• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Can a News Item Be Covered Fairly From a Conservative Perpsective?

Started by Zircon, August 28, 2012, 09:14:07 AM

Zircon

General question that most all of us should have an opinion on.

stevesh

If I understand the question, I'd say no. Real journalism (which I assume is what you meant by 'covered') is by definition bias-free and can't begin from any 'perspective'.

McPhallus

Quote from: Zircon on August 28, 2012, 09:14:07 AM
General question that most all of us should have an opinion on.

What's the difference between a perspective and a bias?  Not much.  Most people's definition of "fair" means something doesn't range too far from their own prejudices.

Zircon

Steve, That is a textbook answer and is true. What I was suggesting is whether or not an issue can be reported upon in a fair manner providing the listener with the positions from opposite camps and the reasons why those positions are held.

Thing is that both MSNBC and Fox are viewed as mostly "news" programs. While they inform the public as to what is going on, they both have their leanings.

Further, several program aren't "news" but "editorializing" and "opinion". Fox has made it a point of emphasizing that a program is an "opinion" program (O'Reilly, Hannity, Huckabee state these formats for example) while other networks (MSNBC, CNN etc.) do not. Those other networks advertise themselves as providing the listener with the pure, unbiased and unfiltered truth - it is not.

Unfortunately, most networks hold animosity towards one another and are constantly engaged in a pissing contest.

Hey BTW, who was your former avatar a picture of? This one is Desi Arnez is it not?

Zircon

Quote from: McPhallus on August 28, 2012, 09:45:39 AM
What's the difference between a perspective and a bias?  Not much.  Most people's definition of "fair" means something doesn't range too far from their own prejudices.
Yep, I think you're close on that McP - the "prejudices" probably lie with the listener. I'm just asking if both sides can be treated with respect by the network reporting on their positions? It is hard to adhere to that at increasingly as we're seeing more outrageous behavior and accusations by the left - primarily. Many seemed contrived and personal/character attacks rather than issue differences.

Reporting on them as fact by the left surpasses "fairness". It is clearly "prejudice". I'm sure the right says things but are going to be more careful as they realize they have very few "friends" in the media. The left knows they do - and a lot of them.

To my knowledge, Fox seems to be the only network reporting on some of the more outrageous comments made by left that are too embarrassing for the left media to expose. If Fox reports on these is that bias or is it reporting on what is being said and what accusations are in being leveled.

The non-conservative media is clearly anti-conservative. They will also not criticize anything the administration is doing while bashing the right continuously. "Prejudice" ... certainly. It is much more visceral by the left in my opinion.

b_dubb

Quote from: stevesh on August 28, 2012, 09:39:58 AM
If I understand the question, I'd say no. Real journalism (which I assume is what you meant by 'covered') is by definition bias-free and can't begin from any 'perspective'.
good fucking answer dude +1


i get the sense that Zirc thinks if someone is not FOR the Conservative cause then it is automatically AGAINST it.  unfortunate

stevesh

Quote from: Zircon on August 28, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
Steve, That is a textbook answer and is true. What I was suggesting is whether or not an issue can be reported upon in a fair manner providing the listener with the positions from opposite camps and the reasons why those positions are held.

Thing is that both MSNBC and Fox are viewed as mostly "news" programs. While they inform the public as to what is going on, they both have their leanings.

Further, several program aren't "news" but "editorializing" and "opinion". Fox has made it a point of emphasizing that a program is an "opinion" program (O'Reilly, Hannity, Huckabee state these formats for example) while other networks (MSNBC, CNN etc.) do not. Those other networks advertise themselves as providing the listener with the pure, unbiased and unfiltered truth - it is not.

Unfortunately, most networks hold animosity towards one another and are constantly engaged in a pissing contest.

Hey BTW, who was your former avatar a picture of? This one is Desi Arnez is it not?

Well, I hope this isn't going to veer into the same old Left vs. Right direction, but I guess I'd say that it's up to the reader/viewer/listener to differentiate between News and Commentary on any given media outlet. The fact that so many people seem to be unable to do so is a big part of the problem, I think.

Both MSNBC and Fox News do both news and commentary, but the commentary is done by the respective network 'stars', so it gets a lot more attention.

I will say that the outlets that are considered 'Left' (MSNBC, NYTimes, Washington Post, et. al.) seem to be more likely to demonstrate their bias by omission than those considered 'Right', in that they just don't cover certain people or topics.

My old avatar was a photo of a British actor from the '50s and '60s named Nicol Williamson. One of my favorites, though he didn't make many films - mostly a stage actor. Coastgabber expat worked with Williamson during his acting career. My new avatar is indeed 'Ricky Ricardo'.

analog kid

Quote from: b_dubb on August 28, 2012, 10:19:53 AM
good fucking answer dude +1


i get the sense that Zirc thinks if someone is not FOR the Conservative cause then it is automatically AGAINST it.  unfortunate

I get the sense that criticizing the Republican party isn't acceptable at all, and any time a media outlet does so, for any reason, it's automatically "liberal propaganda."

A Pew study found that Obama received more negative press than the GOP candidates, throughout this campaign season, on all the media networks. How does that jive with the right's insistence that they're being persecuted?

stevesh

Quote from: analog kid on August 28, 2012, 11:21:32 AM
I get the sense that criticizing the Republican party isn't acceptable at all, and any time a media outlet does so, for any reason, it's automatically "liberal propaganda."

A Pew study found that Obama received more negative press than the GOP candidates, throughout this campaign season, on all the media networks. How does that jive with the right's insistence that they're being persecuted?

Well, Jesus, I guess this is the Politics forum.

I don't think the Right thinks of itself as persecuted, just mostly ignored in some media outlets.

As for President Obama getting more negative press than the Republicans, one could argue that he deserves it. A lot of folks on the Left are severely disappointed in the guy (mostly for the wrong reasons, IMO) and the knives are coming out. Hell hath no fury as a Leftie scorned.

Zircon

Quote from: stevesh on August 28, 2012, 11:31:43 AM
Well, Jesus, I guess this is the Politics forum.

I don't think the Right thinks of itself as persecuted, just mostly ignored in some media outlets.

As for President Obama getting more negative press than the Republicans, one could argue that he deserves it. A lot of folks on the Left are severely disappointed in the guy (mostly for the wrong reasons, IMO) and the knives are coming out. Hell hath no fury as a Leftie scorned.

I feel you are the voice of reason.

He has been treated more like a "candidate" than a sitting president. Yes, I hope so. He has been campaigning since he got into the White House. Just what exactly has he accomplished that has had any positive impact on our nation and the direction it is headed? I'm asking analog. You tell me.

Blubb - I don't know how you came to that conclusion (for v. against). I'm simply asking a question about the willingness of either side to be honest in their news reporting. Clearly "opinion" programming is biased. The left tends to be more divisive in my opinion.

Analog - if you think Obama has been given a harder time then perhaps he deserves it since he is in office with a track record to defend. And don't tell me ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC are treating Obama harshly. With the free ride he has received since being inaugurated it would seem any objectivity applied to him now - any objectivity - is viewed as being "hard" on him.

analog kid

I have a hurricane barreling down at my house, and I'm busy getting wasted on cheap booze, so I'm unable to continue this discussion at this time. Have a good one, gentlemen.

Megadeth - Tornado of Souls

Zircon

What I tried to do here is ask a simple question.

I added a comment following Steve's initial response explaining why I felt one side seemed to be less inclined to be truly objective than the other. By pointing this out, in no way, was I trying to suggest that the other side was truly objective or saint like (for dubb).

The one thing I will stress however is that the conservative/right/republican (you're choice) is viewed harshly (varying levels) by the overwhelmingly by the rest of the media in its many forms.

By finding themselves in this unenviable position and while trying to get their points across to the viewing public, the conservative media make more efforts in verifying/vetting their information before broadcasting it. They often use the other side's own words and video to do so. Some of the latest accusations directed at Romney, by the left and democrats, ought to support my position on this.

Zircon

Good luck to you analog. Hopefully all in your family and your properties will be spared. Looking forward to your return.

stevesh

Quote from: analog kid on August 28, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
I have a hurricane barreling down at my house, and I'm busy getting wasted on cheap booze

Good luck, but I would think that this would be a good time to break out the good stuff.

onan

I am so tired of opinions being offered as news. The news hasn't been the news in this country for at least 35 years.

I am sick of deciphering news from bad guy versus good guy. I am sick of being pandered to, sick of non-news being news. I am sick of corporations being the major funding for news shows.

I wish the government would grow some balls and force regulation to present facts on topical issues. I wish we still respected honest debate.

I am tired of news outraging me rather than rationally informing me.

I am real tired of the bimbo that lets me know how deadly my cleaning products are.

News shouldn't be conservative or liberal. Picking a side and thinking they are always right is behavior for 10 year olds, not adults.

Zircon

Onan, those are good reasons to be tired - I hear you.

You made a couple of comments:

"I wish the government would grow some balls and force regulation to present facts on topical issues. I wish we still respected honest debate.

and

I am tired of news outraging me rather than rationally informing me."

I'm not so sure if I want the government to set mandates for reporting on the "facts". We both realize how corrupt and self-serving the government is so don't you think that would give them way too much control over what is discussed or presented? Apply that philosophy to the internet and what would we have? Isn't there an ongoing battle or sorts for the "authorities" to control the information on the internet?

I'd be weary of allowing the government to interject itself anymore than it has. The "press" was supposed to be a watchdog. Handing the leash to the government might not be such a good idea. The media is historically a treat to controlling interests - so they bought the up (GE for example).

On "honest debate" I couldn't agree with you more. I think you'd find little dissent by anyone in this forum with that. But the kicker is whether or not the listening/viewing audience would recognize it as such? I mean people are thinking less and less and are trending (already arrived) to a binary "with 'em" or "agin' them" mindset. Emotional, mindless entertainment and geared towards a minimal mental effort ... look at "reality" TV ... total bullshit.

"Outraging" you is the new "awareness". The major media is finding they have to revert to "feel good" stories and stories that sometimes rival "Entertainment Tonight" in order to keep viewers (dwindling numbers) around. If you compare Fox and even some left leaning cable news to the alphabet soup networks, their news reporting, whether you agree with the content/positions taken or not, is geared more towards thinking people. If you notice the commercials you'll realize the viewership is older for Fox. Not sure about MSNBC. CNN used to be centrist years ago.

Again entertainment and emotion rule. Facts bore today's general audience.

Juan

I worked in TV news for 25-years.  I found most news people to be somewhat left of center, but only somewhat.  Limbaugh talks about there being a template that news people apply to everything, and I found that to be generally so.  News people, because they work odd hours and don't make very much until reaching the largest markets, tend to have only other news people as friends.  So they rarely hear any side of an issue outside the template.  I was also very surprised to see how little they read - not books, not even news magazines.

For those reasons, while it's possible to fairly cover things, I doubt anything will be.

Sardondi

I don't think that the mirror-image of today's media is the answer. But there wouldn't even be a need for the question if we had anything close to an unbiased media and unbiased coverage.

I'd settle for politically unbiased coverage - something we haven't had since at least the early 70's. The rise of the incredibly self-absorbed, self-righteous and selfish Boomer Generation - which is my cohort - , Vietnam and Watergate all combined to fundamentally change our news gathering and reporting. By the mid-70's the news suddenly belonged heart and soul to the Democrat Party.

There really had been a time when it was as if Joe Friday from the old Dragnet series was giving the news - "Just the facts, ma'am". It might have been boring, but no one had a finger on the scales. And the reporters would sooner die than insert any opinion into their work. They took great pride in keeping their readers/viewers in complete ignorance of their political views (which were far more conservative than today).

40 years later and the news media is overwhelmingly made up of persons whose personal political beliefs are at the far left of the political spectrum, and they wear their politics on their sleeves. Far from trying to hide their opinions, they feel it their duty to publish them. They band together to share methods and means to tilt the story and to coordinate entire news campaigns on behalf of their team. ("JournoList" strike a familiar chord?). This is in striking contrast to the American people themselves, who have shown generation after generation they are center-right in politics and culture.

The left bleeds from the ears when they hear it, but, all things considered, Fox does a better job of trying to keep it down the middle than any other news outfit. There's even a discernible move leftward by FNN; something which I predict will happen big time when Rupert Murdoch departs the scene.

News from a conservative perspective from the major networks? I'd settle for them resigning from the I-wanna-help-the-left club.

Quote from: UFO Fill on August 28, 2012, 01:51:48 PM
I worked in TV news for 25-years.  I found most news people to be somewhat left of center, but only somewhat. ...

I wouldn't disagree with that at all if you were working with any but a national news organization or a leading news daily such as the NYT, etc. But the surveys of news workers, whether carried out by industry organs or major polling concerns and which  had broad participation, have been telling us for decades that, at the national level, newsies are on average much more liberal in every phase of American life than the usual Americans. But I understand what you're saying: the news people I worked with from local TV and radio, weren't all that different, on the whole, than other folks. Mainly they seemed to drink more, do more and harder drugs, and do more screwing of other folks' spouses. You know, have more outrageous times.

onan

It is impossible to keep bias out of this forum.

I don't even know what the mirror image of news means, nor do I care for more shit that may cause "my ears to bleed".

The news didn't bring about the gulf of tonkin incident. Watergate wasn't created by the news. Political parties with the purpose of misleading the US population did that.

Prior to the 70's news wasn't for profit. Profit seeking for news has changed the tool to inform to the tool to manipulate.

Quote from: onan on August 28, 2012, 12:47:56 PM
I am so tired of opinions being offered as news. The news hasn't been the news in this country for at least 35 years.

I am sick of deciphering news from bad guy versus good guy. I am sick of being pandered to, sick of non-news being news. I am sick of corporations being the major funding for news shows.

I wish the government would grow some balls and force regulation to present facts on topical issues. I wish we still respected honest debate.

I am tired of news outraging me rather than rationally informing me.

I am real tired of the bimbo that lets me know how deadly my cleaning products are.

News shouldn't be conservative or liberal. Picking a side and thinking they are always right is behavior for 10 year olds, not adults.

I agree with all this, except govt regulations on what should be presented

Quote from: analog kid on August 28, 2012, 11:21:32 AM
I get the sense that criticizing the Republican party isn't acceptable at all, and any time a media outlet does so, for any reason, it's automatically "liberal propaganda."...

The 'Conservative' talk radio hosts I listen to (although infrequently) - Rush, Hannity, Mark Levine - are often critical of the R's, pretty much daily, sometimes they can be very harsh.  Usually it's the ones they consider RINOs - Republicans in name only - sometimes others who make a comment or cast a vote that they (the hosts) don't like. 

Quote from: Sardondi on August 28, 2012, 02:17:22 PM
...  I'd settle for politically unbiased coverage - something we haven't had since at least the early 70's. The rise of the incredibly self-absorbed, self-righteous and selfish Boomer Generation - which is my cohort - , Vietnam and Watergate all combined to fundamentally change our news gathering and reporting. By the mid-70's the news suddenly belonged heart and soul to the Democrat Party...

Historically, it was never unbiased.   All the way back to colonial times most cities and towns have had at least 2 daily papers with each party being supported by one or more paper.  Sometimes things got pretty rough.  What happened in the Viet Nam/Watergate era was the media discovering just how powerful they were - able to end a war and able to bring down a sitting president. 

Now we are down to an activist media with the difference being nearly all support the Ds, and whose members are there 'to make a difference' rather than to report the news.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: analog kid on August 28, 2012, 12:20:44 PM
I have a hurricane barreling down at my house, and I'm busy getting wasted on cheap booze, so I'm unable to continue this discussion at this time. Have a good one, gentlemen.

Megadeth - Tornado of Souls


may luck be with you.

b_dubb

stevesh said it best ... adding "perspective" means it's no longer news.  it becomes opinion.  leave the perspective out and let the reader read.  journalism isn't about passing opinions to the people.  its supposed to be about presenting information in an objective fashion.  as best as any furry little mammal can be objective.


also ... best of luck with hurricane.  drink up.  best part of a hurricane is the party.  drank my way through several while i lived in North Carolina

McPhallus

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 28, 2012, 05:15:48 PM
Historically, it was never unbiased.   All the way back to colonial times most cities and towns have had at least 2 daily papers with each party being supported by one or more paper.  Sometimes things got pretty rough.  What happened in the Viet Nam/Watergate era was the media discovering just how powerful they were - able to end a war and able to bring down a sitting president. 

Now we are down to an activist media with the difference being nearly all support the Ds, and whose members are there 'to make a difference' rather than to report the news.

What I've never understood is why newspapers--to this DAY--endorse political candidates.  What the fuck.

Sardondi

Quote from: Paper*Boy on August 28, 2012, 05:15:48 PM

Historically, it was never unbiased.   All the way back to colonial times most cities and towns have had at least 2 daily papers with each party being supported by one or more paper.  Sometimes things got pretty rough.  What happened in the Viet Nam/Watergate era was the media discovering just how powerful they were - able to end a war and able to bring down a sitting president. 


Actually this is the big secret. We had a time from the 1940's-60's - with the advent of TV news and the whole McLuhan hot/cool medium distinction which changed our ideas of presenting information - when the new kids on the block (TV nets) made a concerted effort to appear evenhanded.

But you're right that there has never truly been unbiased news. In fact, other than the post-war decades, we've always had slanted news. My God, the 18th century broadsheet wars and news papers owned by poltical factions or parties, the newspapers of the Civil War, Randolph Hearst of the late 19th and early 20th century - our media today pales in comparison to the brutal cutthroat wars which newspapers in those days engaged in.

The difference is, because of how the TV news tried to do it up through the 60's, the nets and major dailies are still pretending they are trying to be evenhanded. It's insulting.   

analog kid

Quote from: MV on August 28, 2012, 07:21:55 PM

may luck be with you.

Thanks. Still have power, etc., but I'm all out of booze. It's going to be a long three days. Isaac is creeping along at about ten mph.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod