News Media Bias Analysis Thread

This thread is up for all members to post interview, and discuss any apparent biases and falsification of information that runs rampant in ALL news media sources. I, myself, consider Fox, CNN, and MSNBC to be "mainstream" media. Please refrain from simply taking the side of the interviewer who happens to hold the same opinion as yourself, this is more so an analysis of how the interviewer is inhibiting a "fair and balanced" discussion on a wide array of topics.

You may also speak to the capitalistic nature of these news channels, as well as text or radio based news coverage. For example, the polarization of new coverage is advantageous in the marketplace.

Here's some of my favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy4hKG1A0T8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMa-_fd0E0Q

MSNBC - Ad Hominen Arguments and incompetence. Lack of substantive argument.
FOX - Completely ignorant to the pertinent discussion. Clear Bias. (SO HILARIOUS!)
CNN - Interruptions, poor question choice, and conveying a lack of comprehension.

Again, I encourage you all to post videos of your own and discuss them. Preferably try to keep the news sources varied. Castigating one news source over another is a one-dimensional approach in this discussion.

Apologies in advance for the rambling quality of this reply.

I dunno where to start. Being liberal minded I've never liked FOX News because of their conservative bias, but they also seemed, I dunno, not very intellectual. It's the kind of non-critical thinking and weighted, oversimplified questions that I don't like to see in news. Just like the "Why would you, a Muslim, write a book about Jesus?" example you link to. I mean, it's a basic part of Islam to know that it's partially founded on Christianity. Even if you don't expect viewers to know that, you should at least give the person you're interviewing the benefit of the doubt and let them explain why a Muslim would write about Jesus without challenging them on that one point.

Media should provide information. They should remain neutral in the sense that they can't have their own views and can't voice those views, but they shouldn't position their views as the truth and shouldn't keep opposing views from having their say (but also shouldn't create a false dichotomy).

Like, a good news person should be more of a moderator than a professor. Present the news to people, and if there is an argument about some element to it then present all sides as fairly as you can, but with some things people can be argumentative about basic facts and those you should have the knowledge as a journalist to wade through and say "no, this here is a fact and that other thing there is what the argument is about."

Ugh. This is a terrible reply. I'm so inarticulate.

Hmm what is a journalist's mission? What is the purpose of a news source? Do they have a responsibility to be "fair and balanced"? Who is this "news person" that you speak of? Should there be "moderators" of public opinion? Could we rely on such "moderators"?

BlahISuck said:

Hmm what is a journalist's mission? What is the purpose of a news source? Do they have a responsibility to be "fair and balanced"? Who is this "news person" that you speak of? Should there be "moderators" of public opinion? Could we rely on such "moderators"?

Click to expand...

Was that directed at me? I think a journalist's mission is to present important information to people in a fair and honest way. We have the news so that we, the people, can be informed about things without having to investigate everything personally. Being informed helps us make important decisions and in a democracy it's the people's decisions which (should) matter most. In that sense I see the media as a sort of extra branch of government who ought to be held accountable as much as we do our elected leaders. (Obviously what I'd like is very far removed from reality.)

The moderator idea wasn't about there being someone to moderate public opinion (which sounds like some horrible 1984-style jobs) but to moderate the information that gets to people so that the most important (subjective, yes) and accurate information gets to us. Since journalists have sources and often interview people for information, it's their, the journalists' job to moderate what information they get from people. For instance, asking someone who is being vague to clarify what they mean. I do think we could rely on these people if we had a way of holding them accountable like we (supposedly) do with our elected officials, and if we had a population who can think critically about the information they're given.