TBHA posted:

*shakes head*

Mods, could you change the title of this thread to nin.com takes YET ANOTHER opportunity to bash conservative points of view?

plskthx

Imaginary_Kevin posted:

TBHA posted:

*shakes head*

Mods, could you change the title of this thread to nin.com takes YET ANOTHER opportunity to bash conservative points of view?

plskthx

I'm not trying to bash conservative points of view, I just don't think that blatant political bias is appropriate in news where people should simply be given facts so they can make decisions for themselves. If you read the rest of the first post, I bashed a liberal website too for being hypocritical. It really doesn't matter which side is doing it, it just shouldn't be happening.

TBHA posted:

Yes, I read it and you did and you're right, but since your original post it has turned into another "Fox News SUCKS!!!", "Ann Coulter is a bitch!!!" and "Glenn Beck is stupid!!!" thread including one personal attack from a known troll (Riktor) on me and my point of view... WHATEVER it may be (I'd say it wasn't made obvious from my previous post).

posted:

I've not seen anyone mention the Communist News Network and how biased they are, or Daily Kos, or Huffington Post, or The New York Times (which subsequently is going under financially because they can't properly report THE NEWS and their readership is free falling), or The Houston Chronicle... NONE of these.

posted:

and Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert... comedians... REALLY?!?!? Are you serious?!?!?

tekkaman42 posted:

An interesting take from John Stossel (formerly ABC, now Fox Business):

[url [reason.com]]LINK[/url]

posted:

The Double Standard About Bias in Journalism
Every reporter has a point of view. But some refuse to admit it.

John Stossel | November 5, 2009

I made The New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud.

Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox."

Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group."

It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful."

But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm.

It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.

I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV—and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter—the former was a good thing.)

I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences.

Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty, and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more.

As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the national stage—20/20 and Good Morning America—it was hard to find comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But there aren't.

I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy. Regulation barely deters the cheaters, but competition does.

It made me want to learn more about free markets. I subscribed to Reason magazine and read Cato Institute research papers. Then Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Aaron Wildavsky.

My reporting changed. I started taking skeptical looks at government—especially regulation. I did an ABC TV special, "Are We Scaring You to Death?" that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about chemicals, pollution, and other relatively minor risks. Its good ratings—16 million viewers—surprised my colleagues.

Suddenly, I wasn't so popular with them.

I stopped winning Emmys.

I was invited on CNN's media program, Reliable Sources, to be interviewed by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and an indignant Bernard Kalb. They titled the segment, "Objectivity and Journalism: Does John Stossel Practice Either?" It was in big letters over my head.

Apparently, I had broken the rules.

On the air they told me that I was no longer objective. I was too stunned to defend myself effectively. I said something like: "I've always had a point of view. How come you had no trouble with that when I criticized business?"

In hindsight, I wish I'd said: "Look at the title on the wall, you hypocrites! It shows you have a point of view, too. Many reporters do. You just don't like my arguments now that I no longer hew to your statist line. So you want to shut me up."

But I didn't.

So I'll say it now: Reporters who think coercive government control is generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally better, both have a point of view.

So why am I the one called biased?

I like what "Americans for Prosperity" defends. I'm an American, and I'm for prosperity. What creates prosperity is free and competitive markets. That means limited government.

And I will speak about that every chance I get.

tekkaman42 posted:

jayetheartist posted:

Riktor posted:

I still maintain that if there is any bias in corporate news, it is a profit bias. All major media outlets tailor the stories they run to attract readers or viewers and, ergo, profits. The New York Times does this, and I would venture a guess that John Stossel does as well (after all, there is a huge market for anti-statist media).

At the heart of the matter, it seems as if Americans, while whining about bias in the news media, do not really want unbiased news. They want news to conform to their preexisting worldviews and opinions. Hence, the popularity of MSNBC and FOX news (Although, I think we can all agree FOX is much better than MSNBC at playing the bias game). Conservatives complain about MSNBC and yet FOX's ratings are consistently high. Meanwhile, liberals deride FOX constantly and still run about linking to all manner of blatantly slanted alternative news sources.

The problem is endemic to the partisanship that now defines the American political consciousness. The bias of major news outlets is merely a symptom of this problem, as these corporations are seizing upon our divided zeitgeist in an effort to build consumer loyalty.

Bingo.

I'm not sure that "we can all agree FOX is much better than MSNBC at playing the bias game", given their evening line-up and corporate backing.

posted:

They are two sides of the same coin, though I think that there's much to be said for Stossel's assertions that all news reporting is biased by the ideology of the reporter (von Mises said basically the same thing in the first chapter of Human Action about historians) and we may be better off having outlets acknowledge their approach.

posted:

I must ask, though, while criticizing corporations for taking advantage of the social climate sounds good, what's the alternative? The non-profit model is a possibility if the organization can build some clout and resources, but so far it's been vanity blogs and conspiracy theorists that dominate that market, and they simply can't move the same mountains that "big news" can on a consistent basis.

tekkaman42 posted:

Well, Fox doesn't even have Colmes anymore. The closest they get is Juan Williams from NPR making regular appearances, and Geraldo's lefty-moments. The only reason Scarborough has a show on MSNBC is because they were desperate to fill that slot with anything that people would watch after they dropped Imus.

posted:

And a stupid man's report of objective reality, as well. The problem is that many on the right and the left confuse opposing viewpoints with stupid, and the chasm between them widens.

posted:

Perhaps I was arguing past you for a bit. There is an argument closely related to this topic that "big media" encourages division by picking an ideology and purposefully misstating the opposing ideology. FOX and MSNBC do this constantly. However, I have far less of a problem with this practice than the practice of individual commentators of all types aping a rationally-based ideology, picking and choosing and misstating, then appearing to speak for said ideological position. On the right, one example (my analysis) is that Glenn Beck steals (poorly) from Mark Levin and Pat Buchanan, who in turn steal from von Mises, Rothbard, Rand, etc. (though Buchanan at least tries, and often succeeds, in writing from a scholarly, researched viewpoint, though his extemporaneous speaking is sometimes less thoughtful). I see evidence of the same on the left, though I couldn't speak with the same detail.

posted:

you're just wrong sometimes.

Riktor posted:

I criticized the American people for being a bunch of partisan nitwits.

Surrylda posted:

Basically it's only biased when the left leaning majority on this site agrees its biased.

Did I get that right?

jayetheartist posted:

Riktor posted:

jayetheartist posted:

I think it's only been made worse by the marriage of religion and conservative politics. Hell, if you convince a lot of people that god wants you to fight everything that's "immoral," and you go on to convince those people that one particular political party is the only one standing up for what god wants, it doesn't take a huge leap to get those people believing that even entertaining the thought that any other viewpoint might have legitimacy will result in eternal damnation.

Social Psychologists have theorized there are two "routes" to persuasion. The first, being called the "Primary Route", relies on logic, reasoning, objectivity, and empiricism to make a point. The "Secondary Route" relies on emotion.

If you are liberal, it is easy to see conservative leaders making extensive use of the Secondary Route when they appeal to patriotism, religion, or safety in their campaign messages. However, I think liberal politicians are just as guilty. They have, time and time again, played on liberals' desires for peace, equality, and conservation without detailing specific methods or mechanisms for achieving this end, which, frankly, I don't think they even care all that much about realizing.

Agreed.

Shouldn't surprise anyone, though. Very few people actually understand logic or value objectivity. I'd say "anymore," but I'm not sure there's ever been a time in human history that reason and logic were common skills. It's far more effective to appeal to hopes and fears to get a desired response. In some ways it's hard to fault political figures for doing just that, since it's the easiest, cheapest way to pull people to your side. Trying to reason with people just doesn't get attention.

Maybe that's part of the reason we still only have two dominant parties -- the rest of them just haven't found the right emotional buttons to push.

Calderon08 posted:

Jon Stewart fucking owned fox news last night on the daily show lol

Riktor posted:

posted:

and Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert... comedians... REALLY?!?!? Are you serious?!?!?

They are not comedians. They are satirists.