Media Bias Redux

Forums: Politics, Whining
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Media Bias: We're looking at a Yahoo news page. The top story from Reuters is titled, "Suicide Bomber Kills Six At Iraqi Funeral." Alongside is a photo of George W. Bush (no mention in the story) grinning widely.

No wonder the president doesn't find time to read or listen to what the media say about him. The coverage has gotten so unremittingly negative that he'd be a pretty odd duck if he did.

It isn't just a Web page here and there. It's the nightly news, the weekly newsmagazines, the national newspapers, the global wire services. Even book publishers and film makers are going all-out to make him look as bad as they can. Then there's the foreign press.

It could be our imagination. But to get a better feel, we reviewed the front page of one national newspaper ?- the Los Angeles Times ?- over the last month. Below are headlines that appeared over stories related to Iraq.

Asterisks indicate page toppers. If no Iraq story appeared (as was the case after President Reagan's death and during his funeral), nothing is noted.

June 1:"For Iraqis, a Symbol of Unkept Promises"

(about a school the coalition "promised to make

a paradise, but all they've changed is the paint.")

June 2:"Chalabi Accused of Aiding Iran Spies"

June 3:"Troops Told They Can't Leave Army"*

June 4:"CIA Director, Under Fire for Agency Lapses, Resigns"*

"Abu Ghraib Intelligence Soldier Describes Iraq

Abuse in Detail"

June 5:"Fear Enters the Pipeline of Saudi Oil Industry"

June 6:"Bush, Chirac Pledge to Cooperate on Iraq"

(subhead: "Remarks by the French

president about a chaotic occupation underscore

differences.")

June 7:"Battles Take Daily Toll in Sadr City"

June 9:"Prison Interrogators' Gloves Came Off Before

Abu Ghraib"

"U.S. Will Revise Data on Terror"

(subhead: "The State Department works to amend

its report on global attacks after critics alleged an

undercount and political manipulation.")

June 10:"A Tough Time for 'Neocons' "

(subhead: "Once, they exulted in the Iraq war. Now,

with the setbacks in the region and the Chalabi

spy probe, neoconservatives are feeling embattled")

June 11:"Going to War Not Worth It, More Voters Say"*

"NATO Not Expected to Send Force to Iraq"

June 13:"Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go"*

"Insurgents and Islam Now Rulers of Falluja"

June 14:"At Least 20 Killed in Baghdad (Car) Bombings"

June 15:"Iraq's Foreign Contractors in Cross Hairs

of Insurgents"

"Iraq Conflict Disrupts U.S. Plans for Military"

June 16:"Ex-Soldier Recalls Beating He Received in

Guantanamo Drill"

June 17:"Spy Work in Iraq Riddled by Failures"

"No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found"

June 18:"Air Authorities Were In Chaos, 9/11 Panel Says"*

"FAA Staff Blindsided by Attacks"

"Iraqi Leaders Would Consider Martial Law"

"A Killing Puts Courts on Trial in Iraq"

June 19:"Radicals Kill American in Saudi Arabia"*

June 20:"2 Allies Aided Bin Laden, Say Panel Members"*

June 22:"Judge Orders Army Leaders Questioned"*

"South Koreans Weep, Wait for News of Iraq Hostage"

June 23:"South Korean Held in Iraq Is Beheaded"*

"Iraq Deal on Airline Is Probed"

(subhead: ". . . Case may reflect flaws in the

reconstruction process."

"Files Show Bush Team Torn Over POW Rules"

June 24:"Panel Faults CIA's Spying"*

June 25:"105 Killed in Attacks Across Iraq"*

June 26:"Iraq Insurgency Showing Signs of Momentum"*

June 27:"3 Turks Taken Hostage in Iraq"*

"In Darkness, Waiting For Dawn"

(subhead: "The incoming sovereign government

will need skill and luck to cure Iraq's ills, which

confounded the occupation."

June 28:"U.S. Marine Kidnapped as Attacks Surge"*

"Hand-Over Is Political Gamble for Bush"

June 29:"Iraqis Quietly Take Power After Bremer's Early Exit"*

"High Court Says Detainees Have Right to Hearing"

"Wartime President Is Again Outflanked"

June 30:"Hussein Arraignment Set; Iraq Takes Custody Today"

July 1:"Pentagon Alerted to Trouble in Ranks"

July 2:"Still Defiant, Hussein Faces Down Iraqi Judge"*

July 3:"Army Takes Its War Effort to Task"

(subhead: "Report says U.S. forces prevailed in Iraq

despite deep supply shortages and bad intelligence.")

July 4:"Group Says It Killed Marine"*

July 5:"Iraq Debates Rebel Pardon"*

"Claims of Marine's Slaying Are Denied"

July 6:"U.S. Response to Insurgency Called a Failure"*

"Doubts and Duty Tug at Marines"

July 7:"Pentagon Deputy's Probes in Iraq Weren't

Authorized, Officials Say"

Failures, lapses, chaos, abuse, doubts, death, defeat ?- day-in, day-out. Keep this coverage in mind the next time you see a poll from the Times or anyone else noting how the public is having second thoughts about the U.S. effort and Bush's ability to lead it.

link

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,377 • Replies: 24

No top replies

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

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

NeoGuin wrote:

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!!!!!

Laughing

0 Replies

NeoGuin wrote:

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.

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

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

only the negative stories get featured. Where are the positive stories coming from Iraq being featured? Nowhere.

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.

0 Replies

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 . . .

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Yeouch, it got ugly in here quick...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

0 Replies

Thanks . . .

0 Replies

Media Bias Redux

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know