Media Bias Redux

If those titles were false, I would agree with you, McG. Unfortunately, their not.

Or is some of the media simply trying to tell the truth, even if it isn't what Bush and the rest of the "Neo-Imperialists" want us to know.

Of course, those of us who've been getting our news through "Unfilterted" sources; BuzzFlash, CommonDreams, The Nation, ect instead of the "Sheepdog" media, have known a lot of this stuff.

Face the fact that people are starting to cut through the "Sheepdogs" barking and try and find the facts.

ROFLMAO!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! unfiltered.... HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Knee-jerk liberalism is just as retarded as knee-jerk anythingism.

IMO, the media would have credibility reporting all the negatives if they gave equal weight to mitigating and extenuating data that should accompany any 'objective' news story. The modern media has so shame, however, when it comes to bias.

Add to this mix the positively orgasmic ecstasy of the media falling all over themselves to pay homage to the presumed Democratic vice presidential candidate. They found Kerry so difficult to sell, at least now they have a pretty face to put out there.

Hey McGnetrix! Face it! Those headlines ARE the facts! If you can find any pro-Bush headlines send 'em along! Let's face it. Our President screwed up big time.

McG,

I have not looked into the Yahoo example, but I will note that many of the news agregators get things wrong because of automatiopn, and not bias.

Surely you realize that Yahoo functions through automation and not editorial bias?

Google news gets that same thing wrong sometimes too, sometimes the thumbnail (which seems to usually be linked to a wholly different article than the headline) has nothing to do with the story.

Now some, they rush to fault a bias.

Others understand the limitations and failures of technology.

Whoever wrote that Yahoo bit (which is as far as I got) has no understanding of automated news feeds and faults bias based on his/her own ignorance.

And Craven, I would add that a huge chunk of the news we get via newspaper, television, and radio is the product of automation with almost no thought given to accuracy, content, or ethics.

If its on the wire service and has any interest whatsoever (or if it happens to exactly fit the space the editor needs to fill) it is printed. If one breaks a story, other reporters will reword and perhaps embellish the original a bit and publish under their own byline. They may or may not acknowledge the original source. (A few decades ago we would have been fired for doing that, but these days it is commonplace.)

The result is the appearance of general consensus from many sources when in fact many of the writers do not have a clue other than what somebody else wrote. If facts turn out to be less than facts, most don't even bother to print any kind of retraction.

It takes quite a bit of research and diligence to get it right. Too often these days, some readers do that better than the writers.

I believe that the author is trying to show that while other things happen in Iraq, only the negative stories get featured. Where are the positive stories coming from Iraq being featured? Nowhere. You have to hunt for them and that requires a diligence that few readers show. They prefer to read the headlines and form their opinion. This story shows that the headlines and therefore the opinions formed are negative towards the administration. At least for those people that read the LA Times, which those headlines are drawn, not Yahoo news.

When was the last time positive stories about the United States made headline news?

There is an old dictum in journalism: Dog bites man is not news, Man bites dog is . . .

The press doesn't print sunshine and flowers, they print doom and gloom--experience has shown them that this sells papers.

Well that is a no brainer McG. Most of us who care about that stuff can just pick up a week's stack of our local newspapers and draw the same conclusion.

I think it's all in the balance Setanta. If a reporter/editor personally favors an issue or a candidate, the negative will get printed, yes, but it will almost always be balanced by something positive. A positive story however, will often not be 'balanced' by a negative comment.

But if the reporter/editor does not favor an issue or a candidate, the negative will be emphasized usually with no effort to balance with anything positive. If something nice must be published about the unfavored issue or candidate, it will generally be offset or muted by something negative.

More often than not the headline attached or the photo (complimentary or not complimentary) will reflect the political/social persuasion of the editor as well.

See, that argument doesn't carry much weight. When there is SO MUCH going wrong in Iraq, of course thats whats going to get the attention! Add to the fact that the news always goes for the more sensationalistic story (as previously stated), and thats whats going to make the headlines.

There are daily bombings, kidnappings, etc, and you think the news is going to cut in on the space for those stories in order to talk about a school that just opened? Or how another town finally got regular electricity? Are you kidding me?

Don't wonder where the good news is, wonder why the hell there is still so much going wrong with the war that was portrayed to be a cakewalk by so many who supported it.

You oughta know, Fox, i've never seen a link of yours which wasn't heavily biased toward the administrations policies . . . many of us inform ourselves with other means than op/ed pieces . . .

Well excuse me Setanta. I obviously was in error thinking we were speaking of media bias. I didn't know we were discussing administration policies in this thread, nor do I recall mentioning administration policies in this thread. Nor do I recall mentioning op/ed pieces. What brought you to the conclusion that it was op/ed pieces to which I referred?

I was hoping for once we could actually have a discussion. Again, alas, I was wrong.

Seems to me you're the one with a bias/prejudice problem here.

Yeouch, it got ugly in here quick...

Cycloptichorn

Fox, do you forget what you've written in percious posts by the next time you post something? What a putz . . .

how wonderfully eloquent of you Setanata.

Thanks . . .