Please Explain How to Spot Media Bias

Its simple. Go back to the 2000 election when Fox prematurely reported Bush won before the election. Media also reports the same story 2 different ways depending on the network.

Good question, though I think the answer is obvious unless I’m mistaken.

Maximus Rex wrote: »

People love to explain how the media is biased (especially that the media leans left,). The weird thing is, you'll hear the same exact complaints coming from both sides. Those on the right will point to right wing biases and those on the left will do the same.

Some media slants right, and some slants left. FOX slants right whereas MSNBC slants left. And CNN is the worst because, in my half-assed opinion because I rarely watch television, it alternates and plays both sides but slants right more than it does left.

Maximus Rex wrote: »

My question is when I'm watching the news or reading a paper or a magazine, what are sides of media bias. What should I be looking for? Also when I'm talking about news shows, I'm about Diane Swayer, Brian Williams, Bill Shaffer, and the hard news programs that come on the cable networks.

Again, I might be somewhat ignorant because I rarely watch these programs, but you should pay attention to how news anchors, interviewers, and so-called “journalists” word their sentences, questions, etc. and how they interpret, interrupt, and treat guests on their show who have different opinions from their own.

Check if they use fallacies, rhetoric, and lies to support what they say instead of using evidence, facts, and logic. For that, you might have to do some research (and research is very important!).

DO NOT believe everything that they say for face value even if it sounds good, especially if it sounds too good. Statistics and polls are very easy to manipulate, so be cautious of them.

You also should mind the backgrounds of these news “pundits” and those who they bring on their shows. Are they religious? Conservative? Liberal? ? ? Etc. These things tend to seep out of them whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Let’s not forget that news programs tend want to be entertaining (as opposed to informative) so that they can rack up ratings. So mind that also because entertainment opens the door for falsities/fakeness (just think of the WWE).

What I say next might not be strictly political, but it’s related, but you might also know that news programs tend to run stories that they think their viewers are more interested in. Well, most of their viewers might be white. So they’ll run stories about white victims, especially pretty white female victims (look up “Missing White Women Syndrome”). But you won’t hear a lick of people of color that end up as victims in this or that hood, even though that is where most of America’s crime is concentrated. Remember the Jessica Lynch story? This is from Wikipedia:

Critics have also pointed to media bias in the coverage of soldier Jessica Lynch versus that of her fellow soldiers, Shoshana Johnson and Lori Piestewa. All three were ambushed in the same attack during the Iraq War on March 23, 2003, with Piestewa being killed and Lynch and Johnson being injured and taken prisoner. Lynch, a young, blonde, white woman, received far more media coverage than Johnson (a black woman and a single mother) and Piestewa (a Hopi from an impoverished background, and also a single mother), with media critics suggesting that the media gave more attention to the woman with whom audiences would more readily identify.[14][15]

Lynch herself leveled harsh criticism at this disproportionate coverage that focused only on her, stating in a congressional testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary. People like Lori Piestewa and First Sergeant Dowdy who picked up fellow soldiers in harm's way. Or people like Patrick Miller and Sergeant Donald Walters who actually fought until the very end. The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales.[16]

You want to just abstain from mainstream media because it’s just simply terrible. At least cautiously approach it. When it comes to the least-biased news sources, the Internet is your best friend. You have to weed out the extremist sources, but there are great sources like Reuters and Associated Press. As for television, C-SPAN and arguably PBS are good. NPR is good for radio. You’ll find some good material on Youtube as well. Reality Check is an amazing and quite possibly the most professional source of journalism I’ve ever seen. Ben Swann is an incredible journalist. He might be slightly biased but not in a bad way. He just chooses to fight for those who have been wronged by the mainstream media. He’s like the news that covers and criticizes the mainstream news. The great thing is he does a great amount of research and shows it and explains it coherently to support his news. Also, don’t’ give up on your local stations.

Ron Paul has probably been the greatest victim of media bias of recent note. The mainstream media has partially succeeded in slandering him, censoring him, and misunderstanding him intentionally or unintentionally all the while misleading and misinforming viewers. I’ve posted some videos as evidence. But these videos just represent a small part of it all that dates back to 2008 presidential election and through the 2012 presidential election. The mainstream media has also undermined his success, manipulated polls to discredit him, basically called him a racist (and sadly, some blacks believed this, but fortunately others called ? and even posted Youtube videos proving their case), said he’d had no chance of winning, and blackballed him. And that’s both sides because mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats hated/feared him.

Jon Stewart (a liberal) exposes the media’s bias against Paul. Funny and brave stuff. It’s sad when political comedians do a better job at reporting news than political “journalists.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q_DRbv-5rk

This video exposes the media’s bias for Obama for 2008 and bias against Paul for 2012 during the Iowa caucuses. For ‘08, they were important because Obama won. For ‘12, they were insignificant because it merely looked as if Paul could’ve won (keep in mind, that they were important up before Paul was succeeding back when the media said he had no chance of winning).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHAOVZzXtA

Fox unintentionally or intentionally switches the 2011 CPAC Straw Poll (which Paul won and was mostly cheered) with the 2010 CPAC Straw Poll (which Paul won and was cheered but was also booed) all in order to discredit Paul. Incompetence or Deception? You decide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REckJvCQNeM

This video is a revealing compilation of the media’s bias against Paul over about 5 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ji9Ond5pmM

Appeals to emotion are great indicators of propaganda

almighty breeze wrote: »

Tone
Language
Do/If they inflect certain words when talkin about one subject/person that they dont with another?
Pictures & Footage- nothing shows up on the news by accident. So when they are only showing certain clips or showing a clip 100 times over & over- Why?
How is said clips/pictures edited- What is the image & point they are trying to sell showing you these cut scenes
If they are interviewing people who knew the person or wrote an article- Why them? Pay attention to the questions asked & not asked then see if that persion is biased or not- or even more important trying to hide a bias or agenda

Basically if it's looking like there is only evidence for side or all evidence is being pushed to one side. Theres more to it

I agree with you!! online pokies

janklow wrote: »

RodrigueZz wrote: »

Appeals to emotion are great indicators of propaganda

unfortunately, i think this is the sole content in the average politician's comments these days

Almost everything I would say. I am constantly seeing all sorts of attempts to rouse emotional responses in audiences.

and then of course there is also the sterilizing language that is intended to prevent emotional response. Words like "Casualties" "Insurgents" and "Collateral damage".


Double speak is really good propaganda too. Like naming missiles "peace makers". That ? makes me laugh every time I think about it

RodrigueZz wrote: »

Appeals to emotion are great indicators of propaganda

True. That's one of the most annoying and common fallacies in my opinion. And essential to demagoguery.

From Wikipedia:

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the less-educated people of a population in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Lots of politicians and media people play divide and conquer. ? scapegoated the Jews. Muslims and "poor people" seem to be popular choices today.