Read this

[Squeezer]

Oh, that's: The 4th Branch by: Immortal Technique, and the bolded/italicized parts are awfully fucking true.

While I don't think that ANY news programs are solely under control of the govt, I certainly feel that many appease them.

Plus, it's a great song, by the best lyricist in rap today.

[genocidal]

I watch a lot of FoxNews for various reasons and I can attest to the fact that lately they haven't been all kissing Bush's ass and in fact they criticize much about his immigration stance and some things about Iraq (it's almost impossible not to criticize Iraq at this point). Like Conc said, that's their viewership. I mean hell, the neo-cons were all Democrats only 20-30 years ago.

[Eric is God]

Fox News is a gimme. It's not controlled by Bush, moreso it's just an outlet for all the neo-con right-wingers. And since Bush fits into the neo-con camp, BOOM--it's a pro-Bush channel. They're targeting their demographic, that's crazy! (OBVIOUSLY A STATE-RUN MEDIA CHANNEL!!!1!)

CNN... hmm, I don't see it. But just for argument's sake, let's assume that CNN is the media arm of Bush's conspiracy, shall we?

Well, let's see, that only leaves ABC, CBS and NBC (we won't count the fringe news channels). What about these, eh? Have you seen these? Why am I guessing you haven't?

And that's just TV. Man, do you guys read anything like the LA Times or NY Times? People DO still read, right? Please God, tell me I'm not dealing with people basing arguments off solely off of shit they've heard on TV.

Dude, I'm Canadian. That I have watched Fox News and CNN is odd enough. I don't even watch Canadian news because news in general is just way too depressing. I rarely read the paper, other than the sports section, because reading all that negative stuff is a crappy way to start the day. The thing is, one news network being biased is one too many. Up here the news is pretty damn consistent. The only time it wavers is in the opinions section where writers are paid to give their personal stance on things.

I'll give you an example of bias I've seen from CNN that isn't really obvious, but it surprised me at the time. They were talking about The White House releasing a document that discussed a terrorist plan to crash a plane in Baltimore or some place in California. The mayor of this place said he was never informed about this possibility even though the White House said they had informed him. Now here is the first thing the CNN anchor asks the correspondent: "is the mayor looking for increased funding from the White House?". How on earth is that a relevent enough question to ask? Let alone the very first question. The correspondent replied, of course, that the city was looking for more funding for their school system. That was the end of the story. Nothing more about a plan to crash a plane into the city. To me that seemed like a poorly veiled attempt to discredit a mayor who insisted there was poor communication from the President. I didn't expect CNN to attack Bush for a possible lack of communication, but they made it sound like a mayor was lying about something very serious in an effort to get more funding.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Dude, I'm Canadian. That I have watched Fox News and CNN is odd enough.

Please don't try and weasel out by using this as an excuse. If you're going to enter a discussion using verbiage like "but a lot of news stations sure seem to be VERY biased in favor of Bush", then you should have more to base it on than ONE station (geared towards their own demographic) and ONE station who made some remark once that you took as being biased.

I don't even watch Canadian news because news in general is just way too depressing. I rarely read the paper, other than the sports section, because reading all that negative stuff is a crappy way to start the day.

That probably isn't effected at all by the fact of you being clinically depressed. Just because the news isn't all sunshine and puppies doesn't invalidate what's being said. Can news be depressing? Yes. Is it all depressing? No.

The thing is, one news network being biased is one too many. Up here the news is pretty damn consistent. The only time it wavers is in the opinions section where writers are paid to give their personal stance on things.

Canadians are getting to voice their own opinions and sometimes those opinions aren't those of the majority?! SCANDAL!

[Sleepy Weasel]

Conc is obviously a nazi

[Eric is God]

Please don't try and weasel out by using this as an excuse. If you're going to enter a discussion using verbiage like "but a lot of news stations sure seem to be VERY biased in favor of Bush", then you should have more to base it on than ONE station (geared towards their own demographic) and ONE station who made some remark once that you took as being biased.

Fine, I'll concede I don't know about ABC, NBC or whatever else there is. I gave one example of CNN's bias because it was one that people might not see. I see examples on a daily basis from CNN though.

That probably isn't effected at all by the fact of you being clinically depressed. Just because the news isn't all sunshine and puppies doesn't invalidate what's being said. Can news be depressing? Yes. Is it all depressing? No.

Umm I have an anxiety disorder, not depression. I've had depression, but that was about 3-4 years ago. No it doesn't invalidate anything. I was just pointing out that I'm not an avid news viewer or really pro Canadian news or something. All news isn't bad news, but I think the majority of it is. I read the sports section every day, often the business section and sometimes the front page for political stuff. It really does bug me to hear about murders and rapes because even though they are note worthy events, hearing about them rarely assists the reader.

Canadians are getting to voice their own opinions and sometimes those opinions aren't those of the majority?! SCANDAL!

Huh? I was pointing out that the only bias I often see in Canada's media is where there SHOULD be bias, the opinion section.

Out of curiosity, do you follow the news in Canada often? A lot of it involves the US, so if you don't following the Canadian media, how would you notice if the US media was bias? I'm not saying they are, but if the vast majority of American news is biased, then how would the average person realize it when everything they see and read comes from a similar view point? Maybe it is just us Canadians who believe there is a strong bias. Certainly everyone I have talked to about it agrees, but who knows.

And bringing up my personality (especially when you are incorrect about it) isn't necessary in order to make your point. I don't appreciate the condescending attitude either, thanks.

[Eric is God]

By the way, you never responded to my comment that one biased news source is one too many. You said we shouldn't make these comments based only on news from the TV? My point is that ANY biased news source is wrong; especially if the people watching or reading it believe it to be neutral. Fox you are correct about. Everyone who watches their news is already a "believer" or they are tuning in to make fun of how right wing they are. I'm sure a huge percentage of Americans are intelligent enough to search out various news sources before passing judgement on important issues. But, even if 5-10% of people are being swayed because of bias, that would have an enormous effect on politics in the US.

[Subjugation]

That probably isn't effected at all by the fact of you being clinically depressed. Just because the news isn't all sunshine and puppies doesn't invalidate what's being said. Can news be depressing? Yes. Is it all depressing? No.

Serious question...Are you an optimist, Conc? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a higher bullshit threshhold than most people, or maybe your filter has a finer mesh.

I don't think it's so crazy to make the generalization that the goal of the big 5 media outlets (CNN, FoxNewbs, NBC, CBS, and ABC) is to generate ad revenue and get ratings. And one of their more reliable techniques to do that is by using tabloid tactics (fear, sex, and gossip) to get people watch.

I'm think that could depress anyone with half a brain who's not optimistic by nature.

[genocidal]

I'm not really sure what you were trying to prove by saying that CNN is biased with that example. Maybe that they don't always ask the right questions? Well whatever, TV is inherently limited as far as news goes. They have advertisements to fill and time slots to put attention-grabbing yet not depressing news in. For example, who would want to see a segment on the genocide in Darfur right before a Fruit Loops commercial? Nobody, because it would be bad business for Fruit Loops.

Like I said, I watch FoxNews more than any other news television station but I also read the New York Times and the Strait Times daily. On top of that I read GoogleNews headlines and The Economist every week. Every paper and news source has a bias; if you're tuned in to their particular bias then it's very easy to sift through the bullshit and figure out exactly what's going on. It's not like the Canadian news sources are impartial while American news is hugely biased.

[Eric is God]

Serious question...Are you an optimist, Conc? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a higher bullshit threshhold than most people, or maybe your filter has a finer mesh.

I don't think it's so crazy to make the generalization that the goal of the big 5 media outlets (CNN, FoxNewbs, NBC, CBS, and ABC) are to generate ad revenue and get ratings. And one of their more reliable techniques to do that is by using tabloid tactics (fear, sex, and gossip) to get people watch.

I'm think that could depress anyone with half a brain who's not optimistic by nature.

In Conc's defense, I have mentioned that I've dealt with depression in the game and probably on here. So I'm guessing he was referring to that. Sure, depression would probably magnify the negative things a person reads in the news. But, I don't see how it's relative to the points I made about bias.

[Eric is God]

I'm not really sure what you were trying to prove by saying that CNN is biased with that example. Maybe that they don't always ask the right questions? Well whatever, TV is inherently limited as far as news goes. They have advertisements to fill and time slots to put attention-grabbing yet not depressing news in. For example, who would want to see a segment on the genocide in Darfur right before a Fruit Loops commercial? Nobody, because it would be bad business for Fruit Loops.

Like I said, I watch FoxNews more than any other news television station but I also read the New York Times and the Strait Times daily. On top of that I read GoogleNews headlines and The Economist every week. Every paper and news source has a bias; if you're tuned in to their particular bias then it's very easy to sift through the bullshit and figure out exactly what's going on. It's not like the Canadian news sources are impartial while American news is hugely biased.

I wasn't trying to convince people with that example. Most people should be able to see obvious bias (like CNN reporters making blatent comments about how great a job Bush is doing). I wanted to give an example of bias that people might not notice. That's the kind of bias that can really affect people. If people hear someone ranting about how good or evil Bush is, they can see the bias. If they watch news that has a bunch of subtle spin, putting one party in a better light, they are much more likely to have their opinions altered.

I'm actually surprised you don't see the bias in the example I gave and it really helps prove my point. There is a question about whether the Bush administration did or did not let the mayor of a city know terrorists had plans to crash a plane and the first question asked is an attempt to make it look like the mayor is lying to get more funds for schools?! That ranks right up there with the National Enquirer in terms of quality. It's the same thing when someone points out there were no weapons of mass destruction (which was the reason for the war) and they get called anti American. I'm really amazed that there have not been daily riots and calls for Bush and most of his staff to step down. Thousands of innocent people (including Canadian soldiers) are dying because the American government screwed up and Bush's approval ratings havn't sunk below 20%? Unbelievable!

No, Canadian news sources aren't impartial and American news isn'y hugely biased. But, I'd say Canadian news is slightly biased and American news is quite biased. On a scale from 1-10 I'd say Canada is a 2, North Korea is a 10 and the US would be a 5 or 6.

[Subjugation]

I'm actually surprised you don't see the bias in the example I gave and it really helps prove my point. There is a question about whether the Bush administration did or did not let the mayor of a city know terrorists had plans to crash a plane and the first question asked is an attempt to make it look like the mayor is lying to get more funds for schools?! That ranks right up there with the National Enquirer in terms of quality. It's the same thing when someone points out there were no weapons of mass destruction (which was the reason for the war) and they get called anti American. I'm really amazed that there have not been daily riots and calls for Bush and most of his staff to step down. Thousands of innocent people (including Canadian soldiers) are dying because the American government screwed up and Bush's approval ratings havn't sunk below 20%? Unbelievable!

I think that's kind of a bad example for the point you're trying to make, though. The report you're talking about is the terror alert in Los Angeles that happened to come out at the same time as some damaging news to the Bush admin came out, like the Tom Ridge resignation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4697896.stm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point is that the media has a pro-Bush bias. And I think that's kind of---and I don't mean this as an insult by any means---an over-simplistic view of the dynamic nature between Washington and the media. John Stewart talks about this quite a bit, so I have to give credit where it's due, but he talks about how the Bush administration is extremely good at playing the media.

For example, during his appearance on Crossfire he briefly talks about talks about how the media does a disservice to the public by playing itself into politician's political strategies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCy3Q...arch=crossfire

My point is, it's not so much that the media is pro-Bush, but the media knows better than to bite the two hands that feed them---multi-national corporations who buy ad space and politicians who will grant them access to high-level Washington politics. So they have this little dance where they both 69 each other, because they both get what they need. As long as there are no smoking guns left around, the news media's hands are somewhat tied anyway.

[genocidal]

I don't really see how your example is such a big deal that proves your point. Maybe my eyes are "cloaded" but reporters fishing out ulterior motives always seemed like part of the job to me. I don't know about the significance of it being the first question asked because I'm not familiar with the particular story but I can guarantee it's not a cut and dry example of media spin like you are saying.

I pretty much agree with what j=t said (even though it pains me because I loathe Jon Stewart and how he presents everything). It's pretty disillusioning but that's the way the world works everywhere. I don't think that the bias goes to the extent of lying or misleading anyone but you have to understand that the media is a business; it's not an arm of the state as in Nazi Germany or North Korea or whatever other examples you hippies keep giving.

[Blood]

yo, the news and reports should be impartial to be considered news or proper journalism at all, correct? Opinions of the journalists are not a part of it, and if it affects the work, the news are worthless and should be considered such.

Now I have yet to see any news in papers or TV broadcasts where the matter at hand had been channeled to the people in any way other than an impartial report. This in my country.

I've been lead to understand that biased news is common on some networks and other outlets in America, is this true? Because from a European or a Finnish point of view, it sounds rather scary and dangerous.

[Subjugation]

The American news has been biased for almost 200 years, exampled by yellow journalism and Citizen Kane.

But theoretically, professional jouralism is supposed to abide by a code of conduct, or professional ethics that include objectivity.