Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on January 12, 2004, 12:06:06 AM
-
Do some of your own research. You'll find more.
When the story broke in the middle of December that a subsidiary of Halliburton was accused of charging too much for its contract services in Iraq, the media treated it as a big story. The implication was the administration was behind something dirty because of the vice president's ties with Halliburton.
The New York Times put the story on its Dec. 12 and Dec. 13 front pages and devoted 2,234 words to it. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post also covered it, but were more circumspect.
The Los Angeles Times, which placed the story deeper in its front sections, cleared out enough space to let their writers go on for 1,140 words on Dec. 13 after taking a little more than 600 words to describe the situation on Dec. 12.
The Post had it as a 794-word front-page story on Dec. 12 and followed a day later with 882 words on page A19.
I would like to be able to say that all three reported just as aggressively that Halliburton was cleared of wrongdoing. But I can't.
The New York Times used 530 words on page A8 to report Wednesday that Halliburton was exonerated. On the same day, the Post gave it a brief mention in a longer story - on the front of its financial section.
The Los Angeles Times? It still hasn't found room for one word about Halliburton's vindication.
The kings of the elitist print media weren't alone in publicly exercising their bias. Two days before Christmas, just so people wouldn't forget, National Public Radio broadcast a show that examined Halliburton's "sweetheart" deal in Iraq.
Will NPR follow with an in-depth special outlining how Halliburton was cleared? We'll wait and see - but not for long.
Even politicians focused on the charges and failed to make a reasonable attempt at fairness when those charges were dropped.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, for one, has demanded that the White House provide inside information on the Halliburton contract.
(I have to ask here if any of Waxman's far-left support knows he took Halliburton campaign cash. It would also be nice to know if Waxman feels a sense of hypocrisy because it is Halliburton's business - it's an oil services firm - that partly motivates his actions.)
The affair was given similar treatment by smaller newspapers and television news, which is no surprise. The media prove yet again with the Halliburton nonincident that it has its darlings and its targets. And it's never hard to figure out who falls where.
-
I don't think that's bias, I think that's just journalism. It's a lot more interesting to find out people are doing wrong then it is to find out they weren't.
It happens just as often with both sides of the fence.
I'm sure there's media bias, but this isn't the proof you think it is.
-
Its bias to report "wrongly" one side of the story and not correct it, when you know it will make the paper look bad and the individuals in the story look good. This only seems to happen to conservatives. Whys that?
-
Originally posted by JBA
This only seems to happen to conservatives. Whys that?
[/i]
Talk about irrefutable evidence. I'm convinced!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
[/i]
Talk about irrefutable evidence. I'm convinced!
-- Todd/Leviathn
Are you trying to make a point?
-
There are lots of ways to view 'bias', and these do not necessarily come about because of any political agenda.
Cut and paste from the 'Rhetorica' website:
Is the news media biased toward liberals? Yes. Is the news media biased toward conservatives? Yes. These questions and answers are uninteresting because it is possible to find evidence--anecdotal and otherwise--to "prove" media bias of one stripe or another. Far more interesting and instructive is studying the inherent, or structural, biases of journalism as a professional practice--especially as mediated through television.
Commercial bias: The news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit. The customers of the news media are advertisers. The most important product the news media delivers to its customers are readers or viewers. Good is defined in numbers of readers or viewers. The news media are biased toward conflict because conflict draws readers and viewers. Harmony is boring.
Temporal bias: The news media are biased toward the immediate. News is what's new and fresh. To be immediate and fresh, the news must be ever-changing even when there is little news to cover.
Visual bias: Television (and, increasingly, newspapers) is biased toward visual depictions of news. Television is nothing without pictures. Legitimate news that has no visual angle is likely to get little attention. Much of what is important in politics--policy--cannot be photographed.
Bad news bias: Good news is boring (and probably does not photograph well, either). This bias makes the world look like a more dangerous place than it really is. Plus, this bias makes politicians look far more crooked than they really are.
Narrative bias: The news media cover the news in terms of "stories" that must have a beginning, middle, and end--in other words, a plot. Much of what happens in our world, however, is ambiguous. The news media apply a narrative structure to ambiguous events suggesting that these events are easily understood and have clear cause-and-effect relationships. Good storytelling requires drama, and so this bias often leads journalists to add, or seek out, drama for the sake of drama. Controversy creates drama. Journalists often seek out the opinions of competing experts or officials in order to present conflict between two sides of an issue (referred to as the authority-disorder bias). Lastly, narrative bias leads many journalists to create, and then hang on to, master narratives--set story lines with set characters who act in set ways. Once a master narrative has been set, it is very difficult to get journalists to see that their narrative is simply one way, and not necessarily the correct or best way, of viewing people and events.
Status Quo bias: The news media believe "the system works." During the "fiasco in Florida," recall that the news media were compelled to remind us that the Constitution was safe, the process was working, and all would be well. The mainstream news media never questions the structure of the political system. The American way is the only way, politically and socially. In fact, the American way is news. The press spends vast amounts of time in unquestioning coverage of the process of government. This bias ensures that alternate points of view about how government might run and what government might do are effectively ignored.
Fairness bias: No, this is not an oxymoron. Ethical journalistic practice demands that reporters and editors be fair. In the news product this bias manifests as a contention between/among political actors (also see narrative bias above). Whenever one faction or politician does something or says something newsworthy, the press is compelled by this bias to get a reaction from an opposing camp. This creates the illusion that the game of politics is always contentious and never cooperative. This bias can also create situations in which one faction appears to be attacked by the press. For example, politician A announces some positive accomplishment followed by the press seeking a negative comment from politician B. The point is not to disparage politician A but to be fair to politician B. When politician A is a conservative, this practice appears to be liberal bias.
Expediency bias: Journalism is a competitive, deadline-driven profession. Reporters compete among themselves for prime space or air time. News organizations compete for market share and reader/viewer attention. And the 24-hour news cycle--driven by the immediacy of television and the internet--creates a situation in which the job of competing never comes to a rest. Add financial pressures to this mix--the general desire of media groups for profit margins that exceed what's "normal" in many other industries--and you create a bias toward information that can be obtained quickly, easily, and inexpensively. Need an expert/official quote (status quo bias) to balance (fairness bias) a story (narrative bias)? Who can you get on the phone fast? Who is always ready with a quote and always willing to speak (i.e. say what you need them to say to balance the story)? Who sent a press release recently? Much of deadline decision making comes down to gathering information that is readily available from sources that are well known.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Are you trying to make a point?
Sad that I have to explain it to you. Saying that something "seems" a certain way is not proof of it. You've proven nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Well I'll never get those 30 seconds back.
-
I was convinced of at least some bias during the last presidential election coverage. Specifically during the coverage of the post election fiasco. CNN covered it closely. However, it seemed to me that they gave more time and attention to the democrats than the republicans. Most times a democrat had something to say the reporters were quiet and didn't talk over them. When a republican had something to say they talked over them or switched to another story. I'm not saying this happened every time but it was very nocticeable to me. Prior to that I had no suspicions concerning bias.
-
cheney forgives haliburton.. yeah thats news.
should u believe an internal audit or a 'high ranking' army official that signs a waiver for haliburton to not provide auditing data?
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/06/news/companies/halliburton.reut/
media bias issue is a distraction.
corporate highjacking of the government is what you are to be distracted from.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was convinced of at least some bias during the last presidential election coverage. Specifically during the coverage of the post election fiasco. CNN covered it closely. However, it seemed to me that they gave more time and attention to the democrats than the republicans. Most times a democrat had something to say the reporters were quiet and didn't talk over them. When a republican had something to say they talked over them or switched to another story. I'm not saying this happened every time but it was very nocticeable to me. Prior to that I had no suspicions concerning bias.
Not only did the reporters talk over the republicans, but the moments they forgot to talk over them, the broadcast in my area bleeped out what the Republicans were saying and blurred their faces so you couldn't even read their lips!!
Now that's censureship!
the Liberal media has gone too far!
Thanks for finding the proof, JBA!
Amereeka Salutes you for being a Patriotic Hero!
And I thought it was just my Tin Foil hat misaligned.
-
Why did you change your handle Nexus?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Sad that I have to explain it to you. Saying that something "seems" a certain way is not proof of it. You've proven nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You didn't read the original post did you?
-
Originally posted by JBA
You didn't read the original post did you?
So a non-random sample of one now allows you to generalize to the entire population? Amazing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So a non-random sample of one now allows you to generalize to the entire population? Amazing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You have a hard time making sense don't you. What "non-randomness" are you talking about? I sited a specific instance of bias. And what population am I generalizing, The established media? You don't need to be bias in every instance. Just as long as you commit the offence you are guilty.
-
Originally posted by JBA
You have a hard time making sense don't you.
[/B]
And you have a hard time making sense of basic research methodology apparently.
What "non-randomness" are you talking about? I sited a specific instance of bias. And what population am I generalizing, The established media? You don't need to be bias in every instance. Just as long as you commit the offence you are guilty.
In order to generalize to the population (that is, take a sample and draw inferences from it about population characteristics), you need to draw a large, random sample. You're selecting on your dependent variable, bias, meaning that you're finding a single case of possible media bias and erroneously concluding that this one example represents the general state of things. Who's to say that, once we draw a large random sample, we wouldn't observe equal liberal and conservative bias? Or no statistically significant measure of it. Since you've only given us one observation, we can't know for sure.
Saying that it "seems" biased isn't good enough. You've proven nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
To see this issue more closely all you have to do is read the papers during the invasion of Iraq. If you ONLY read a few of them you'd have thaught we were losing the war and getting slaughtered on every corner. Even some of the times reporters were pissed cause there storys were edited in such a slanted way.
This is nothing new, there is no juicyness in it so why report it?
-
yea the deaths didn't really pick up till the peace was declared.
i work in tv media have been at 3 stations and media are hoars.
they do what makes um the most money.
virage said
"corporate highjacking of the government is what you are to be distracted from"
quote of the month.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
And you have a hard time making sense of basic research methodology apparently.
In order to generalize to the population (that is, take a sample and draw inferences from it about population characteristics), you need to draw a large, random sample. You're selecting on your dependent variable, bias, meaning that you're finding a single case of possible media bias and erroneously concluding that this one example represents the general state of things. Who's to say that, once we draw a large random sample, we wouldn't observe equal liberal and conservative bias? Or no statistically significant measure of it. Since you've only given us one observation, we can't know for sure.
Saying that it "seems" biased isn't good enough. You've proven nothing.
-- Todd/Leviathn [/B]
New York Times 1
La Times 2
Post 3
There are only about 5 newspapers of record in the US, Chicago Trib, Boston Globe, and these 3. I think my sample pool is large enough to conclude that 75% got it wrong with a bias slant.
-
Originally posted by JBA
New York Times 1
La Times 2
Post 3
There are only about 5 newspapers of record in the US, Chicago Trib, Boston Globe, and these 3. I think my sample pool is large enough to conclude that 75% got it wrong with a bias slant.
These are not random samples, not of newspapers or of issues. In addition, the sample size in no way approaches what you would need for a valid claim. Add to that the fact that numerous alternative hypotheses exist (e.g. the Haliburton story didn't sell newspapers and thus was abandoned) and you have an unsubstantiated claim of bias.
Keep stretching though. It "seems" like bias, so it must be!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
These are not random samples, not of newspapers or of issues. In addition, the sample size in no way approaches what you would need for a valid claim. Add to that the fact that numerous alternative hypotheses exist (e.g. the Haliburton story didn't sell newspapers and thus was abandoned) and you have an unsubstantiated claim of bias.
Keep stretching though. It "seems" like bias, so it must be!
-- Todd/Leviathn
The stretch is getting less difficult each day.
Network newscasts don’t usually publicize the exclusive interviews with an author to be aired later on a competing network, but the networks were so excited by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s blasts at Bush -- as 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people’ -- that on Friday night ABC and NBC picked up on the shot at Bush released by CBS to promote his appearance on 60 Minutes. The Saturday and Sunday Washington Post and New York Times also featured stories.
Over on the NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams announced: “One of the few top officials ever fired by President George W. Bush is tonight firing back at his old boss. Former Alcoa aluminum CEO Paul O’Neill, the President’s first Treasury Secretary, has said in an interview the President is disengaged and didn’t ask a single question in their first hour-long meeting. He likened Bush’s cabinet meetings to, and we quote now, 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people.’ His story is part of a new book on the early Bush years.”
The CBS Evening News, which on Saturday led with O’Neill’s charges, on Friday featured a plug for 60 Minutes announced by Mike Wallace, who intoned over video of O’Neill and Bush walking up the steps of the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House: “When a former George W. Bush insider says that at cabinet meetings the President acted like blind man talking to the deaf, that’s a story for 60 Minutes. Sunday.”
-
Originally posted by JBA
'a blind man in a room full of deaf people.’
O'Neill has clarified his comments, and the news media is spreading those clarifications.
So if they are biased... why would they do that? Why don't they keep running with the bogus story?
And Fox news is supporting Bush's Illegal Worker plan... seems like they are rather balanced - in tipped to the right kind of way.
But hey that's common knowledge.
-
the media has always been left, it will always be left - they think they are an extension of Hollywood ...
most are registered handsomehunkcrats and flavor their reporting accordingly..
if you don't see it, you have rocks for brains
-
Originally posted by JBA
Do some of your own research. You'll find more.
Don't claim other people's writing as your own, blog parrot.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the media has always been left, it will always be left - they think they are an extension of Hollywood ...
most are registered handsomehunkcrats and flavor their reporting accordingly..
if you don't see it, you have rocks for brains
"The Media"
TV News - More left than right
Most Newspapers - Even split.
Radio News / Talk - more right than left.
"Rocks in your head" comes mostly from sticking it in the sand.
-
Didn't Diane Sawyer just run a puff piece where she interviewed the Bushes? I didn't see it but from the teasers it looked pretty mild.
Charon
-
Did we consider the media 'leftist' while former pres. clinton was in office?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Did we consider the media 'leftist' while former pres. clinton was in office?
of course, if a republican did what he did in the oral office, he'd been run out of town
-
Originally posted by Eagler
of course, if a republican did what he did in the oral office, he'd been run out of town
If a republican gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity you would consider him a god.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If a republican gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity you would consider him a god.
is that what slick gave us?
you consider him a god then?
ain't the way I see it ....
-
Clinton made off **REALLY** well for having commited a grand felon.
The media hardly did anything to him at all.
Yet bush does something that they don't like, and he's crucified.
You draw your own conclusions from that.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Clinton made off **REALLY** well for having commited a grand felon.
The media hardly did anything to him at all.
Yet bush does something that they don't like, and he's crucified.
You draw your own conclusions from that.
Wow, seems every newspaper and tv news was reporting the Bill-Monica fiasco.
Name a paper or tv station that didn't.
I find them fairly independent most of the time.
I just read an article yesterday that called Bush "The most powerful man in the free world." San Jose Mercury News
Hmmm, that leftist rag is attacking the President! News at eleven!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Clinton made off **REALLY** well for having commited a grand felon.
The media hardly did anything to him at all.
Yet bush does something that they don't like, and he's crucified.
You draw your own conclusions from that.
Oral Sex in the Oval Office....Come on!
Sex Scandels sell like nothing else... and it sells Newspapers and TV News ratings!
You don't recall the Live broadcasts of the impeachment hearings?
That was a crusifixion!
The constant leaks by Ken Starr's staff about White Water and all the dirt about this person and that person associated with Clinton.
Clinton had his own personal persecutor for 8 years!
The media loved it.... so did the readers.
Bush hasn't yet been cruicified. He's not very good for news... except his wars make great coverage.