Bias+in+the+News


 * Project Status:** 8/8 Sources [6/6 articles, 2/2 images]

Just need one more article and an image.

Andy, what's the source on the table?

From Andy http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2581 43% no || 77% yes 18% no || 35% no || 64% yes 29% no ||
 * Issue || Opinion of Pundits || Opinion of Public ||
 * Do a few large companies have too much power? || 57% yes
 * Is it Washington’s responsibility to guarantee health coverage? || 43% yes
 * Employers should provide their employees with health care coverage (prioritize). || 32% high priority || 47% high priority ||
 * Would you rate the economic situation average to poor? || 5% yes || 34% yes ||
 * NAFTA? || 71% pro || 10% pro ||

To achieve this, the media must appear to function independently and speak with many different voices when, in fact, it simply reiterates the same message from numerous vantage points. A simple [|Google] search of any headline story will confirm the truth of this.
 * The ultimate goal** of any privately owned information-system is to assert complete control over the news-cycle so that events can be arranged in a way that serves the needs of business. The public must be prevented from seeing the conjugal relationship between the state and industry.
 * There is no diversity of opinion in mainstream news. It is regimented and uniform.**

This explains why the vast majority of stories are diversionary accounts of weather-related tragedies and abductions of blond-white women rather than substantive coverage of real economic and political events. We cannot expect impartiality from a privately-owned system where the main players have such an obvious stake in the outcome. Nor can such a system be "//free//" in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact, the illusion of a "//free press//" is without question the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
 * Commercial media** is designed to stimulate desire for consumer goods and to avoid any information that might instigate greater involvement in the political process.
 * The privately-owned media operates in a way** that runs counter to the ideal of maintaining an "//informed public//" in a [|participatory democracy] . It is a top-down model which hands over control of information to a class of corporate gatekeepers whose judgment is overshadowed by their desire to maximize profits.
 * 1) **How can a "//privately-owned//"** profit-driven, politically-connected industry be a "//free press//"? And,


 * 1) **Why do people continue** to expect independent, evenhanded coverage from organizations that have no allegiance to anyone other than their shareholders?

The media has to function within its own rules and parameters; it is structurally limited to "//bottom-line//" considerations. That makes "//unbiased analysis//" virtually impossible. "//[|Taking back the media]//" is meaningless sloganeering. The real goal is to create as many independent sources of information as possible to counter the ubiquitous "//corporate narrative//" of the media giants. To large extent, this has been achieved via the Internet.
 * The Internet is**, in many ways, the perfect democratic model for information-distribution. The public is free to seek their information from a wide range of options and, (from what we can deduce) they normally go to sites that provide news that is consistent with their own world view.

That is why the media has very deliberately prevented leftists, liberals and progressives from appearing on mainstream programs. There is a cynical belief that if these voices are excluded, then the people who share their views will feel marginalized and powerless. This sense of impotence promotes inaction and further withdrawal from the political process. Ironically, the exclusion of leftist spokespeople has only directed more rage at the establishment-media and deepened the divisions between opposing groups. The corporate autocrats who promote this system of exclusion have no idea of what its costs to society will be, or whether it will eventually trigger widespread social upheaval. Silencing groups of people with whom we disagree, forces them to express themselves in less constructive ways. Censorship paves the way for violence. The present system is so narrow ideologically that it is destructive to the basic principles on which the country was founded. The media offers no protection for the basic rights laid out in the [|US Constitution]. Rather, it has become the soap-box for fanatical government officials spouting their rationalizations for torture, rendition, aggressive warfare, and spying on American citizens. All of these extreme forms of human rights abuse have been normalized by the commercial media. It demonstrates that there is a concerted effort to soften the public's attitudes towards fundamental moral issues like corruption and war crimes. These are issues that require public engagement and mobilization to affect drastically needed change in policy. Time and again the media has revealed itself to be the adversary of the public interest and the common good. In its present configuration it is a direct threat to civil liberties, social equity, and world peace. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring this monolithic octopus which has extended its tentacles into every corner of the body politic. The damage it has caused is already far too great. Dismantling America's media monopoly should be a central part of any progressive political platform.
 * Is there a predisposition to news coverage?** Do people naturally gravitate to sites which reaffirm their own basic convictions about reality and the world? It seems so.
 * While the media has ignored** the damage to our constitution and the perils of an all-powerful executive, it has intentionally mitigated the disastrous effects of [|global warming], [|nuclear proliferation] and [|global energy depletion] (Peak oil).
 * Instead, the media diverts attention** to meaningless drivel like gay marriage, "//color-coded//" terror alerts, or [|Jennifer Aniston] 's marital problems.
 * Democracy is impossible** where information can be controlled by a few powerful corporations that shape the narrative to suit their own self-serving objectives. There must be unrestricted access to the facts that we need to make informed decisions about the issues that affect our lives and the future of the country.
 * By increasing funding for independent and public media** and by applying strict regulations to the size and influence of the media giants, we can resuscitate the "//marketplace of ideas//" and create an environment where divergent points of view can flourish. This will ignite greater citizen involvement and fuel the national debate. Given the tremendous power of the media-giants this seems like an insurmountable task. Regrettably, there are no easy options.
 * If the present system persists**, civil liberties will continue to dwindle while the nation lurches from one war to the next. We're better off steeling ourselves to the job ahead, broadening our base of support, and breaking up this media-monster once and for all.

Originally written by Mike Whitney and entitled "It's Time To Break Up The Media."

"Traditional Media As Instruments To Shape Public Opinion And To Elicit Support For The Corporate Agenda." //Professional Online Publishing: New Media Trends, Communication Skills, Online Marketing - Robin Good's MasterNewMedia//. Web. 22 Mar. 2010. .

"Exhibit 2-2: What the People Want from the Press." //Media// //Research Center//. Media Research Center, 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2010. .

In November 1996, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) partnered with the Louis Harris Organization to poll 3,000 people about their attitudes toward the press. According to the poll, those who saw a liberal bias outnumbered those who perceived a conservative bias by two-to-one. The results of the poll were published in the May/June 1997 // Media Monitor //, the CMPA’s newsletter, and later released as a 226-page report, What the People Want from the Press.

CMPA reported: “Majorities of all major groups in the population, including 70 percent of self-described liberals, now see a ‘fair amount’ or ‘great deal’ of bias in the news. In general, perceptions of bias rise along with levels of education and political participation.” “Those who see a liberal tilt outnumber those who detect a conservative bias by more than a two to one margin. Forty-three percent describe the news media’s perspective on politics as liberal, compared to 33 percent who see it as a middle of the road, and 19 percent who find it to be conservative.” “Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative.” “These findings challenge the argument of some journalists that bias is purely in the eye of the beholder. Although conservatives are three times more likely to see liberal rather than conservative bias, moderates and liberals alike see liberal bias in the media twice as often as they see conservative bias,” CMPA concluded
 * KEY FINDINGS **:

Why does the public largely associate positive character traits with Bush if coverage has been so negative? To assess that, researchers at the University of Missouri took a closer look at the polling data. First they looked at responses to the character themes overall to see if paying more attention to news media was having an effect. Next they looked at each character theme see which ones in particular were impacted by news consumption. What they found was that, first, news consumption indeed was influencing how people saw the candidates. The more attention they paid to the news, the more they tended view the candidates they way they were portrayed in the press. What's more looking at the themes individually, there is statistical evidence the coverage is having a mixed effect theme by theme. First, the press coverage so far is not having any measurable effect on people's perception of President Bush. For Kerry, the coverage tends to persuade people both that Kerry is a tough guy who won't give up and that he is a rich elitist. The biggest factor influencing opinions of the candidates, the analysis shows, was naturally people's political orientation and candidate preferences. But when these political preferences were controlled for-along with demographic variables like race, gender, education and age-the researchers were able to isolate that people who consume more press coverage about the race are more likely to think Kerry is both tough and an elitist. There is no measurable effect on their perceptions at this point of the President on his major character themes. The influence of news coverage, moreover, may be more important in the states that will play the biggest role in the election, the so-called "battleground states," those where the electorate is fairly evenly divided and thus where the candidates are spending most of their time and money. The reason is that people in these states are paying more attention to campaign coverage than elsewhere, according to the survey data. And while the candidates are spending more on ads in these places, the ads here are failing to have a measurable impact on voter attitudes about the character themes, with one exception: people who see more Bush ads in battleground states are more likely to agree with the theme that Bush is strong and decisive. For now, it is less clear what impact the press coverage or even ads are having on undecided voters. They are less engaged, but that will likely change as Election Day draws nearer. Incidentally, in non-battleground states, the only statistically significant effect of ads is that those who see more Bush ads tend to say Kerry flip flops. Some critics may leap to the conclusion that these findings confirm their suspicions of a liberal bias in the press. Others may argue that the coverage of the President has been more negative than positive since March because the news events have turned against him, from Richard Clarke challenging the President's pre-war thinking to the revelations of prisoner abuse and the continuing instability of the situation in Iraq. An incumbent president naturally reflects the news of the day. Had this study been done during the war itself or in the months leading up to it, these observers might argue, the coverage would have been more positive for Bush. We cannot answer this debate. A similar study four years ago, however, found that the coverage was more positive for Bush than for his Democratic rival, Al Gore. That raises several possibilities, including that the tenor of coverage simply follows events. Or maybe there is a tendency for the press to be more skeptical about the devil it knows best than the devil knows least.

[]


 * Bias**

//Towards Particular Political Views// A bias towards a certain political viewpoint can stem from the pundit's bias, by funding from political parties, or from the owner of the News Company's personal bias. It is generally believed that the media has a liberal slant, but stark exceptions include Fox News, the Economist, and the radio programs of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. Some strongly liberal/leftist media institutions are MSNBC and Democracy Now!

//Ignoring Important Stories// Ignoring the important, "need-to-know" stories, and instead telling the sensational "want-to-know" stories.


 * Fabrication**

Journalists make up facts and sources in the stories they produce. Causes include lazyness and/or an attempt to "tell a good story and ignore the facts that get in the way of telling that story." 1]


 * Partial Story**

//Limitations// The partial story perspective on objective reporting states that it is impossible for journalists to be objective as they, due to limitations, are not reporting on the entire story. As a result, viewers recieve a "distorted picture." 1]

//Single Perspective// Story is told from a single perspective--all sides of the story are not reported. 1]


 * Context**

Context provides the backbone for any story. If journalists do not include adequate background information, the meaning of a story can be changed alltogether. By limiting a report solely to the facts, justifiable motives are ignored. 1]


 * Balance**

Balanced journalism acknowledges multiple points of view and attempts to record them equally so as to help with objectivity in writing. 1]


 * Further Reading**

1. Chapter 12 "News"

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[] Political Bias http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/opinion/10iht-edcross_ed3_.html?pagewanted=1 (NY OP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1043 (Ratings) http://www.journalism.org/node/523 ("Ideological splintering less severe") [] []

Greenberg, Steve. "Media Bias Against Isreal?" Cartoon. //The Editorial Cartoons of Steve Greenberg//. 2004. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .

McCoy, Gary. "Liberal Media Bias." Cartoon. //Caglecartoons.com//. Oct. 2008. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. . Allie, Eric. "Fox News." Cartoon. //Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoonists Index//. MSNBC. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. . examples : []