I'm curious which media outlets do you normally source your information? 1) The Guardian. 2) Al Jazeera 3) RT
Bias is in the eye of the observer. Having said that; RT is a combination news/propaganda source. This is an interesting read; http://www.businessinsider.com/what...et-says-about-your-political-ideology-2014-10 This one looks promising, but I am just starting to read; Exploring Political Bias with the Bitly Media Map - Blog
I was watching global news (Canadian News). They had a segment on "fake news" and they had a representitive from msnbc talking about it. The only news station he mentioned was fox.
Yes the mainstream media is incredibly biased, and it's so sad to see. It's the mouthpiece for rich special interest groups. They don't even try to hide it anymore. I don't care to keep up. I might watch the local station a few times a week. And then watch some videos from a few YouTube channels. I don't care to keep up with the news anymore. It just serves to irritate me. That Wall Street journal hit piece they did on pewdiepie (a guy I don't even watch or care about) for no other reason than to damage his career was my last straw. I recommend looking up CaspianReport on YouTube, he's a great geopolitical analyst.
I have a portable shortwave receiver hooked up to a long-wire antenna and listen to international shortwave broadcasts from sources like Radio Switzerland, Radio Netherlands, and the BBC, which are retransmitted from Sackville, Ont. Canada.
of course they are, stations like cnn and cnbc and newspapers like the huffington post and washington post are all known to lean towards the left, and i'd imagine their reporting tends to go that way to a point.. while stations such as fox news, all of them, newsmax, worldnetdaily, breibart, the wall street journal, and the sun, all tend to lean towards the right, some more heavily than others.. as far as what i tend to watch / slash read, i'd say mostly the ap, npr and the bbc is where i get a lot of my news from.
i have a question though, why did you single out a single news source for your poll thingy, when in the op you asked a broad question asking if you think main stream media has a bias, but then in the poll, you limit the choices to a single company, msm, and leave out others such as fox, and pretty much everything else.. just seems a bit odd to me is all.
What are your talking about? I'm just polling the opinions of people, do you think media is bias? I then cited the places where I get my news from.
I think RT reporting on the Middle East is honest. I think in comparison the US media portrayal of Iran compared to RT portrayal of Iran. I would have to say RT is actually have more credibility.
After the 2016 election, it's obvious. The MSM was open about how they were going to swing the election to Hillary. Fortunately, enough Americans were sick of their bias and tuned out the MSM media to a large degree. Stick to the facts and let the people decide is what the press is supposed to do. Editorializing is not acceptable when you call yourself a "reporter."
I love how the 2016 election opened people's eyes to how biased the media can be. The media has been biased since the old days when "the media" consisted of a daily newspaper being brought to your house. Corrupt media didn't start with the 2016 election and it won't end there.
I answered yes, and I might just be the only respondent who has actually worked in print media, albeit in the late 1990s and early 2000s--it was the job I did to get myself through college. As a philosophy major in college, and graduate work in political science, I can safely say that we're all biased whenever we recount information. So if that dictum is indeed true, then the media is of course biased. There are degrees of bias. For example, Fox News and MSNBC make no attempt to hide their bias, while Breitbart asserts the capital T Truth. There are sources in the mainstream media that are better in trying to minimize bias. I'd say the BBC, NPR, and a few other independent, and public sources of news, generally do a better job than others. Of course, they're all guilty of bias-by-exclusion, so they editorially exclude certain viewpoints (which can be found in other MSM sources). C-SPAN presents news-in-the-raw. It's lengthy, time-consuming to consume, but is ultimately free of bias with the exception of exclusion bias. As a former print reporter, the bias that was most intense in my newsrooms while working for Gannett was toward the local business community. If any story could potentially negatively affect advertising in the paper, then that story would either be buried or killed. Mainstream media is a corporate behemoth. They have an interest in earning profits. So I can safely say all corporate media is biased in that they want to earn money with their reporting. This means they will report on those things that will help them do that. That's bias.
For me, i think it is sad that i cant trust what the media is saying. They have shown to me that what is being reported is not nessary the truth. I think they will take a tiny peice of the news and will twist, turn and spin it to fit the message they are trying to acheive/accomplish for that time. One tactic i have learned from hilliary was to take a lie and throw it out there and let the people talk about it. Even if its not true, but build on it A good example would be jeff seisions. They threw out some made up stuff from 20 years ago and are still using that lie today. I beleived it also, him being a racist, because thats all i was told by the msm. So i looked at the rest of the story and found out what really happened from.begining to end. Its sad how the people reporting the news have no creditbility anymore So in the fuck up world we live in, it makes me wonder if that is by design? So no one will beleive anything our reporters tell us anymore
IMO the media SHOULD be biased. If you look at the system of checks and balances we Americans cherish I feel that the media is the fourth branch of government. They should have an agenda and that agenda should be telling the people what the government doesn't want them to hear. That's why freedom of the press is the very first amendment to The Constitution. What I don't like is that the media has become less about keeping the government honest and more about keeping the other side of the right/left scale honest. I'm sure this has come about because of the additional outlets available. With cable and the Internet, everybody can have a voice. But that also means that both sides are able to get out their message. Anyone with a brain can see that Fox News caters to conservatives and that CNN is the liberal outpost. But it's hard to find the news without the right/left agenda. Every story a political agenda. Nothing just happens anymore because it just happens. It's tiring. I want the press to have a bias. I want the press to have an agenda. I don't want that bias or agenda to be about political ideologies. Go back to being the people's watchdog. That's your fucking job.
Given your expertise in this subject, do you think the MSM has changed since Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996? I understand you worked in Print Media, but you're still active within the industry. I was watching the old school news anchor's of the past, I've notice a change in tone, reporting, and even investigation journalism, seems to have changed for the worst since the bill was signed.
No one is disagreeing on that, however it's appalling that the media is completely bias for example when Glen Greenwald broke the story about the NSA listening to the US citizens calls without a warrant, practically everyone in the media, including fox news, cnn, and msnbc, became the official white house press secretary and that was defending the obama administration. The same thing when the media failed under the bush administration to keep them accountable on WMD. I think this bias is beyond party politics and it's simply about protecting the status quo, meaning republican or democrat as long as they're going to keep the status quo the same.
Unfortunately there is too much of that kind of crap happening. But fortunately the news was broken by somebody. The press did their job up to that point. They failed by trivializing just how disgusting it was. Not once did I hear anybody in the media point out the obvious. If a country, any country, had WMD wouldn't you think they'd use them when they were being invaded by the most powerful country in the world? What are they saving them for? I'm not sure we can ever get back to the way it should be.