have thought fox news would have carried it at least.

 

[JacktheHat]

How people develop their personal philosophies is not the concern of my post here. I'm sure like with most things human, they have certain in-born traits that are modified over time within their environment.

I am commenting on the average person's ability to view news objectively. Or rather the lack thereof. In my opinion, most of the bias is not in the media, but rather, in the person.


M

So people are born with conservative or liberal tendencies? I think you'll find there are many psychological tests whose results will disagree with you. I'm not about to enter into a debate about nature via nurture but to simplify the arguement as you have is entering into the realms of Vanilla Ice... (running joke - see previous posts in thread)

 

[///M-Spec]

So people are born with conservative or liberal tendencies? I think you'll find there are many psychological tests whose results will disagree with you. I'm not about to enter into a debate about nature via nurture but to simplify the arguement as you have is entering into the realms of Vanilla Ice... (running joke - see previous posts in thread)

Your Ja Rule joke was funnier.

Hmm. Let's see. You put words in my mouth over a concept I already said was outside the scope of my post.

You then say that my assessment on how people relate to media is an oversimplification....

...because it would NOT an oversimplification to say US media is biased and has a secret agenda. Unlike BBC, which is not.

Good one. That was even funnier than the Vanilla Ice joke.


M

 

[JacktheHat]

Your Ja Rule joke was funnier.

Hmm. Let's see. You put words in my mouth over a concept I already said was outside the scope of my post.

You then say that my assessment on how people relate to media is an oversimplification....

...because it would NOT an oversimplification to say US media is biased and has a secret agenda. Unlike BBC, which is not.

Good one. That was even funnier than the Vanilla Ice joke.


M

Now who's putting words in someone elses mouth?

I said that the BBC was an unbiased news agency, true. What of it?

And I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that news agencies which are owned by companies have their own agenda.

 

[Danoff]

I said that the BBC was an unbiased news agency, true. What of it?

Uh, what? How can you claim that's true? You're proving YOURSELF biased.

 

[JacktheHat]

Uh, what? How can you claim that's true? You're proving YOURSELF biased.

Que?

The BBC is a publicly funded news agency, with a charter (which they are legally obliged to follow) that states all news reporting must be unbiased.

Of course there are exceptions, but only under a D-note, when it would affect public or national safety.

 

[sicbeing]

you guys are all going after the "media" then some of u claim that fox news cnn etc are biasd, when they are "entertainment news channels" and it was mentioned that yes they are on the air for the money, and however they can entertain you , they will do.

The post where I "lol"d and got yelled at i just thought it was a funny statement saying we tell others how to run their country, while yes we do invade them, but from what i know:

Back when daddy bush was pres he told iraq to disarm, they said give us time. time went by and the clinton entered the scene.

So saddam still wanted more time and clinton is like oh yea take all the time u need, cuz he wanted the popular vote, so he didnt do much else but say ok fine.

time goes by then bush jr enters and saddam says he still hasnt disarmed, so bush was like oh well forget that either disarm or its on. thats just what i heard, i dont have any fancy links or wtv to back me up


-edit-

and by the way i did contribute to the talking, refer to the first page, dont just point out the bad parts and act like thats all i do

 

[Swift]

Have you actually read any of the threads in this forum? I'd say it's pretty much dead-nuts accurate that people make up their minds with minimal information and then justify it by choosing sources afterward.

M's comment actually advanced the discussion. Can you say the same? I certainly won't say it for you.

Yeah, that's really true. I think it's one of two things really. Either you have the people that have their minds made up and are not easily if at all swayed by outside information(I'm probably this one) or you have the John Kerry like people that just flow with what's easiests. Now matter what the believe is right.

If I had a choice, I'd rather have people of the first type. At least they have integrity.