How biased is the media really?

[Kubra]

Well should it go
Ivy league...?: roll a 1d6 for value
I mean it's Columbia

I wasn't trying to make this a game lol, I'm just saying that the media has a very elitist composition.

Well I was having fun
and now I'm not!

[Kilobugya]

All media are biased.

But there are mostly two "levels". Some like OANN or parts of Fox News just completely make up stories, repeat obvious lies and conspiracy madness. Others like CNN rarely will directly lie about facts, but they'll have a huge level of bias in how they present them, and perhaps more importantly about which topics and which parts of the story they speak about and which they just ignore.

[The Reformed American Republic]

CNN and MSNBC are socially progressive and economically neoliberal. They'll go down wokesville while opposing universal healthcare and needed economic reforms. Fox News and OANN are economically neoliberal with social conservatism and outlandish conspiracy theorizing.

[95X]

Everyone has biases and perceptual filters. Media bias is one-hundred percent real. It's entirely possible for four websites to run the headlines "here's how your money is being spent on things you don't like", "Republicans want to create jobs. Democrats are standing in the way", "Democrats want funding for schools, childcare, environment; Republicans protest", "forget congress, they aren't even talking about these issues", and all four wind up being about the same exact thing reported differently. Oh, and it looks like you're using an ad-blocker, so disable it to read the actual article (that gets a 'nope' from me and I find a different website).

For example, I liked a documentary available for viewing on a major subscription nonlinear media service on the topic. However, this documentary dissed on websites and proliferation of phones and apps but said nothing about how subscription nonlinear media service has led to things like so-called "binge-watching" and further narrowing of what people see and hear. IMO, bias by omission.

And I don't mind that since I already know what I'm going for, I'm here to gain new insights into the problem.

That's the thing, they want you to visit their website and think that because you visit their website that you'll like the other articles on their website as well.

Something I almost never see mentioned is the difference between somewhat-objective news and outright talk/opinion programs (Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, John Oliver, Dave Ramsey, etc.) designed to present exactly one point of view. Or how interview and lifestyle/magazine shows are presented as news and might even be performed on the news set but are actually paid advertisements for products and services.

I don't watch a lot of TV, so I wasn't totally conscious of it when the change started, but I am struck by it when I turn on the news now. Different outlets have different spin, but across the board they are getting more opinionated and less informative.

Yeah, they're trying to target a specific demographic versus providing objective reporting.

Also, people should remember they have the right to disagree; this can be done without being disagreeable.

[Laurenthea]

I do not have problems with media outlets having soft political biases. However, those biases shouldn't be allowed to meddle with factual information. Sure, you can write an article or editorial favourable to a party you prefer, but you shouldn't report your party's wrongs as rights, and the other party's rights as wrongs. That's where the problem and division in society begins.

[The Alma Mater]

I do not have problems with media outlets having soft political biases. However, those biases shouldn't be allowed to meddle with factual information. Sure, you can write an article or editorial favourable to a party you prefer, but you shouldn't report your party's wrongs as rights, and the other party's rights as wrongs. That's where the problem and division in society begins.

Thing is, bias CAN influence factual reporting in other ways.

Say you are a leftist channel reporting on the aftermath of a hurricane or flood. Your report might emphasise the people crying over their losses, and people making makeshift soup kitchens to help feed the community. All things that actually happen - your reporting is entirely factual.

Now imagine you are a rightwing channel reporting on the same thing. Instead of the poor people and makeshift soup kitchen you show images of people looting stores for bigscreen tvs and gold chains. Also all things that actually happen - your reporting is entirely factual.

But while the two reports are both factual, they send a very different message.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Idk if the media is biased so much as they're sensationalist. The news likes to fear monger and often twists the facts to fit a narrative, like how they did with the covid pandemic. Don't get me wrong, I think covid is an awful disease. But you don't have to deny covid to feel like the media hasn't been totally honest or trustworthy. Who do you think keeps pushing the Astrazeneca causes blood clots myth which has led to countries suspending the vaccine's use while scientists agree the vaccine is safe? The media. Who keeps scaring people about mutant strains of the virus being 100% resistant to the vaccine despite none of the current known strains being vaccine resistant? Media again. Who puts out stories about little kids getting covid and just dropping dead at random the next day, making 1 in 10,000 events sound like 1 in 2 events? The media. They do this with everything. I remember the media warning everyone that ISIS might invade Italy, an event that never happened. And we all know how they obsess over a good mass casualty attack. The media reports what it knows will draw in viewers. So if any sort of bias makes people feel compelled to watch them every minute of the day the way their blatant fear mongering does, I'm sure they'll push it.

[Lost Memories]

What is the difference between a journalist and a propagandist?
One has the illusion of being impartial and telling the truth.
The other has no illusions.



I mean, aside two things:
1. the limitations of time (mainly of the time available to people to inform themselves, but also to the time available to collect and broadcast informations),
where every event has to be simplified to fit the time slot, where reality instead is complex, and any simplification plays to leave things out, or to directly distort the portrayal of events
2. the economic mindset in a job which should be about informing others, rather than money making,
which leads to clickbait titles, sensationalized editorials, selective covering of topics, down to manifacturing and distorsions of the portrayal of events
(for the purpose of gaining that limited attention span, every person has, to "inform" themselves, because that limited time is worth money)

Aside those two things.
Even in a ideal world where corporations(and governments) are Not the ones, directly or indirectly, deciding which news are shown and which not. Which news are hyped by being placed at the top, in the first pages, among the first recommended articles, and in other "best visibility" spots.
There is an underlying issue, that I think most people don't actually understand or think about: any portrayal is not the same as reality itself.
And reality itself can't be fully and completely experienced by a single person, even if that person experienced the event in person. They only saw it by their own point of view. (which is a piece of reality, not all of it)

So any journalist, even in an ideal world without limited interests, or an ideal world without liars, even if that journalist is sincere in their job about informing people, any such sincere journalist claiming to be showing the truth and reality, is mistaken, and any person reading news and assuming "ah, so this is the truth/reality", is also mistaken.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It depends. All journalists are biased as they all have political leanings. Some are better at presenting it in a neutral way than others, some of whom don't even try, but they're all biased. That's why it's important to read multiple articles by trustworthy sources (not "I'll look at news sources from 'both sides'" ). Anyone who says biased media is new doesn't know the history of journalism.

I personally like the modern Associated Press.

[Salus Maior]

As biased as they're paid to be by lobbyists.

[The Capitalist States of Avalon]

During my senior year of high school, my government teacher expressed his views on media. He himself was a self-expressed liberal, and he said something to the effect of "the media is the 4th branch of government, burdened with the role of informing the public honestly and efficiently, and they do neither of those today." Of course I am paraphrasing. Later in the semester, we were assigned a project where we had to take random clips from news stations, predict the bias, and then analyze the clips to find the bias (if any). The class collectively found that nearly all news outlets had a liberal bias, in both word choice, tone, and story choice. Our teacher admitted that the goal of this assignment was to show how biased the media had become, admitting that it gives Democrats not just an advantage in society, but in the voting booth. Again, he himself was a registered Democrat.

[Senkaku]

Here is a fun experiment: Go to a major news website and see where the writers got their college degrees.

Ok
what do I do if it's Columbia

disregard anything they say and immediately assassinate them

[Major-Tom]

Depends on the media outlet. As a whole, we've seen most media outlets find their partisan bullhorns, and that isn't random. The Fairness Doctrine in the US, for instance, was repealed decades ago and that led to the development of blatantly partisan media that can generate tons of money. Even supposedly non-partisan outlets have had to resort to more hyperbole, more partisanship, etc etc, for the sake of turning a profit. How else could they compete?

I'd like to see a legitimate and standard fully public broadcasting network in the US, reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and invest in local, non-partisan news outlets for our rural communities to address this.

[The Black Forrest]

They are biased. They are biased towards what makes the most money in the shortest time possible.

The “liberal media” has both liberals and conservatives watching it.

[The Reformed American Republic]

They are biased. They are biased towards what makes the most money in the shortest time possible.

The “liberal media” has both liberals and conservatives watching it.

With the exception of conservative media and batshit organizations like OANN, most media is socially progressive and economically conservative. MSNBC wouldn't oppose Reganomics as long as it comes with a black fist and LGBTQ flags.

[New Antarcticania]

Associated press is the only non-biased media outlet I've ever heard ofv

[Samudera Darussalam]

The media is biased (the ones who are doing the reporting are humans, after all) but as in 'how much', I think it pretty much depends on where do you live and what kind of media that you watch.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

https://swprs.org/der-propaganda-multiplikator/

Es ist einer der wichtigsten Aspekte unseres Mediensystems – und dennoch in der Öffentlichkeit nahezu unbekannt: Der größte Teil der internationalen Nachrichten in all unseren Medien stammt von nur drei globalen Nachrichtenagenturen aus New York, London und Paris.
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system, yet almost unknown to the public: the majority of international news in all our media comes from only three global news agencies from New York, London and Paris.

Yeap.If we track most of the media's asset holders, the tracking will point to the same group of people, including the United States, Europe or Asia.There is reason to believe that the media is not prejudice, just want to let you be surrounded by prejudice.

[Chia Dal]

ah yes
"the media"
a monolith which all shares the same patterns of bias and outlook
fucking lol

I am not seeing many folks say that. Each outlet has its own particular biases. NPR one way Fox the other.

Don't forget NewsMax

[All China]

Most sensationalist media is very biased.

Imagine getting paid a full-time job salary to gossip on live television and get called a "journalist". People believe whatever you say because they assume if you got on TV, someone must have done their research and found the facts.

Social media isn't much better. Instead of getting paid, people spend their free time gossiping and if you're woke enough or have enough emotion, you get called an "activist" and everyone believes you.

The only non-biased media I've ever seen is CGTN or SCMP.

[Picairn]

The only non-biased media I've ever seen is CGTN or SCMP.

You unironically believe this?

[All China]

The only non-biased media I've ever seen is CGTN or SCMP.

You unironically believe this?

Spoken like someone who trusts BBC or CNN

[Picairn]

Spoken like someone who trusts BBC or CNN

If you trusts CGTN then you lose the privilege to call Western media biased.

[All China]

Spoken like someone who trusts BBC or CNN

If you trusts CGTN then you lose the privilege to call Western media biased.

If a dog barks, it's a dog.

If people needed privilege to say western media is biased, they don't need much of it!

[Sengoku Americas]

Spoken like someone who trusts BBC or CNN

If you trusts CGTN then you lose the privilege to call Western media biased.

To be fair, they also trust SCMP so I guess that makes it even?