Today's Discussion Question

The media is totally biased. Sometimes by suttle remark sometimes more blatant.
Obama was vetted by the media by using his campaign's talking points.How about his time at Columbia they refuse to discuss this. Since you guys are so good at investagative reporting what went on then?

JAKE -

Well done today.

Well done.

I'm probably as far to the left as anyone here, and while the facts may in fact have a liberal bias, I am saddened by the blending of news and commentary to the point that it becomes difficult to tell them apart. Ultimately it hurts everyone.

I have to point out the FoxNews program titled the "Strategy Room" as an unrepentant example - but everyone does it now.

But then,... i'm old

Obama has been vetted by the press for the last 19 months, in case you have not been paying attention.

Posted by: Jeanne from Michigan | Sep 4, 2008 9:50:03 AM

************************************
Jeanne I have been paying attention and I recall, as do others posting here, Hillary and her people talking about why Obama was being handled with kid gloves by the MSM! The MSM has totally ignored his experience, e.g. none in a leadership position. Voting "present" 130 times because he can't make a decision scares me!

Right on, Jake. You see the problem. If you acknowledge the facts in front of you, you're going to acquire what the Republicans call a "liberal bias."

You see, the facts have a liberal bias. They indicate that we can't bankrupt our country via tax cuts for the rich, and spend all of our time, money and prestige in unnecessary wars.

So if you acknowledge that the war contributes to the deficit, then you have a liberal bias. If you suggest that evolution has a great deal of scientific support, you have a liberal bias. If you think FEMA should be headed by a trained administrator, rather than by the former head of an Arabian horse association, you have a liberal bias.

I could go on....but why bother? It only shows my bias.

If a hypothetical member of the media did NOT share that view, he or she would be equally biased, having taken the opposite position.

If a hypothetical member of the media had no opinion on the matter, he or she would seem to be incapable of the critical thinking necessary to being a competent reporter.

Members of the media are human. They have views, and no one should expect a journalist to be 100% objective 100% of the time. But a journalist should at least strive to be that way. That's all we ask, but we should warn you that no matter what, you guys will never make all of us happy all of the time!

Personally, I feel editors today have shown far more obvious bias in journalism than writers have. Editors are coming up with headlines like "Candidate X Challenges Candidate Y On..." when someone they agree with goes on the attack, but then go with "Candidate Y Assails Candidate X" when it's the other way around. Editors are also choosing to show flattering pictures of their guy and awful ones of the other guy.

This goes both ways depending on the news outlet. You can always tell a paper's slant by the headlines before you even read the story, and that is not the writers' doing.

The hypothetical member's judgment about where this country should head for is likely to influence his focus and presentation, especially if he/she cares much. This is simply human nature, not that there's NOTHING wrong with that :-). It's a legitimate question to ask to what extent their (not necessarily right) judgments and strategy of presentation (within the limits of professional ethics) have influenced the American's people's perception. Whether it is good or bad, it's hard to tell.

That said, I guess many people here, including me, would like to thank you for the work you've done.

Bias for a reporter isn't a matter of sharing a view, it's a matter of how things are reported and deciding what's worth reporting. How fairly different sides are heard and investigated. I listen to NPR. How many man-hours have they used investigating Palin in the last few days versus the number spent on Obama's ties to Ayers or his removal of his opponents from the ballot when running for state senate. Have they spent one minute on those things? That's bias.

Yes, if that member of the media thinks that entire 80% takes a left-leaning view of why the country is on the wrong track. There are many conservatives who think the country is on the wrong track for far different reasons then the lefties think it's on the wrong track. So when a member of the media cites this and takes the left's point of view, then it's biased. If it's based in a more centrist view, then no - it's not biased. And when doing so, a member of the media should cite such polls, rather than act as if it's his/her own opinion.

On so many levels, Palin is just like Bush -- unfortunately (for her), that's not a very favorable comparison.

Palin is great for rallying the conservative base of the party, the 20% who still approve of Bush (and think the country is on the right track) -- the people in the convention hall. Another 20-25% are persuadable Republicans. Not too sure how far Palin's message travels beyond that 40-45%. Outside the likely Red States, does she really affect the 15% undecided in the middle? I'm not too sure. We'll see.

The McCain/Palin camp are not reformers; they are hypocrites who can only deliver more of the same. They have no new ideas; they are ideological extremists who share the same extreme ideas as Cheney & Bush. Their "Ownership Society" is really an "on your own" society, where a right-wing administration will threaten your civil liberties and take away your choices.

I should hope the last 8 years would have taught the American people a few lessons about trusting glib, faith-based, anti-government politicians with the heavy responsibility of the US Government and US leadership in the free world.

No. If 80% of the public believe the economy is bad and 80% of the media believes the same thing, it means only that the media having been paying too much attention to the media. Remember, this "new Great Depression" meme has been media-spawned.

How about if a hypothetical media member doesn't share that view, does that mean he or she is biased for thinking the status quo needs to be maintained? Bias either way isn't reflected in communication if you simply stick to the facts.

Jake,

The media's job is NOT to take opinions but to objectively report facts.

To some degree it does mean the media is bias. There was a time when one did not know who the media was for or against. Now it is so blatant;Fox News is definitely biased towards Republicans and MSNBC is biased towards Democrats. However, this year, the Country is in such turmoil,it must be hard to simply sit back and watch without putting your two cents in. CNN is the better of the three cable news networks, a CSPAN is better than them all.

To some degree it does mean the media is bias. There was a time when one did not know who the media was for or against. Now it is so blatant;Fox News is definitely biased towards Republicans and MSNBC are biased towards Democrats. However, this year, the Country is in such turmoil that it must be hard to simply sit back and watch without putting your two cents in. CNN is the better of the three cable news networks, a CSPAN is better than them all.

"The Presidency of the United States is not a bully pullpit for a televangelist."
-----
Obama and Axelrod haven't done all that well with explicitly RELIGIOUS gambits so far -- but maybe when this is over they can go into motivational infomercials.

"You are no longer looking at the race as a battle for the redemption of the SOUL of the United States of America, "

The Presidency of the United States is not a bully pullpit for a televangelist. If you want to save our souls, join the Coast Guard.

"Wrong track" can indicate a lot of things...is it political, moral, religious, environmental? It is a generic question. One could think we are "on the wrong track" because Bush is pres and not McCain or Obama...One could think the democratic Congress is putting us on the wrong track, or that a republican congress has and will...One could think that we are not Christian/Islamic/Wiccan/Atheist enough...One could think that we are polluting to much...etc. etc.

The question allows people to fill in their own pet concerns.

That said, Bush probably has a lot to do with the 80% figure, given his approval ratings...however, if the proper follow up question is asked: "which candidate will be more likely to put the country on the RIGHT track," the answer is split, right?

So, Jake, your question makes the false assumption that "wrong track" = "elect Obama," When it is just as likely to mean "elect McCain"

"You are no longer looking at the race as a battle for the redemption of the SOUL of the United States of America,"
-----
Here's a newsflash for YOU: nation states -- especially THIS one -- don't HAVE souls. (And if this one DID, I certainly don't think it would be saved by a mob-friendly fantasist manufactured by bad white guys.)

Nothing done by the BushCons -- who are more fascist than "Republican" -- was done without the cowed collusion of the hijacked Democrats.

I wish Palin were president.
YES she CAN.