media bias

26 posts / 0 new

Just a quick thought on media bias. A couple of years ago in last presidential campaign we also had a gas price spike. Media said tipping point was $4.00 a gallon. That’s when it would start hurting economy. Now suddenly with a dem president and gas at or rapidly approaching that $4.00 mark we have a new tipping point, $5.00 a gallon, THAT’S when it will start hurting economy. Need I say more?

snowmaniac's picture
snowmaniac
Joined:
Mar. 25, 2011 4:58 am

Comments

The economy has changed. This is not an example of media bias.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

EXAMPLE OF MEDIA BIAS: "Clearly" favoring conservatives..

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6545

bobbler's picture
bobbler
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote snowmaniac:

Just a quick thought on media bias. A couple of years ago in last presidential campaign we also had a gas price spike. Media said tipping point was $4.00 a gallon. That’s when it would start hurting economy. Now suddenly with a dem president and gas at or rapidly approaching that $4.00 mark we have a new tipping point, $5.00 a gallon, THAT’S when it will start hurting economy. Need I say more?

Yes, say more. I don't get the point. What may have been damaging ten years ago would be less damaging today. In other words, four bucks a gallon may be the equivalent of five bucks today. See?

Without knowing exactly what was said and by whome, I can't agree or disagree with you.

You should be concerned, though, that we don't pay the full cost of anything in this country and some prices are kept deliberately low by externalizing costs to the miitary (we still pay but with a different hand) or to the public (we still pay but call it something else). If people knew the true cost of many items, we would have been conserving long ago.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote bobbler:

EXAMPLE OF MEDIA BIAS: "Clearly" favoring conservatives..

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6545

"One report (Slate, 3/31/11) suggested there was "at least one reporter for every three or four activists," and a Republican politician joked that there might be more journalists than activists at the event."

Slate's reporting on the low ratio of activists to reporters is hardly flattering. Perhaps the Rep jab about same gives a clue that such division is the reason for TP coverage.

Yesterday it was a big local story in L.A. about a TP member being asked to step down from an elected Rep committee position for a racist email--big coverage with yet more lack of substance about the party as a whole.

Not trying to defend conservative bias, but given the budget bill and the fact that the TP demo was in DC, might those not have been deemed as factors? And couldn't not covering a Lybia protest be seen as pro-Obama?

Larry Elder (in his book Showdown?) cites irrefutable evidence the 3 broadcast networks are liberal in comparing how all 3 anchors covered abortion policy actions by Clinton and W right after their respective inaugurations.

libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
libertarian vot...
Joined:
Apr. 4, 2011 11:09 am

There is a media bias ..... and it's slanted towards the corporations.

For the life of me I can't figure out what the hell that has to do with the price of gas during the last presidential election or the one coming up?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:What may have been damaging ten years ago would be less damaging today.

$4 gas came 3 years ago at most.

Quote D_NATURED:In other words, four bucks a gallon may be the equivalent of five bucks today. See?

You mean, a house that cost $400,000 in 2008 would sell for $500,000 now? So what's all talk this about foreclosures and lack of equity? And how many of you got 25% in cost of living raises since then?

Quote D_NATURED:You should be concerned, though, that we don't pay the full cost of anything in this country and some prices are kept deliberately low by externalizing costs to the miitary (we still pay but with a different hand) or to the public (we still pay but call it something else). If people knew the true cost of many items, we would have been conserving long ago.

That would make libertarianism THE party of conservation, no?

libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
libertarian vot...
Joined:
Apr. 4, 2011 11:09 am
Quote libertarian voting for Tea Party:
Quote D_NATURED:What may have been damaging ten years ago would be less damaging today.

$4 gas came 3 years ago at most.

How does that make my point moot?

Quote D_NATURED:
In other words, four bucks a gallon may be the equivalent of five bucks today. See?

You mean, a house that cost $400,000 in 2008 would sell for $500,000 now? So what's all talk this about foreclosures and lack of equity? And how many of you got 25% in cost of living raises since then?

I'm sure there are houses that have gained equity in the last three years, despite the bubble bursting. Comparing gasoline to houses is a false comparison, though. You don't negotiate the price of a fill up when you pull into the station. Gas is a commodity. Housing isn't.

Quote D_NATURED:You should be concerned, though, that we don't pay the full cost of anything in this country and some prices are kept deliberately low by externalizing costs to the miitary (we still pay but with a different hand) or to the public (we still pay but call it something else). If people knew the true cost of many items, we would have been conserving long ago.

That would make libertarianism THE party of conservation, no?

[/quote]

No. The libertarians want to de-regulate, which will make any conservation secondary to profit-much like it is already, but worse.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

OK since you ask I’ll say more. It was barely 3 years ago when Bush was president that media said $4.00 gas was tipping point, now they say its $5.00 gas, new tipping point. What’s changed in 3 years? Is everyone now driving new efficient high MPG cars? No, we are driving same cars now as then except they are three years older. Who can afford a new car in this economy. Is their new public transport that’s taking people to work every day instead of cars? No, same old crappy busses that any sober person doesn’t want to ride on. Are trucks that bring us everything we buy suddenly getting 20 MPG instead of 4 mpg? Nope don’t think so. I know, maybe there’s a new 737 that gets twice as good fuel consumption. Hmm, not that I’ve heard about. So that leaves us with one difference in last 3 years there’s a DEMOCRAT in the white house. Have I said enough now? SHEESH! Now excuse me while I go find a brick wall to bang my head against.

snowmaniac's picture
snowmaniac
Joined:
Mar. 25, 2011 4:58 am

The brick wall will tell you the same thing everyone else already knows. The mainstream media in the US is owned and operated by a handful of gigantic corporations. The MSM is pro-corporate, period.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am

I don't think it matters who is in the WH. The fact is, that high gas prices are here to stay. I suspect what the media in the US is attempting to do is to try to push the hurting point out so people don't start to panic and hoard gas.

Of course, if there had been a bit more forward thinking with investment in public transport this would not be nearly the issue that it is in the US. But these projects should have been started 10 years ago, not now. Besides haven't many Republican governors put the brakes on high speed rail? Oh well. When gas is $9.00/gallon, what will your options be then?

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Meljomur, I know you didn’t mean to but you made my point. The media had no problem “panicking the public” when Bush was president, what’s changed? Obamas president now, that’s what. Actually though I think $4.00 is the real tipping point, it was then it is now. That’s when price of filling up your car makes you start cutting back on other spending. That starts the downward spiral. I know I’m cutting back.

snowmaniac's picture
snowmaniac
Joined:
Mar. 25, 2011 4:58 am

Perhaps the "public panicking" by the corporate media was intended to keep us from electing that wet-behind-the-ears black feller and goad us into keeping an experienced white guy in the White House?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:Without knowing exactly what was said and by whome, I can't agree or disagree with you.

Putting aside the absurd paradigm that the corporate media is left wing (an oxymoron, really), D_NATURED raised the most important point, which still hasn't been answered.

Too often those of us on the left accept the premise of an attack and then go on defense. I haven't seen a shred of evidence in this thread. And don't tell me to "turn on my TV and see for myself," because my wife and I don't have TV...why do you suppose that might be? Remember what the brick wall told you?

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote libertarian voting for Tea Party:
Quote D_NATURED:What may have been damaging ten years ago would be less damaging today.

$4 gas came 3 years ago at most.

Quote D_NATURED:How does that make my point moot?

It set me up to discuss the last three years. I notice you had no response to my question about how common commensurate cost of living raises were for that period.

Quote D_NATURED:
In other words, four bucks a gallon may be the equivalent of five bucks today. See?

You mean, a house that cost $400,000 in 2008 would sell for $500,000 now? So what's all talk this about foreclosures and lack of equity? And how many of you got 25% in cost of living raises since then?

Quote D_NATURED:I'm sure there are houses that have gained equity in the last three years, despite the bubble bursting. Comparing gasoline to houses is a false comparison, though. You don't negotiate the price of a fill up when you pull into the station. Gas is a commodity. Housing isn't.

That's right. I was using essential irrelevancy to illustrate that you raised a premise with no reason for doing so.

Quote D_NATURED:You should be concerned, though, that we don't pay the full cost of anything in this country and some prices are kept deliberately low by externalizing costs to the miitary (we still pay but with a different hand) or to the public (we still pay but call it something else). If people knew the true cost of many items, we would have been conserving long ago.

That would make libertarianism THE party of conservation, no?

Quote D_NATURED:No. The libertarians want to de-regulate, which will make any conservation secondary to profit-much like it is already, but worse.

I was addressing your point about subsidies, which libertarians oppose unlike others.

libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
libertarian vot...
Joined:
Apr. 4, 2011 11:09 am
Quote snowmaniac:

OK since you ask I’ll say more. It was barely 3 years ago when Bush was president that media said $4.00 gas was tipping point, now they say its $5.00 gas, new tipping point. What’s changed in 3 years? Is everyone now driving new efficient high MPG cars? No, we are driving same cars now as then except they are three years older. Who can afford a new car in this economy. Is their new public transport that’s taking people to work every day instead of cars? No, same old crappy busses that any sober person doesn’t want to ride on. Are trucks that bring us everything we buy suddenly getting 20 MPG instead of 4 mpg? Nope don’t think so. I know, maybe there’s a new 737 that gets twice as good fuel consumption. Hmm, not that I’ve heard about. So that leaves us with one difference in last 3 years there’s a DEMOCRAT in the white house. Have I said enough now? SHEESH! Now excuse me while I go find a brick wall to bang my head against.

Dude... The higher GDP, lower unemployment, the fact that the banks aren't crapping the bed with all their bad loans, the fact that the auto industry is on its feet, better stock ratings.... Need I go on? The economy is more stable. Period. Deal with it.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote libertarian voting for Tea Party:
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote libertarian voting for Tea Party:
Quote D_NATURED:What may have been damaging ten years ago would be less damaging today.

$4 gas came 3 years ago at most.

Quote D_NATURED:How does that make my point moot?

It set me up to discuss the last three years. I notice you had no response to my question about how common commensurate cost of living raises were for that period.

Quote D_NATURED:
In other words, four bucks a gallon may be the equivalent of five bucks today. See?

You mean, a house that cost $400,000 in 2008 would sell for $500,000 now? So what's all talk this about foreclosures and lack of equity? And how many of you got 25% in cost of living raises since then?

Quote D_NATURED:I'm sure there are houses that have gained equity in the last three years, despite the bubble bursting. Comparing gasoline to houses is a false comparison, though. You don't negotiate the price of a fill up when you pull into the station. Gas is a commodity. Housing isn't.

That's right. I was using essential irrelevancy to illustrate that you raised a premise with no reason for doing so.

Quote D_NATURED:You should be concerned, though, that we don't pay the full cost of anything in this country and some prices are kept deliberately low by externalizing costs to the miitary (we still pay but with a different hand) or to the public (we still pay but call it something else). If people knew the true cost of many items, we would have been conserving long ago.

That would make libertarianism THE party of conservation, no?

Quote D_NATURED:No. The libertarians want to de-regulate, which will make any conservation secondary to profit-much like it is already, but worse.

I was addressing your point about subsidies, which libertarians oppose unlike others.

Frankly, the whole assertion that the media is liberal because some arbitrary analysis of the "tipping point" is changed day to day is short sighted.This has less to do with the media being liberal and more to do with the lack of trustworthiness of sources who report this kind of statistic. It's the kind of thing that sounds like opinion, not fact.

Make no mistake, though, the American media is more corporate than it's ever been and there is no one commodity that will cause us to tip. If we tip, it will be because we've abandoned our sense of community and allowed speculation and greed to replace reality in our decision making process, degrading the precious elements of human life to nothing more than a wager.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

@D_NATURED: I agree, a single topic shouldn't detract from the corporate aspect.

But corporate control doesn't mean the neocon take will always dominate.

When conservative pundits assert that a liberal scandal would get more severe coverage if a Republican were the subject, we can't be sure--but for one smoking gun, see the last paragraph of my post #5 above.

libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
libertarian vot...
Joined:
Apr. 4, 2011 11:09 am

"Larry Elder (in his book Showdown?) cites irrefutable evidence the 3 broadcast networks are liberal in comparing how all 3 anchors covered abortion policy actions by Clinton and W right after their respective inaugurations." libertarian voter

That's a smoking gun, huh? At least I know what happened to those WMD now....speaking of smoking, pass that pipe

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sigh, Hannity was trying to prove the "liberal media" meme last week. It is so pathetic. If Slanthead on FAUX and all the rest of the chatter is the minority position against the Liberal Media, where is anything I recognize as Liberal other than the few MSNBC commentators? Not on the Nightly News and not on the Sunday chatter. Only when they have to defend controversies like the Mosque at Ground Zero do we hear from the Progressive Caucus.

Take the current fiscal "debate." Ryan's intellectual fraud is called courageous, while nobody hears that there is a People's Budget from the Progressive Congressional Caucus. The People's Budget actually cuts the deficit, and does so without dismantling social programs or "starving the beast." Instead, it makes conscious and wise cuts in real waste. And it gets rid of the job killing tax breaks for the rich.

The only place the media could be called "liberal" is in social policies around inclusion and human rights. But the public discussion of marriage equality and women's rights to choose has hardly been to the partisan benefit of gay/lesbian citizens or women. Far too much credibility has been given to homophobia and the politics of conscience as the "liberal media" practices its renowned fairness. The amount of Heritage Foundation propaganda running on CSpan in the Book Talk programs is disgusting. It is such cult inside crap without any deep intellectual cover.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

http://books.google.com/books?id=TEIxesXVBHwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eld...

Page 236 of this Googlable book has transcripts of the big 3 anchors from Jan 22 of 1993 and 2001 respectively. Clinton's repeal of abortion restrictions was called the fulfilment of a campaign promise, whereas Bush's reinstatement of them was deemed a controversial appeasement of the right wing.

I defy any of you to deny the bias after reading the brief comparisons--especially TH. I'm sure he'll readily address this amazing comparison once it's called to his attention.

libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
libertarian vot...
Joined:
Apr. 4, 2011 11:09 am

And? The politics of conscience are religious war. The media has not made that salient point as it reports the bigots as if their opinions had civil credibility. Clinton restored basic civility and Bush stomped on it. Keep your effing crap out of the choices women make about reproduction. That ought to be the message from the American People who like the idea of democracy. The same is true about the established prejudice of homophobia. It has no place in electoral politics. The civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens are not up for vote in an authentic democracy.

As I said above, the only place the media has any "liberal bias" is in the area of human and civil rights. There is no liberal bias toward Progressive economic or social policies which do not get reported and are regularly distorted in the presentation of the "news." What amazes me is how being opposed to the politics of conscience makes on a radical Leftist. I think it is a neutral position on civility and does not ask anyone to do more than respect the religious freedom of others. If that is on the line, the issue is the Rightwing assault on democracy, not any "liberal bias."

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

Perhaps the "public panicking" by the corporate media was intended to keep us from electing that wet-behind-the-ears black feller and goad us into keeping an experienced white guy in the White House?

Thanks for clearing up what the hell 'tipping point' means.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

lib -voter - you can't deterimine the political slant of an entire network by looking at one of their anchors and how they covered one issue at a one particular point in time.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

I can go along with the fact that Media is similar to the public in general with respect to abortion, and they were sort of against the war after many years of being it's cheerleaders. And they liked Obama in the beginning.

The media is in pieces - most of cable and radio opinion is fairly conservative or idiot conservative.

Most of network news is fixated on entertainment. This is crucial because the current political strategies of the parties is that the Republicans lie about things and then the liberals try to refute them. And, rarely are they given a forum for that. For example, leading up to the war, leftists were screaming about CIA and weapon inspector reports saying there was no WMD in Iraq. But what got on the news was Bush's lies about them, for the most part. Then the body count rose, and that gruesome count got some in the media to pay attention. As did the image of the people on rooftops during Katrina. But it was all images that get them moving, not facts and information. During the stimulus debate, no network TV anchor new what stimulus policy was, nor could explain it, nor brought on anyone who could explain it 2 minutes. The health care debate was riddled with lies about death panels and so on, until the public - who was for a single payer system - was convinced that 'Obamacare' was bad for the nation.

So, that is why liberals say the MSM is biased conservatively - because it biased toward idiocy.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ah2:

lib -voter - you can't deterimine the political slant of an entire network by looking at one of their anchors and how they covered one issue at a one particular point in time.

True--this instance was selected because it was as close to apples-to-apples as one could get. As others have noted above, it's usually cumbersome, and I don't claim it's monolithic. But another indicator Elder likes to point out is that MSM outlets use phrases like "far right conservative" far more often than "far left liberal" which also speaks for itself as bias in labeling.

Anyway, if anyone would like to offer an apples-to-apples definitive comparison in the other direction, go for it--just keep in mind that pro-corporatist reporting could be pro-Obama.

libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
libertarian vot...
Joined:
Apr. 4, 2011 11:09 am

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system