BBC admits to Bias!

[imind]

A Measure of Media Bias...groveclose & milyo

this study's methodolgy is so fuked up i don't even understand it. not that i am an expert in the field, but i can't comprehend how this is a proper guage of bias. a well researched paper on this study can be found here.

the author has conducted his own study and has concluded that the bias in mainstream media actually leans toward the right...

Indeed, as I have pointed out in my series titled The Media's True Colors - Part 1, when it comes to the most important measures of integrity in journalism, the mainstream media tilts far more conservative than liberal. These measures include:

* Journalistic malpractice in political coverage - which tends to be far higher against liberals/Democrats than against conservatives/Republicans
* Accountability for malpractice - which tends to be virtually absent if the target of the malpractice is on the Left
* Punishment for mistakes or transgressions (even valid opinions) - which tends to be far more severe if the target is the Right or its policies
* Censorship - which tends to be imposed far more on coverage/ads/opinions that lean leftward than on similar things that lean rightward
* Astroturf propagation - which tends to skew the media to the Right partly because of wealthy conservative groups that tend to indulge far more in this type of propaganda
* Propaganda - which again shows a clear tilt of the media to the Right

link

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Kytro

A bias isn't about truth or lies. More about selective reporting, or adding opinon.

Truth, but when you report the news honestly you are going to take a side. This idea that there are two equally right sides to an issue is absurd. There should be one side, the right side. If reporters get it wrong, then so be it. But warping every issue into a right vs left thing has negative effects.


Mark Twain- The job of a reporter isn't to report the news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Truth, but when you report the news honestly you are going to take a side. This idea that there are two equally right sides to an issue is absurd. There should be one side, the right side. If reporters get it wrong, then so be it. But warping every issue into a right vs left thing has negative effects.


Mark Twain- The job of a reporter isn't to report the news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it.

When you honestly report the news from one position more than the other or you harp on certain issues more than other depending on the party affiliation there is a bias. It doesn't make you a liar, but it does show a bias.

Think of a conservative and a liberal on the forums. They both will make different threads depending on their bias. And when responding and discussing issues they'll use their own sources that tell the story how they want it to be told. It doesn't make them wrong. It makes them biased.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by JaJae

When you honestly report the news from one position more than the other or you harp on certain issues more than other depending on the party affiliation there is a bias. It doesn't make you a liar, but it does show a bias.

Think of a conservative and a liberal on the forums. They both will make different threads depending on their bias. And when responding and discussing issues they'll use their own sources that tell the story how they want it to be told. It doesn't make them wrong. It makes them biased.

So you make the assumption that when republicans or democrats look bad or good on the news that it is a bias, and not simply the truth, or atleast the truth as seen to the people reporting?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

So you make the assumption that when republicans or democrats look bad or good on the news that it is a bias, and not simply the truth, or atleast the truth as seen to the people reporting?

When the opinions and views of Democrats and Republicans aren't evenly proportionate on the news, then yes there is a bias. When our media is far left of the average Congressman, then yes there is a bias.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Truth, but when you report the news honestly you are going to take a side. This idea that there are two equally right sides to an issue is absurd. There should be one side, the right side. If reporters get it wrong, then so be it. But warping every issue into a right vs left thing has negative effects.

The idea of taking a neutral stance on information is absurd?

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

T
Mark Twain- The job of a reporter isn't to report the news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it.

I strongly disagree with this idea.

[imind]

So far the data does indicate a somewhat liberal leaning,

no it doesn't.

Almost all non-partisan studies I've seen (I have about 5 bookmarked) show there is a liberal bias in US media. Private studies done by website that promote liberal agendas have been the only thing I've seen to show otherwise.

funny you have yet to share those, as the only ones you've cited are clearly bias...

Most notably Fair.org did a study that was so absurd they claimed reporters aren't typically liberal. I guess that's what you would expect from a "progressive" organization trying to find fairness in reporting by attacking media for not being liberal enough.

and what was so absurd about the study? the only thing you've mentioned is the conclusion.

Originally Posted by JaJae

When the opinions and views of Democrats and Republicans aren't evenly proportionate on the news, then yes there is a bias.

evidence that this happens?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by imind

evidence that this happens?

It's in this thread. Continuing to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[imind]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's in this thread. Continuing to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there.

oh blow me. you've been complaining about this since gore invented teh internets, and every piece of 'evidence' you've presented has been easily countered.

the irony of your comment of my ignoring the evidence is thick, given that you haven't addressed anything i've posted, nor answered any of the charges made against you or your sources.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by imind

oh blow me. you've been complaining about this since gore invented teh internets, and every piece of 'evidence' you've presented has been easily countered.

the irony of your comment of my ignoring the evidence is thick, given that you haven't addressed anything i've posted, nor answered any of the charges made against you or your sources.

Easily countered. Like by taking one link and saying it's biased by countering it with another biased link?

"(A series originally published at The Left Coaster by eRiposte)"
"Illiberal Conservative Media (ICM) TM"

Or by saying you don't understand the methods of the independent research study done by a team at UCLA? A very liberal university. That's not countering anything.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'll agree it is positive that there is at least some acknowldegement.

Bias is inevitable in large organisations, and likely even in small ones

We all have our political filters so why should media people be different? The thing is the BBC are honest enough to admit it. That awareness can bring about more fairness if they want to make it happen? But when you work for the media and you are most often in the river de-nial on this issue you wont even be aware it is happening most of the time. That is what Bernard Goldberg documented in his books about CBS and other media he was involved with. Most of the bias was NOT intentional. It is just when you are surrouned by like-minded people you start to think extreme views are the norm, the center, ect...which is why middle America confounds the left and other left coast media so often!

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The idea of taking a neutral stance on information is absurd?

It is when you have to make dishonest arguements(not lies) to make an issue nuetral.

Don't get me wrong, intentional bias is a terrible thing for the media. But intentionally making all things amoral and partisan in an attempt to squelch bias is destructive. It was what was wrong with Crossfire and why after Stewart pointed it out on national tv, they cancelled the show.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

We all have our political filters so why should media people be different?

They are not. I agree.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

It is just when you are surrouned by like-minded people you start to think extreme views are the norm, the center, ect...which is why middle America confounds the left and other left coast media so often!

Extreme is is a matter of perspective. Some extreme opinions probably have more merit then "sensible" ones.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

It is when you have to make dishonest arguements(not lies) to make an issue nuetral.

Neutral does not mean equal or balanced viewpoints. What it means facts are not manipulated to support an end.

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I
Don't get me wrong, intentional bias is a terrible thing for the media. But intentionally making all things amoral and partisan in an attempt to squelch bias is destructive. It was what was wrong with Crossfire and why after Stewart pointed it out on national tv, they cancelled the show.

When doing an opinion piece, bias is fine. When reporting news it should be facts presented to allow people to make up their own minds.

Example:

In Iraq a group of militants ambush a convoy and a battle ensues. The military escort takes a few casualties as do some convoy civilians before the militants are quelled. Some nearby civilians are also killed by the military forces / crossfire.

Fact Report would include:
Ambush, Losses by both sides and civilians killed

Bias against the US would focus on the number of civilians killed by the military, and/or any bad decisions by the military.

Bias against militants would focus on anything the militants did that endangered the civilians and things such as lack of compassion in killing convoy members

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Example:

An example I mentioned in another thread had to do with CNN. 8 Palestinians killed by Israel. EVERY news report labeled them as Hamas militants. CNN just mentioned Israel killed 8 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, no mention of them being Hamas or militant. They were given this information the same as everyone else in the intelligence briefing to the media. Why didn't they report this information like everyone else? They went on and on about other killings in the strip, but didn't focus on the details of this story. They spun it to be against Israel essentially. They didn't lie. They just selectively reported what they wanted to report. That's bias.

[Kytro]

From memory the report mentioned militants, but said some were fatah, but there were less details.

That is a form of bias, and probably done automatically.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

From memory the report mentioned militants, but said some were fatah, but there were less details.

That is a form of bias, and probably done automatically.

No, they went on and identified killings of 2 others from a previous incident as militant at the end of the story. But the ones the story was titled to be about were never identified as militant.

[Kytro]

Not how I recall it, but that may have simply been due to the way it was written. My point stands though.

[Diamond Cross]

In part I agree with Kyto on this one, but it's not what they report it's the language they use.

Two examples:

In one broadcast a station might report a rape of a woman by caucasion 18 year olds and call those kids misguided youths.


In reporting the same crime done by say, 18 year old black males, the press could call them a wolf pack.

A dictatorship would call rebels terrorists.

Another way to lie is to omit something. For example, an attack by a military kills a lot of civllian casualties. But what goes unreported is that those civillian casualties are terrorists who killed fifty people by bombing a church just the previous day. They're called civillian casualties because they're not part of the government's official military or law-enforcement forces.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

It is when you have to make dishonest arguements(not lies) to make an issue nuetral.

Don't get me wrong, intentional bias is a terrible thing for the media. But intentionally making all things amoral and partisan in an attempt to squelch bias is destructive. It was what was wrong with Crossfire and why after Stewart pointed it out on national tv, they cancelled the show.

Here watch this interview of the ABC political news director admitting to liberal bias in the mainstream American media and tell me he's lying when he says his own station and others have a liberal bias. Then get back to me.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Big media is too liberal, ABC News honcho tells O’Reilly

"It's not fair... we should be impartial."

"You know how this works. There's no strategy calls. We're not on the phone with Howard Dean and George Soros in the morning getting our marching orders. But the mindset at ABC and the other big news organizations is just too focused on being more favorable to Nancy Pelosi than say Newt Gingrich. Being more down on the Republicans chances than perhaps is warranted. Singling out, here you're showing a 60 Minutes piece of Nancy Pelosi. I don't remember Newt Gingrich getting a piece that favorable..."

"I'm saying people of the Old Media should be watching that piece on Nancy Pelosi and asking 'are we being fair to everybody in the political process'."

ABC News: The Note: Pending: Six Days of November Surprises

How much more evidence do you guys need than this?