People on the far left and right each think that the all other media caters to their opponents views. But these people typically get most of their news from networks that cater to them (i.e. Fox, MSNBC, NPR, Rush, etc.). Therefore, when a standard media outlet such as ABC or CBS presents the news in a non-biased fashion, it appears very slanted to the normal viewer that watches Fox New / MSNBC predominantly.
Also, humans that work for news networks possess their own opinions and views, and although a good journalist should not let their own views govern how the new is reported, it does happen from time to time. It is easy for each side to find these isolated incidents and then paint a network as biased or corrupt.
That is just the world we live in until Skynet becomes self-aware.
So I'm curious how NPR is leftist (assuming that's what you're saying). It's the only news I listen to regularly and I've really tried to pinpoint why people say this, but to no avail. This morning, for instance, they had a story about Iraqis not wanting the U.S. to withdraw our troops. Doesn't seem leftist to me.
I was just using NPR as an example as they are wildly regarded as being more liberal then most news agencies. In my own life travels I have noted that the people I know that typically vote democratic listen to NPR and those that vote republican don't listen to NPR.
I can't verify if NPR has a liberal slant because I haven't listened to them is years (I prefer to listen to PJ on my iPod when driving :thumbup: ).
Out of curiosity, would you agree that a majority of their common listeners tend to be liberal?
You're missing the point. Yes, there are some media that veers to the left and some to the right in their biases, but as a whole, the whole media for our nation is not skewed to the left, it's actual far from it.. it's big business interests and nothing more. Solely because MSNBC or CNN veers left does not mean the whole media is skewed that ways just as FOX's right does not represent the whole media. Those are singular examples of specific stations. If you want to read some good books about media and ownership in our nation and how it is skewed, read this Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian: http://benbagdikian.net/
Please man.. I hear democrats refer to Hillary Clinton's healtcare as Hillarycare all the time. You shouldn't let petty semantics cloud your brain. The facts are every single news entity except fox leans left and you have MSNBC that is way left and out right nasty somtimes.
I see your point.But I dissagree. For example take the last presidential election.All the networks were either for Obama or Hillary. They hardly if ever had anything good to say about Sara Palin or Mcain or any other republican candidate for that matter. Take General Electric. You could say that's Obama's Halliburton. GE which Ownes NBC,MSNBC.GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.”
Not only that just look at which networks cover or report on certain stories. For example Fox News was the only network for weeks that talked about Obama's ties with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. The Acorn story is another example. I could keep going, but I would be here all day..
While I am admittedly rather liberal, I followed the most recent election closely and I'm still not sure what good things you could say about Palin and McCain. I actually liked McCain when he first ran years ago, but the McCain who ran against Obama was a different guy. He's done enough flip-flopping (to steal a godawful conservative term) to make Kerry look consistent. As for Palin... who in their right mind could ever support her? She ripped Obama for his inexperience, yet her experience was running as the mayor of a small town, then getting elected governor and quitting only a few months into her first term. She ripped Obama for being a "celebrity candidate" and now she's doing book tours and filming reality shows with the Jon & Kate chick. She can't name a single newspaper she reads and says Alaska is important to national security because you can see Russia from there - and yet somehow almost half the country thought she'd make a great president if McCain dropped dead of a heart attack. She's a walking disaster and is ridiculed by ALMOST every media outlet out there... except for the one that has the largest overall viewership, which puts her on the air every chance it can get.
As for the ACORN story... did FOX cover the fact that it was discovered to be a hoax and that the guy behind it edited the video to make it look like something was happening that never happened? Sean Hannity said the pair that made the video should've won journalism awards... did he issue a retraction when it was discovered that O'Keefe never dressed as a pimp, and instead walked in there and asked questions about how to protect his sister/girlfriend from an abusive pimp - and then edited the responses (and retaped voiceovers to the questions) to make it look like they were telling a pimp how to evade paying taxes? Also, how did FOX handle the story when the same kids were caught trying to break into a senator's office by posing as phone company employees?
And while MSNBC is "famously friendly with Obama" and GE's CEO sits on one of Obama's boards, it's not like FOX's Rupert Murdoch keeps his checkbook closed when election years roll around. If you're going to smear crap on the likes of MSNBC for being biased, save some for FOX for being biased on behalf of the other team.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
People on the far left and right each think that the all other media caters to their opponents views. But these people typically get most of their news from networks that cater to them (i.e. Fox, MSNBC, NPR, Rush, etc.). Therefore, when a standard media outlet such as ABC or CBS presents the news in a non-biased fashion, it appears very slanted to the normal viewer that watches Fox New / MSNBC predominantly.
Also, humans that work for news networks possess their own opinions and views, and although a good journalist should not let their own views govern how the new is reported, it does happen from time to time. It is easy for each side to find these isolated incidents and then paint a network as biased or corrupt.
That is just the world we live in until Skynet becomes self-aware.
So I'm curious how NPR is leftist (assuming that's what you're saying). It's the only news I listen to regularly and I've really tried to pinpoint why people say this, but to no avail. This morning, for instance, they had a story about Iraqis not wanting the U.S. to withdraw our troops. Doesn't seem leftist to me.
I was just using NPR as an example as they are wildly regarded as being more liberal then most news agencies. In my own life travels I have noted that the people I know that typically vote democratic listen to NPR and those that vote republican don't listen to NPR.
I can't verify if NPR has a liberal slant because I haven't listened to them is years (I prefer to listen to PJ on my iPod when driving :thumbup: ).
Out of curiosity, would you agree that a majority of their common listeners tend to be liberal?
I would say the majority of NPR listeners are more likely to vote Democratic, however i think the misconception of NPR having a liberal slant exists because in general "critical thinking" - science, research, etc. has become mislabeled as "liberal" and opinions and "common sense" have become misconstrued as "conservative".
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
People on the far left and right each think that the all other media caters to their opponents views. But these people typically get most of their news from networks that cater to them (i.e. Fox, MSNBC, NPR, Rush, etc.). Therefore, when a standard media outlet such as ABC or CBS presents the news in a non-biased fashion, it appears very slanted to the normal viewer that watches Fox New / MSNBC predominantly.
Also, humans that work for news networks possess their own opinions and views, and although a good journalist should not let their own views govern how the new is reported, it does happen from time to time. It is easy for each side to find these isolated incidents and then paint a network as biased or corrupt.
That is just the world we live in until Skynet becomes self-aware.
So I'm curious how NPR is leftist (assuming that's what you're saying). It's the only news I listen to regularly and I've really tried to pinpoint why people say this, but to no avail. This morning, for instance, they had a story about Iraqis not wanting the U.S. to withdraw our troops. Doesn't seem leftist to me.
Not that it's relevant to your post, but I think most republicans agree that we should withdraw by now. Most I know anyhow.
I would say the majority of NPR listeners are more likely to vote Democratic, however i think the misconception of NPR having a liberal slant exists because in general "critical thinking" - science, research, etc. has become mislabeled as "liberal" and opinions and "common sense" have become misconstrued as "conservative".
I tend to agree that I *thought* NPR was rather based more objectively, or as you put it towards "science, research", until this past Fall, while debating here on MT with scb about the H1N1 vaccine. MUCH to my dismay, everything I found on NPR was blatantly pushing the vaccine on the public, (I was arguing against it) and I found nothing objective on the site. Scientific research that was on the site was slanted towards the public getting the vaccine. Needless to say, I'll never listen to the station again - not because I didn't find what I wanted there - but because they definitely had a biased opinion on the subject.
ETA: All mass media in the U.S. will have a slant, but we shouldn't be paying attention to which slant which one uses. Our best bet is to pay attention to international news outlets, because they have no reason to be biased. You learn more about our own country by watching international news.
further proof the media is not left ... the broadcast of the last combat troops leaving iraq by nbc (which i hear on these parts is left ) just goes to show how complicit the media is in this corporatized agenda ...
the war in iraq is nowhere close to being over ... private contractors galore ... contractors working without any laws and funded by the american taxpayer at a ginormous rate ... how do you americans feel about using your tax dollars to continue to oppress a sovereign country via the use of private contractors?
I would say the majority of NPR listeners are more likely to vote Democratic, however i think the misconception of NPR having a liberal slant exists because in general "critical thinking" - science, research, etc. has become mislabeled as "liberal" and opinions and "common sense" have become misconstrued as "conservative".
I tend to agree that I *thought* NPR was rather based more objectively, or as you put it towards "science, research", until this past Fall, while debating here on MT with scb about the H1N1 vaccine. MUCH to my dismay, everything I found on NPR was blatantly pushing the vaccine on the public, (I was arguing against it) and I found nothing objective on the site. Scientific research that was on the site was slanted towards the public getting the vaccine. Needless to say, I'll never listen to the station again - not because I didn't find what I wanted there - but because they definitely had a biased opinion on the subject.
ETA: All mass media in the U.S. will have a slant, but we shouldn't be paying attention to which slant which one uses. Our best bet is to pay attention to international news outlets, because they have no reason to be biased. You learn more about our own country by watching international news.
The scientific research was slanted?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I would say the majority of NPR listeners are more likely to vote Democratic, however i think the misconception of NPR having a liberal slant exists because in general "critical thinking" - science, research, etc. has become mislabeled as "liberal" and opinions and "common sense" have become misconstrued as "conservative".
I tend to agree that I *thought* NPR was rather based more objectively, or as you put it towards "science, research", until this past Fall, while debating here on MT with scb about the H1N1 vaccine. MUCH to my dismay, everything I found on NPR was blatantly pushing the vaccine on the public, (I was arguing against it) and I found nothing objective on the site. Scientific research that was on the site was slanted towards the public getting the vaccine. Needless to say, I'll never listen to the station again - not because I didn't find what I wanted there - but because they definitely had a biased opinion on the subject.
ETA: All mass media in the U.S. will have a slant, but we shouldn't be paying attention to which slant which one uses. Our best bet is to pay attention to international news outlets, because they have no reason to be biased. You learn more about our own country by watching international news.
The scientific research was slanted?
NPR used only info that supported pushing the vaccine. I didn't mean that scientific research was slanted but that NPR chose to publish only info that supported H1N1 vaccine consumption. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=113869&hilit=h1n1&start=105
I would say the majority of NPR listeners are more likely to vote Democratic, however i think the misconception of NPR having a liberal slant exists because in general "critical thinking" - science, research, etc. has become mislabeled as "liberal" and opinions and "common sense" have become misconstrued as "conservative".
I tend to agree that I *thought* NPR was rather based more objectively, or as you put it towards "science, research", until this past Fall, while debating here on MT with scb about the H1N1 vaccine. MUCH to my dismay, everything I found on NPR was blatantly pushing the vaccine on the public, (I was arguing against it) and I found nothing objective on the site. Scientific research that was on the site was slanted towards the public getting the vaccine. Needless to say, I'll never listen to the station again - not because I didn't find what I wanted there - but because they definitely had a biased opinion on the subject.
ETA: All mass media in the U.S. will have a slant, but we shouldn't be paying attention to which slant which one uses. Our best bet is to pay attention to international news outlets, because they have no reason to be biased. You learn more about our own country by watching international news.
Aside from the fact that I disagree with your assessment that NPR was biased on this issue, do you think an entire news station should be dismissed as biased based on one issue?
Comments
I can't verify if NPR has a liberal slant because I haven't listened to them is years (I prefer to listen to PJ on my iPod when driving :thumbup: ).
Out of curiosity, would you agree that a majority of their common listeners tend to be liberal?
While I am admittedly rather liberal, I followed the most recent election closely and I'm still not sure what good things you could say about Palin and McCain. I actually liked McCain when he first ran years ago, but the McCain who ran against Obama was a different guy. He's done enough flip-flopping (to steal a godawful conservative term) to make Kerry look consistent. As for Palin... who in their right mind could ever support her? She ripped Obama for his inexperience, yet her experience was running as the mayor of a small town, then getting elected governor and quitting only a few months into her first term. She ripped Obama for being a "celebrity candidate" and now she's doing book tours and filming reality shows with the Jon & Kate chick. She can't name a single newspaper she reads and says Alaska is important to national security because you can see Russia from there - and yet somehow almost half the country thought she'd make a great president if McCain dropped dead of a heart attack. She's a walking disaster and is ridiculed by ALMOST every media outlet out there... except for the one that has the largest overall viewership, which puts her on the air every chance it can get.
As for the ACORN story... did FOX cover the fact that it was discovered to be a hoax and that the guy behind it edited the video to make it look like something was happening that never happened? Sean Hannity said the pair that made the video should've won journalism awards... did he issue a retraction when it was discovered that O'Keefe never dressed as a pimp, and instead walked in there and asked questions about how to protect his sister/girlfriend from an abusive pimp - and then edited the responses (and retaped voiceovers to the questions) to make it look like they were telling a pimp how to evade paying taxes? Also, how did FOX handle the story when the same kids were caught trying to break into a senator's office by posing as phone company employees?
And while MSNBC is "famously friendly with Obama" and GE's CEO sits on one of Obama's boards, it's not like FOX's Rupert Murdoch keeps his checkbook closed when election years roll around. If you're going to smear crap on the likes of MSNBC for being biased, save some for FOX for being biased on behalf of the other team.
I can agree that it seems that way to me, based on my own observation, yes. But I don't think that means it's a liberal station.
I would say the majority of NPR listeners are more likely to vote Democratic, however i think the misconception of NPR having a liberal slant exists because in general "critical thinking" - science, research, etc. has become mislabeled as "liberal" and opinions and "common sense" have become misconstrued as "conservative".
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Not that it's relevant to your post, but I think most republicans agree that we should withdraw by now. Most I know anyhow.
I tend to agree that I *thought* NPR was rather based more objectively, or as you put it towards "science, research", until this past Fall, while debating here on MT with scb about the H1N1 vaccine. MUCH to my dismay, everything I found on NPR was blatantly pushing the vaccine on the public, (I was arguing against it) and I found nothing objective on the site. Scientific research that was on the site was slanted towards the public getting the vaccine. Needless to say, I'll never listen to the station again - not because I didn't find what I wanted there - but because they definitely had a biased opinion on the subject.
ETA: All mass media in the U.S. will have a slant, but we shouldn't be paying attention to which slant which one uses. Our best bet is to pay attention to international news outlets, because they have no reason to be biased. You learn more about our own country by watching international news.
the war in iraq is nowhere close to being over ... private contractors galore ... contractors working without any laws and funded by the american taxpayer at a ginormous rate ... how do you americans feel about using your tax dollars to continue to oppress a sovereign country via the use of private contractors?
The scientific research was slanted?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=113869&hilit=h1n1&start=105
Aside from the fact that I disagree with your assessment that NPR was biased on this issue, do you think an entire news station should be dismissed as biased based on one issue?