Read this

[NaiLed]

Because from a European or a Finnish point of view, it sounds rather scary and dangerous.

there's no such thing as a completely non-bias media. there's always certain things that are going to be mediated i.e. things left out and other things put in, such as images, which always represent a person or group in a certain way

edit: but there's obviously some media that presents news more "biased" towards their political leanings, than other media

[Scrotal]

sigh...what a bunch of quack-libs

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

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 know, I wouldn't consider myself to be an optimist. In fact (and sorry if this makes me sound like a pretentious asshole), I'd consider myself more of a realist. It just tends to piss me off when people shut off when they hear or see "bad things." The world's a tough place, and if dealing with tough things makes you shy away, then you're not going to get very far. There are positive aspects of life, and looking at everything though fatalist, Eeyore-colored glasses (just pretend that works) gets nobody anywhere.

The world tends to suck a little at times. Yes, I know. We all know. But what are you doing to change it? I encounter plenty of things on a daily basis that re-affirms my faith in humanity on a whole (at some points, I feel like the Anti-Creager).

On the other hand, there's a lot of people who endlessly spout bullshit that is just plain, factually WRONG. It's these people that really get my goat.

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'd agree with that for the most part. But like Nailed said, I'd challenge anyone to show me a news source that doesn't contain at least a slight amount of bias. Sure, a "no bias" news source sounds great, but I don't think it exists in practice. There's always going to be a slight amount of it in there--the real trick is to minimize it as much as possible.

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

Again, I'd just consider myself a realist. If we lived in a Utopian society where everything else was peaches and cream, then I'd be worried more about news bias. However, it's fairly easy for me to read the same story from a few different sources and filter most of the bias out. I think that's the key--multiple sources. It's the same as any other kind of research. Yes, it's terrible for those who don't have the time to cross-reference.

I don't appreciate the condescending attitude either, thanks.

I don't appreciate people making sweeping generalizations about things that they have admittedly little exposure to. I could check out Le Figaro and make generalizations about France, but I don't because I don't live there and I'm not exposed to the mountain of other media and public sentiment of the area.

[Eeks]

an example of finnish media: A few years ago son of finlands most important corporate executive was interrogated because of a murder case. He wasn't a suspect but involved somehow. Even medias that usually have no morale used higher morale standards and didn't mention this person even tho pretty much everyone else was brought up. The good old boys club of publishers probably got involved (friends of the father?) .

[ZeUs!!]

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.

[Eric is God]

Sigh, I was 30 min into a long response and the power went out. So I'll just sum up:

Zeus, if you want to tear my opinions apart go right ahead, but have the respect to compose a written response.

Conc, someone exposed to a lot of media in the states should be able to compare bias between the sources. For example, someone could feel Fox is more biased than NBC, which is more biased than ABC. But, if this same person is not exposed to media from other countries, how could they judge the overall level of bias in their country? ABC could be the most unbiased news source in America, but it could also be more biased than any news source in Sweden. I'm not trying to say all American media is biased, but even if we assume Fox is the only strongly biased source in America, that's still a lot more bias than I believe exists in my country. You also forgot to respond to almost everything I said. I've often read the New York Times (which is strongly biased towards the left) at a friend's and in university. I read translated news from Germany and I read 3 Canadian papers during election periods (they arn't nearly as depressing during elections). I'm not an expert on media from any country, but the American media I have seen has shocked me. I would like to see if the same is true for Americans that have been exposed to limited media from Canada. If it is true, then it may be just a difference in cultural view points.

[Eric is God]

sigh...what a bunch of quack-libs

it's not an arm of the state as in Nazi Germany or North Korea or whatever other examples you hippies keep giving.

If both of you meant these statements, it shows EXACTLY how media and culture has distorted the way Americans see things. The same way Americans persecuted anyone who thought communism wasn't the most evil thing ever created. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad with almost any point on the political spectrum. Personally, I do not like the idea of a political system where two parties occupy opposite ends on almost every issue. Governments by their very nature are about compromise. I myself lean to the right on issues pertaining to crime and the economy and to the left on civil rights and social assistance. The idea that liberals are weak and tree hugging hippies is ridiculous. The same way believing Republicans are all gun totting rednecks is silly.

[Scrotal]

If both of you meant these statements, it shows EXACTLY how media and culture has distorted the way Americans see things. The same way Americans persecuted anyone who thought communism wasn't the most evil thing ever created. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad with almost any point on the political spectrum. Personally, I do not like the idea of a political system where two parties occupy opposite ends on almost every issue. Governments by their very nature are about compromise. I myself lean to the right on issues pertaining to crime and the economy and to the left on civil rights and social assistance. The idea that liberals are weak and tree hugging hippies is ridiculous. The same way believing Republicans are all gun totting rednecks is silly.

blah blah :P

[R1pp3r]

Yeah I do think he controls the media. I didn’t mean he controls whatever they should air or write but he decides what kind of questions that will be answered. The interviews etc are all on his terms thus people only get the answers Bush wants them to have.

That the American news is heavily biased is not too strange when the networks only concern seems to be to make big money.

[Benno]

US news (fairly conservative magazine) cover story: "How low can he go" in refrence to bush's low approval rating. Whereas this copy of Der Spiegel next to me has a picture of bush dressed as rambo.

Could it be that europe's view that "Bush controls the media" is infact based on the fact that even the most neutral news source would contain views that are vastly differnt (ie: unpopular) than those found in the typical sensationalist european rag? Given Der Spiegel is an extreme case, but editors know how to make money, and hyperbole mixed with (mostly) baseless speculation sells. The other option is that too many people confuse "Fox news" with "the american media" (tm).

[genocidal]

Yeah I do think he controls the media. I didn’t mean he controls whatever they should air or write but he decides what kind of questions that will be answered. The interviews etc are all on his terms thus people only get the answers Bush wants them to have.

That the American news is heavily biased is not too strange when the networks only concern seems to be to make big money.

Do you have any facts or is this just how you see things? Since when does Bush decide what people ask him? If that were the case, why did he tell that old bitch to ask him a poorly worded question about Iraq's failure? I'm not going to treat this editorial as anything more than such as you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

If both of you meant these statements, it shows EXACTLY how media and culture has distorted the way Americans see things. The same way Americans persecuted anyone who thought communism wasn't the most evil thing ever created. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad with almost any point on the political spectrum. Personally, I do not like the idea of a political system where two parties occupy opposite ends on almost every issue. Governments by their very nature are about compromise. I myself lean to the right on issues pertaining to crime and the economy and to the left on civil rights and social assistance. The idea that liberals are weak and tree hugging hippies is ridiculous. The same way believing Republicans are all gun totting rednecks is silly.

Um how did we persecute communists? If you're referring to the Red Scare that was very short-lived and it's not like anyone lost their lives as a result. Every country has a history of knee-jerk reactions and racism; it's not like the American media created racism and stereotypes.

The second part of your comment was just a plug for the benefits of a Parliamentary government. We'll save that debate for another thread but I can assure you that America isn't as polarized as you sweepingly believe and Canada is no where near as effective at compromise as you think.

I'm sick of debating American issues with people like Ripper who have no clue what they're talking about. I seriously doubt you even knew the difference between FoxNews and CNN.

[Blood]

You can't deny that a lot of American people viewed communism as the epitome of evil, and view middle-eastern people nowadays as dangerous terrorists. The media has a lot to do with this.

[Subjugation]

Um how did we persecute communists? If you're referring to the Red Scare that was very short-lived and it's not like anyone lost their lives as a result. Every country has a history of knee-jerk reactions and racism; it's not like the American media created racism and stereotypes.

I think it's wierd that you're downplaying how destructive McCarthyism was and how it's completely against the principles of a free society.

Not like anyone lost their lives? People weren't killed, but people's lives were indeed destroyed---careers, personal finances, families..and for what? All it did was suppress public dissent, not protect America from Communism.

[Liquid Blue]

You can't deny that a lot of American people viewed communism as the epitome of evil, and view middle-eastern people nowadays as dangerous terrorists. The media has a lot to do with this.

What's your point? The media has an influence on culture regardless of country, race or time period, I'm getting tired of seeing some random guy find a link in regards to Bush or America and feel the need to post it. Why? Because at least one or two other people that don't know what they're talking about, that haven't bothered to look at facts besides "watching fox news" decide to share their opinion as fact.

I'm all for discussions but beating a dead horse and refusing to budge on the idea that America is corrupted politically and socially is beyond wearing thin.

[Eeks]

Ever read about the activities of U.S gov, CIA and companies (especially United Fruit) in South-America through the whole 20th century? That shit is scary.