Us Media

[Geoff332]

My view, as someone not living inside the US, of the mainstream US media (CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC etc) has been steadily decreasing over the past few years (starting from an admitedly low point). I consider a strong (and free) media to be one of the most critical elements of a just society.

My main criticism at present is that there is a lack of criticism and critical analysis of the administration, particularly on issues of 'national security'. Compare this to the UK, where the biggest media institution is currently attacking the Government over the case for war with Iraq. The reporting in the US of some fairly substantial problems with the claims made (eg the exagerated and false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in the President's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to purchase weapon's grade nuclear material from Africa).

A critical press should be hounding the government on issues like this. I'm not suggesting Bush actually lied on these points, but it was his Government that delivered false information, and he should be forced to account for that.

So, I have several questions:
1. For non-US people: what is your opinion of the quality of the major US media organisations?
2. For US people: do you feel that your media is doing the job it should in terms of holding the Government accountable to the public?
3. For everyone:
a) What biases do you see in the US media?
b) How do these biases compare to other media sources around the world?

[Paavo]

Good thread idea.

I must say admit that I do not get CNN at home, although I've seen lots of their news in various places.

I think that they're not being as unbiased as they should be as a national news source.
I watch BBC world alot, and of course our (Finnish) own news, and they're both doing a much better job at monitoring their countries political arenas.

When Finland had it's little "Iraq-gate" scandal with our newly elected prime minister, our media put huge preassure on her to step down. And she did.
This should happen all over the world. You screw up, it gets shown and debated over by the people, and people act. I honestly can't see this happening in the US, at least not because companies like CNN doing it's job.

As you said, BBC is highly critical when it comes to political actions and such, not biased (at least, not apparently) in any way, but shooting questions in all directions. That's the right way for a news company to act.

I also dislike the way the american news broadcasts sound and look like a show, something that is entertaining. Sure, news can be entertaining, but don't put syrup on everything. "LATEST ON THE IRAQ WAR....will our heroes be able to win over evil forces?!?! TUNE IN AND SEE! *lame tadaa-music on the background* ... " <-- I hate that. Just give the facts as bare as you can, no gimmicks, don't make it sound like it's a wrestling match or something lol.

So uhm yea.. *just woke up* ..to answer your questions;

1. Poor and biased, maybe even a word like "corrupt" isn't totally off.
3. a) They go by their government's views
b) I'm sure Al-Jazeera and such are no better, but it still doesn't make it right.

[G. Adams]

Well when I was in the US the only TV I ever did watch was news channels as there was nothing but commercials on every other bloody station.

I landed on Feb 14 of this year, and was gutted that I had missed the big march in London, but thought at least I'd be able to see some of it and other ones around the world on TV. Wrong. There was nothing on such issues. Boring stuff on the RC hiding its priests from conviction (by the way, how should a church be able to pay like $80mil in compensation, if its a church all its money should be going to charity...) and more right wingers mumbling on about why we should attack Iraq (no counterviews though) etc

I also watch CBS on Sky News for the whole half hour its on at 12:30am, and it had some old guy interviewing Rummy. For gods sake he was laughing and joking with him. If they sent Paxman or David Frost (if he's in the mood) over there they'd have a field day, and I think the administration could be brought down in one night. There are no critical grillings being given, as far as I can see. Funnily enough you used to see Paxman interviewing Rummy and Perle etc before the war, but now you only get lackies. I think someone is scared of getting a real interview.

Even the NYTimes, supposedly the US equivelent of the guardian is only strong enough to say "erm, maybe we should *cough* help the people of iraq more..." Come on, where's the absolute ripping to shreds of each and every mistake like its supposed to be? Perhaps the Guardian should do a US paper as good as its UK one (without Aaronovitch please, you chubby new labour scum), as long as it has Hoggart, Liddle and Polly Toynbee, we should be seeing a Democrat (or Nader if we're really lucky) by 2004.

[RebelWithanAK]

As an American I'd say that the NYTimes and the Washington Post are the only syndicated newspapers that I find nominally bearable to read through. Every time I'd turn on CNN, I couldn't help but feel that we were finally in Brave New World, or better yet 1984, where it didn't matter who we were at war with, just that we were at war. "Operation: Freedom," "Iraq Showdown," bullsheeit...

[einned]

I share Geoff332's opinion about the decreasing quality in mainstream media in the US, but the example with the british media isn't completely how I see things. With english mainstream I always have the idea that it is purely sensationalisme.
One plus is that with the internet nowadays you will always have access to "independent" news sources. So if there is a will, there is a way.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

As an American I suppose I will give my opinion as well.

First, our media went a little overboard during the sixties. They got used to everyone simpy accepting everything they said and simply abused that power to increase their own personal revenue by exaggerating events to increase interest in them. They eventually (during the '90's) got so extreme that even the normally intelligent people would believe the TV before they would bother to involve their own minds.

Second, conservatives finally decided to compete with the liberal viewpoint, which was a good thing at first. The more outragous BS would get dispelled by logical explainations.

Currently, the liberal media has had to change tactics from being deities to being expected to compete that they are totally disorganized and impotnet, so they are just trying to toady up to anybody that may give them back their power base.

On the other hand, conservative media has began to act like the problem they were designed to combat. They are beginning to push ridiculous observations expecting their watchers to follow like sheep.

[Geoff332]

Ah, yes. The "liberal" media. Would you care to clarify a couple of things for me:
1. What do you mean by the liberal media?
2. How do you assess whether a media is liberal or not?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Okay, I will offer you my observation of the term liberal.
#1 You oppose anyone that made money by selling people what they need, while you applaud people that get rich selling them what they want.
a) You think that items that people need should be free for the taking, even if the provider had to dedicate a significate amount of time and money to be able to provide the good or service.
#2 You judge political figures by what they claim they are trying to accomplish, instead of the results they actually achieve.
a) It is just fine if they never keep a single promise, or solve a single problem, as long as they continue to be 'sincere' about being there to help.
#3 You consider personal freedom the right to make others pay for your retirement because you were too busy wasting your income on pleasure seeking. But the man that worked al his life to have retirement money should not get this benefit.

How to spot 'liberal media':
#1 You can watch a news story and have no idea what actually happened, but intimately know the reporters opinion of it. (All testimonial, no facts).
#2 Entertainers are for some reason experts on political situations, like they even live in our world...
#3 Feelings and popularity are very important. Facts are pretty much ignored.


Bonus: They use standard catch phrases to dispute arguements like you did in your last post, rather than actually dispute any logic.

[Geoff332]

Great. Now we know how you define the liberal and the associated media and how you assess it (for now, we can ignore the fact that your definition and your assessment criteria are completely unrelated). So now we get to see how you've managed to assess the major media channels in terms of how liberal they are.

[Geoff332]

dispute any logic

Given that your repoonse was rhetorical, and not logical, it seemed the most approriate response. Of course, it's not really a correct assessment.

There are two basic ways of disputing a logical argument. Any logical argument has a set of premises and a conclusion that follows from those premises. To dispute a logical argument, you can either challenge the premises or you can challenge the case for the conclusion following from the premises stated. In this particular case, one of your (implied) premises was that of the 'liberal media' and it's role in society. Since what you meant by the 'liberal media' wasn't made explicit, it would be foolish of me to start to put words in your mouth and critique that idea. So I asked you to clarify it. As far as logical critiques go, this is a pretty basic first step. But, of course, you knew that, since you prize reason so highly.

One further point, before you bother to raise it. I haven't presented any argument of my own here (or rather, I did at the start of this thread, but I haven't since then).

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Nah, you just affect a holier than thou attitude and refuse to accept that your reasoning is not the clearest in the world either. But for the recoed, I did answer your questions, it was you that chose to whine about the format.

Also: they are related, just #1 and #2 are switched in oder...

[Geoff332]

So which of

#1 You can watch a news story and have no idea what actually happened, but intimately know the reporters opinion of it. (All testimonial, no facts). #2 Entertainers are for some reason experts on political situations, like they even live in our world... #3 Feelings and popularity are very important. Facts are pretty much ignored.

Is associated with

#1 You oppose anyone that made money by selling people what they need, while you applaud people that get rich selling them what they want. a) You think that items that people need should be free for the taking, even if the provider had to dedicate a significate amount of time and money to be able to provide the good or service.

If you want to continue to attack the style of my argument, go for it: I really don't care. I never said you didn't answer my questions. I simply said that your answer wasn't really sufficient and I didn't see much by the way of consistency in there.

Now, if you want to make a claim of 'liberal media' I am looking for you to back it up with facts. If you do not, then you are, by your own definition, liberal.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

#2 Because an entertainer is automaticly considered a white hat, assuming that they are popular.

You have my opinion, and you also have my personal observations. Since all we see of the media is their personal observations, what do you constitute as proof? No substance is offered, so how does one dispute its value? We get to hear the opinions of our reporters but they do not offer any evidence. Therefore, all I am able to point out is weak reasoning and logical fallicies, no meat. Even less, because I do not feel inclined to pay them more than marginal attention.

[Geoff332]

Somehow treating entertainers as political experts is the same as a dislike of people making money out of supply necessities. OK, it doesn't really make sense to me, but this is your story. I won't comment on the rather obvious irony of that position given the current situation in California.

I'm not really worried about measuring things. But then I've never said that I only consider measurable things to be important (or worth worrying about). Since this is the main criteria for knowledge within your self-espoused philosophy, I assumed that you would be able to give me an answer. Still we can't ask for too much now, can we.

Let me give you an opinion of my own.

The media is not dominated by liberals. Here's a fairly comprehensive survey of journalists. The key findings are summarised at the start, but basically say that the journalists are predominantly to the centre and more conservative than the general public. Those who do not adopt a central position are more likely to end up on the right economically and on the left socially. Here's another article, from the same site, on how to detect bias in the media. Elsewhere they comment that most newspapers, since 1932 have supported republican candidates, over their democratic opposition (with the exception of two elections).

Here's another study that looks at how the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are used in the media. This one shows the reverse bias favouring conservatives. There is a lot of other evidence debunking the claim of liberal bias in the media -- usually based on economic positions reported, on people interviewed on labels attached to people. Most indicate a central position and those that don't indicate a conservative bias. There may have been some historical bias, but this claim is dubious at best -- based on one or two figures like Spiro Agnew.

The bulk of my position was based on the coverage I got from US sources regarding the war in Iraq. Particularly, the lack of critical analysis, challenges when mistakes were made and the overall impression I got of cheerleading, rather than reporting, the war. I consider this a pro-Bush bias, rather than a liberal or conservative bias. In particular, the under-reporting of the demonstrably false claim linking Iraq to African nuclear material and the lack of critical analysis of the claimed links between Al-Qaida and Iraq -- claims which most other nation's media I've encountered consider to be at best vague and circumstantial (and, at worst, deliberately manufactured).

From this, and given my stated belief that a critical media is an important part of a democratic society, I asked it the US media was doing its job. I still believe it is not.

[G. Adams]

nice links geoff

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Interesting that you attempt to use my philosophy against me when you do not know it well enough to manipulate it in that manner. I tried the same on you and learned that it did not work for me, but of course you never consider the concept that I may have a functional mind as well (and I thought my philosophy was egoist).

I will allow that your first link may prove that the media is less left than the surveyed populance, but since that populance is Maryland and Washington DC, I fail to see how that proves anything.

Your second link was obviously playing with statistics, during their observation of others doing the same thing, suspect under the best of circumstances.

Of course the third one, using your own tactics, defines what "is" is...

[Geoff332]

So, I'm wrong. If that's true, then there will be evidence to demonsatrate it. Where is that evidence? So far, you have simply told me I am wrong. I want to see the data to back up your position.

You have asked for a logical debate, and I decided to partake in one against my better judgement. So far, your reponses have been assertions without evidence, not logic. If my data is flawed, then there will be plenty you can give me that will prove me wrong. If my logic is flawed, then you will highlight the faults in the arguments. So far, your response is:
1. "the data is correct, but doesn't mean anything", without explaining why it is wrong, explaining what it does mean, and offering any superior data to back up your position.
2. Is playing with statistics -- without any actual explanation of what yoiu mean by that. My suspiscion is that 'playing with statistics' to you means 'making thingsa appear different from how I want them to'. Given that the second link didn't contain any statistics, it seems a curious comment.
3. And you simply dismiss an argument, as being my tactics -- but never really explain anything about why that should be dismissed.

So far, the impression I have from you is that "logical" means "anything that agrees with my unproven assumptions" and "illogical" means "anything that I don't agree with." If I am wrong, then you will actually use logic to prove me wrong. If I am mis-understanding your philosophgy, then explain how I am mis-understanding it and teach me how to get it right.

Thge gauntlet is down. If you want me to take anything you say seriously, then I suggest you take it up. If you believe anything that you say, then take it up. If you have proof of your assertions then take it up. If you can actually argue logically, then take it up. If you don't take it then don't bother criticising my approach as critical or calling my position holier than thou. I took a position and I backed it up. I have been waiting through-out this thread for you to back up yours and so far you've given me nothing of substance. At present, that's exactly how I see your arguments: "nothing of substance".

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So what do you accept as proof of anything, do you have any criterea? You have submitted artical after artical, does that mean 'proof' is only allowed to come from other sources? Other than that all you have done is attack my approach, so why is it different when you do it?

All things being equal, I will accept your challenge on another topic, since I have not watched 'TV' in several months...and not much at all for years.

[RebelWithanAK]

Could you please name for us, GreatWyrm, the specific organizations you take to be left-wing? We could start with the right-wingers, to make it fair if you want...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Who cares, I happen to be a moderate. Just because I disagree with you does not make me what you have decided I am. But just for the sake of argument:

Radical Left______Left______center______Right_____Extreme Right
Socialist Party____ABC___PBS___________FOX______Moral Majority
_________________NBC______________________Rush Limbaugh
_____________CNN____CBS________Ayn Rand Institute