12-02-2002 09:25									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Yeah... they become well known and then they feel that THEY are part of the news... sad... but you know, many people don't seem to mind For me, viewing the news is simple... know the bias, and take it into consideration when viewing or reading it.

Well you have the advantage of knowing what goes on behind the scenes

	12-02-2002 09:26									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They should have disclaimers .

I look at the same issue from many different sources to try to get a balance, myself.

	12-02-2002 09:27									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui They should have disclaimers . I look at the same issue from many different sources to try to get a balance, myself.

Fox News channel seems to be pretty balanced...or am I just brainwashed?

	12-02-2002 09:30									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You are brainwashed

Foxnews is horribly biased to the right, and gets lampooned. The other networks just don't admit their subtle biases.

	12-02-2002 09:31									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Sorry, we don't lay down and let you roll all over us. We fight fire with fire. And yes, it was more "reasonable, intelligent, and rational" than the biased one, Khan Singh, arguments.

The outburst you gave seems to hide a certain insecurity about the right-wing's intelligence. If you felt secure about it, I would think that you would just laugh it off or dismiss it. By falling to an even less "intelligent" response, you are merely affirming the point rather than refuting it.

Unfortunately, you seem to equate intelligence with force, might or wealth. So with the way you define it, perhaps you aren't insecure at all.

	12-02-2002 09:34									#36
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia Well you have the advantage of knowing what goes on behind the scenes

Since media has been my job for over 24 years, I do know what is going on. However, you don't need any special knowledge to figure out their biases... JUST LISTEN TO HOW AND WHAT THEY SAY... that alone should give you a clue

Oh... and Fox News... Balanced...

Stop it... you're killing me...


Heck, I lean to the right on many issues, and I think they are funny

	12-02-2002 09:35									#37
	Tired of ads?

I didn't say that all conservatives are dim-witted. Only those who complain about liberal bias in the media. And I gave reasons for my opinion. Squealing childishly and endlessly about other people freely expressing their opinions is either dim-witted or anti-democratic----take your choice.

Or are you suggesting that there is some sort of liberal conspiracy to control the media and brainwash Americans? Well if that's what you believe, then I am calling you a dim-wit. Whine about it all you want, I'm not taking it back.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives are perfectly free to start whatever media they want, and express whatever opinions they choose. But they can't complain if people won't buy it. If there are more liberal media in America, then presumably there is a reason for it. Nobody is forcing people to buy the New York Times.

Aren't conservatives the ones who say that the market is the best way to decide right and wrong? Well there you go then.

	12-02-2002 09:36									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

that was the first (ok second) time I've ever seen Imran being "rude" in answering back. And I'm posting in these forums a long time.

Cut him some slack He is one of the most chivalrous and galant posters Apolyton has.

(myself excluded )

	12-02-2002 09:36									#39
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Pemb: You might think I'm affirming it, but I'm not going to let the slight go unpunished.

I've suffered enough cracks about evil, greedy right wingers. But you'd like me to laugh it off. It'd enable you to take pot shots and not have to deal with insults in turn.

Sorry, but I ain't falling to that trick.

	12-02-2002 09:43									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 that was the first (ok second) time I've ever seen Imran being "rude" in answering back. And I'm posting in these forums a long time. Cut him some slack He is one of the most chivalrous and galant posters Apolyton has. (myself excluded )

If I may ask... what was the first?

quote: I didn't say that all conservatives are dim-witted. Only those who complain about liberal bias in the media.

So all that complain about the liberal bias are dimwitted? What about those liberals that admit it?

quote: Squealing childishly and endlessly about other people freely expressing their opinions is either dim-witted or anti-democratic----take your choice.

So if I get mad about someone saying something about 'The Nazi's were right', that would mean I'm either dim-witted or anti-democratic, because I oppose a person freely expressing their opinion?

quote: Or are you suggesting that there is some sort of liberal conspiracy to control the media and brainwash Americans? Well if that's what you believe, then I am calling you a dim-wit. Whine about it all you want, I'm not taking it back.

And who ever said that?

Or are you putting words into people's mouths?

quote: The fact of the matter is that conservatives are perfectly free to start whatever media they want, and express whatever opinions they choose. But they can't complain if people won't buy it. If there are more liberal media in America, then presumably there is a reason for it. Nobody is forcing people to buy the New York Times.

Yes, but the mainstream media dismisses any claim about bias. They should admit that they do have a subtle bias. They can freely express their opinions, just don't be fradulent in the advertising .

And check the bolded part. They can't complain? So you are now taking free speech away?

quote: Aren't conservatives the ones who say that the market is the best way to decide right and wrong? Well there you go then.

Do you want your news to be what is most popular, or that which reports the facts? This is why sometimes I wish the US government had a seperate news channel (like BBC), not based on ratings, but on accurate reporting (or as close as possible). However, news editors know that some people want to hear some things.

	12-02-2002 09:46									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 that was the first (ok second) time I've ever seen Imran being "rude" in answering back. And I'm posting in these forums a long time. Cut him some slack He is one of the most chivalrous and galant posters Apolyton has.

Well I don't have enough experience with this forum to know people well enough, but my failing memory in my recent increasing senility seems to recall that he's been pretty reasonable in other responses to some of my threads that don't deal with politics. So I was just surprised at his outburst. I'm giving him some slack. That's why I responded. I have fallen prey to insults in the past too. It's human.

I think intelligent right-wingers exist. Unfortunately, I haven't come across too many of them. The same goes for "liberals" too. But being more *biased* towards liberal (I wouldn't necessarily call myself a liberal), it's easier to overlook. I think most people are generally stupid no matter what their politics.

This is why I tend to avoid most political discussion. I usually only post in political topics that are more philosophically based rather than anything that is going to be simplistically pigeonholed into a liberal/conservative polemic. Being rather bored of late, and the fact that I found Khan's post rather funny, I couldn't help it here.

Don't mind me, I'll just go on my merry way and stick to more mundane issues. They're less prone to futile flame wars.

	12-02-2002 09:54									#42
	Put an end to popups!

Here's the scoop. There is an incredible left-wing bias in the upper crust media. But everybody accepts this bias, considering that they do good work and generally reflect the views of the cities in which they reside.

Consider The Washington Post. Center-left to left. Every now and then they try to pass something off as fact that just ain't so. You have to watch them carefully. But really, they do excellent work by and large and the vast majority of the issues that they cover would be covered by a top-flight center-right to right paper, if there were any in this market.

Compare to The Washington Times. They are on the right. But the paper sucks on the whole, so nobody reads them.

I'm OK with this situation. If the right wants more right-wing bias than left-wing bias, they'll have to work for it with many years of solid journalism.

As to the gentleman who wrote this book, the journalistic profession has a vendetta against him, I'm afraid. Sad to see them stoop to attacking him personally.

	12-02-2002 10:02									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Remember, there are about a handful of people that control 90% of the world's meida/information.

Ted Turner is one, and Rupert Murdoch is another.

Almost everyone I've talked to says the media is liberal, but I am glad for one thing. Most newspapers don't contain people like the staff on my University's paper. Yikes, if they were any more liberal they'd be European.

"Tagging kegs so that the police can arrest me if minors drink from it is wrong!"

Ugh, I need to do something about it...

	12-02-2002 10:21									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I saw Bernard Goldberg interviewed on The News Hour about his book. His main point was the same as Ming's. Journalists come from such a narrow spectrum of the population and reside professionally with so many like-minded cronies that they don't see their own biases. Ironically, the journalist chosen to give the opposing viewpoint and the moderator, who was obviously another journalist could not understand even this basic premise, and the whole 15 minutes alloted to the segment was basically a waste of time, with Goldberg repeating his premise, and the opposing journalist arguing in non sequiters. Goldberg's point is that there is no conspiracy, just a lack of intellectual diversity.

The situation has changed a lot since the 1970s, when the broadcast news was dominated by the three major networks. The perception of bias came to a head in the 1980s (and bias here is a comparison of the news media's opinions to those of the general population of the U.S.), and the networks made strides to find and employ people whose opinions were more varied. Many if not most of these people came from government rather than journalism schools.

It is interesting to compare Journalists with Teachers and Lawyers. All three groups tend to be very cohesive politically (with Lawyers being the least so of the three), all three groups also tend to be much more liberal than the population at large, and all are in a position of trust, that of conveying and manipulating information for the good of society. All three groups are villified by the right, and held in general in low esteem by the public at large. I cannot think of three other groups in American society which give themselves more awards than these three, though if they won't do it who will?

I think it is proper to question and examine those who decide what news we see, or indoctrinate our children, or decide what the laws mean. While I may disagree with some of the aspersions cast from time to time, I don't think that the nation is well served by these important occupations being dominated by any particular political ideology, even if they all agreed with me.

	12-02-2002 10:27									#45
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Remember, there are about a handful of people that control 90% of the world's meida/information.

While I think you're overstating it a bit (The US media is controlled by a few corporation, but the world media is fairly diverse), your point is important.

During the past five years or so, mergers have left the US media in the hands of a few corporations. That is the most disturbing trend and one that can be measured objectively. The news people receive is being funnelled through the viewpoint of a few.

As for the original subject of this thread, it is an old lie put forth by conservatives and told so many times that people begin to believe it is the truth.

The US media is controlled by corporations and the coverage provided reflects their interests. You will not see stories about how the US might be better off with more diverse media ownership, or that corporations should pay higher taxes. These issues are simply not discussed.

As for journalist being liberal by nature, that's not really true. The corporate directors high senior media executives who come from the same background or believe in the same things. Those executives then hire editors who think along the same lines as they do. The editors then hire reporters who have similar beliefs.

A truly left-wing journalist is simply not going to make it up through the ranks to a position where they can influence the news.

Finally, what an American considers liberal, many others would consider conservative. Consider medicare. Canadians and Europeans would consider this a basic right. Americans see it as a socialist threat to their way of life.

Saying the American media is left-leaning is like saying Thatcher was a good liberal.

	12-02-2002 11:09									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

Tingai,

You assume that all money is connected with the right wing, and that there could thus not be a left wing bias in American journalism. This is not the case. The Democrat party, which is the leftmost party in the two-party dominated U.S. system get's it's money from fewer sources and in larger amounts per donation than it's Republican counterpart. The reason is that it is connected financially to fewer but wealthier people. The Republican party by the way is the larger of the two for eight years.

You also want to use an international basis for what is a national debate. Take a look at my definition of bias in the post above yours. It involves people who are uniformly out of step (in the same direction) from the mainstream U.S. citizen. This will seem as biased as Pravda articles in the 1950s if you are one of the majority who feels that his view is not represented. Everyone expects that opinions will vary between different nations and cultures, but one tends to think that his own media would present a viewpoint which was more popular within it's own market.

	12-02-2002 11:11									#47
	Suffering from ads?

quote: As for journalist being liberal by nature, that's not really true. The corporate directors high senior media executives who come from the same background or believe in the same things. Those executives then hire editors who think along the same lines as they do. The editors then hire reporters who have similar beliefs.

You aren't listening to Sikander and Ming and DanS. These senior editors come from journalism schools (mostly) and most of the people that emerge from there are left leaning. They want to 'change the world', per say.

quote: Finally, what an American considers liberal, many others would consider conservative. Consider medicare. Canadians and Europeans would consider this a basic right. Americans see it as a socialist threat to their way of life.

That is irrelevant. They are left wing in the American context and that is the context they are being discussed in. Simply because Europe is for national health care and journalists in the US seem to advocate that doesn't mean they are immediatly centrist. In the US context, where they report the news, they aren't.

	12-02-2002 11:41									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sikander: That was so well-reasoned that I'm going to have to disagree with you.

While we have every reason to question what we are receiving, it is silly to ask these institutions to change stripes and participate in a poltical quota system.

It doesn't matter if they represent a small slice of the electorate (which they don't--more like 35%, most of whom are urban), their voice was well-earned, or at least stolen fair-and-square. If the right wants its views heard by a wider audience, it's got to go out and build a solid journalistic tradition. Unfortunately, the conservative press is in the throes of narcisism that does little to upgrade its credibility to that wider audience. If you read the Washington Times at all, you know that they're going for that 10% conservative base.

	12-02-2002 15:24									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As far as the US network news go, they are mostly odd. And what you try here is like sticking a political bias on a fashion magazine.

	12-02-2002 19:48									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

We're running into a problem of defining what is left. The Democrats are obviously to the left of the Republicans, but that doesn't mean they are left wingers. More like centrist (In Canada we would call them red Tories). Of course, that is my opinion. That was the point of my previous message about how Americans perceive the political left differently than Canadians or European. The term "left" is subjective and we need a common definition or we'll end up talking in circles.

The idea that most journalists want to change the world is a myth. Ambition is the common denominator, not a sense of idealism, at least for successful journalist. There are so many people trying to get too few jobs that idealist quickly get filtered out.

As for journalism schools producing left-leaning journalists, that simply is not the case. Nothing taught at j-schools would produce this political bent. The people I knew at j-school, and other grads I have met, have come from a variety of political backgrounds. They are not out of step with the mainstream, although they have problems relating to the working class (lower class, blue collar workers, whatever you want to call them).

Having said that I think there is some validity in Goldberg's theory if he is arguing that, as Sikander writes, "Journalists come from such a narrow spectrum of the population."

A journalism degree is now a basic requirement for most media jobs. That has eliminated an old segment of the media: people who have no post-secondary education, but who instead work their way up through the ranks. So the media is now solidly middle and upper class and the issues being reported upon are those that reflect the interests of these two classes.

I would, however, disagree with the idea that journalists "reside professionally with so many like-minded cronies." Journalists, by the nature of their jobs, often have contacts with a greater part of the population than most people. The political reporter will deal with politicians from different parties. The court reporter deals with prosecutors and defense counsel. General news reporter talk to everyone. Admitedly some beats are not so diverse (Police reporters tend to start think like cops after a while).


By the way, the link provided at the beginning of this thread does not provide any information about Goldberg's theory other than "The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore." In other words, we've told this lie enough times that we don't need to back it up with any flimsy proof.

	12-02-2002 23:30									#51
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Squealing childishly and endlessly about other people freely expressing their opinions is either dim-witted or anti-democratic----take your choice. So if I get mad about someone saying something about 'The Nazi's were right', that would mean I'm either dim-witted or anti-democratic, because I oppose a person freely expressing their opinion

But this is the whole point. You aren't refuting any arguments by making this claim, you aren't opposing any liberal ideas. You are instead complaining about people who you percieve as liberals expressing their ideas.

Nobody makes decisions based on their "bias". They make decisions based on what they think is right. Journalists do not wake up in the morning and say: "Hmmmm. How can I give that Enron piece a liberal slant?" Nor do they ask themselves "Is this story liberal enough? Should I play up the rich/poor angle more?" Instead they just write stories as well as they can, including the points they think relevent or interesting. If the resulting stories include a preponderance of certain types of ideas, then we must assume that journalists believe in them (or think that their audience will like them). And how can you complain about people writing things that they believe in?

You say that they should have to "advertise" themselves as having a bias? This is a ludicrous suggestion. First of all no one thinks they have a bias. They think they know the truth. Don't you?

Secondly, how in God's name are we supposed to enforce this ridiculous requirement? Are we going to grade the various media on a point system and allow only those who print a certain amount of conservative material to advertise themselves as centrist? Okay, then. Should the National Review be forced to print a certain amount of liberal material or else be forced to "advertise" itself as 'crypto-fascist'? Why not just set up a nice simple board of censorship that can tell media whether we are at war with Eurasia or not?

quote: And check the bolded part. They can't complain? So you are now taking free speech away?

Clearly this means "can't justly complain". This should be obvious. Really Imran, you don't have to go to any trouble to provide me with evidence for my "dim-witted reactionaries" remark. Thanks, but I don't need the help.

quote: Do you want your news to be what is most popular, or that which reports the facts?

I always want accurate reporting. Who doesn't? But there are a million stories in the naked city and I only have time to read three of them each day. Somebody has to select them for me. And that person pretty much has to be a journalist. If he doesn't do a good job of choosing interesting stories, or if I suspect he isn't covering the whole story, then I will look elsewhere. But I won't whine endlessly about him having a certain opinion.
--------------------------

Ultimately all I am doing here is pointing out the inherent contradiction in the right-wingers endless complaints that they are "discriminated" against by the evil liberal media. But let me state the dilemma plainly:

If there is, as right-wingers suggest, such a huge unfulfilled demand for conservative media, then why isn't National Review the most popular magazine in America? And if there isn't such demand, then why should the media cater to their unpopular opinions?

	12-02-2002 23:57									#52
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Khan Singh If there is, as right-wingers suggest, such a huge unfulfilled demand for conservative media, then why isn't National Review the most popular magazine in America? And if there isn't such demand, then why should the media cater to their unpopular opinions?

But there was a big demand for more "conservative" media...
And Fox News Net was set up to answer that need. And as can be seen in the ratings, it is doing VERY well... with much of it's audience coming from CNN... people who weren't happy with the more liberal bent of CNN...

And as far as the National Review not being popular... many people haven't heard of it. If more people were exposed to it (those with VERY conservative leanings) then it would be more popular. But face it... none of the political journals... National Journal, Congressional Quarterly, New Repulic... have very large circulations...

	13-02-2002 00:14									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I never said that the conservatives' assertion was true. I merely posed a dilemma arising from their own contention. My argument works just as well either way. If there is a signifigant conservative press in the US then obviously the media is fairly balanced. So then what are conservatives complaining about? If, on the other hand, they are complaining about something that they know is false---- for tactical reasons---- then the ones who are complaining are villians and the ones who believe it are simpletons.

In fact I don't see any real reason to think that there is any signifigant bias in American media. The most popular newspaper in the US is the Wall Street Journal. NBC is the top rated news broadcast. Fox News is doing just fine. Where is this so-called media bias? The Nation? PBS?

Last edited by Khan Singh on 13-02-2002 at 00:22

	13-02-2002 00:33									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

US media left wing? Compared to what? Nazi-Germany?

*climbes into his flameproof shelter*

	13-02-2002 00:36									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia All I want is objective journalism.

There IS no objective journalism, everybody is biased in one way or another.

	13-02-2002 00:40									#56
	Remove this text

Balls.

	13-02-2002 01:45									#57
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I dont want a more conservative media, all I want is the facts. Goldberg has plenty of evidence in his book of liberal bias in the media, so if you want proof you will have to read it.

quote: Nobody makes decisions based on their "bias". They make decisions based on what they think is right. Journalists do not wake up in the morning and say: "Hmmmm. How can I give that Enron piece a liberal slant?" Nor do they ask themselves "Is this story liberal enough? Should I play up the rich/poor angle more?" Instead they just write stories as well as they can, including the points they think relevent or interesting. If the resulting stories include a preponderance of certain types of ideas, then we must assume that journalists believe in them (or think that their audience will like them). And how can you complain about people writing things that they believe in?

It is not the function of a journalist to insert their opinion into the news, all they are there for is to keep the rest of us informed. Im not saying they intentionally slant the news, I think it just happens because the reporter doesnt make enough of an effort to be objective.

Distortion of facts is a big problem when those distorted facts are reported to a wide audience. Then everybody is misinformed.

	13-02-2002 03:11									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kamrat X There IS no objective journalism, everybody is biased in one way or another.

There is objective journalism, just not enough of it. Just because everybody has some kind of bias does not mean they can never be objective.

	13-02-2002 04:10									#59
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia There is objective journalism, just not enough of it. Just because everybody has some kind of bias does not mean they can never be objective.

Well, IMO the bias tends to stand in the way of objectivity.

	13-02-2002 04:18									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kamrat X Well, IMO the bias tends to stand in the way of objectivity.

Sure it does, but only if you let it. Objectivity is not impossible.