Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased



Does survey number 12,769 convince everyone yet or do some still live under a rock?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Do the

'liberals"

See the media as an agenda promoting ideology a la fox news and Goebbels?

Or do they see it as a freedom of the press?

*more to come later from moi.

Just what are the criteria for positive/negative or favorable/unfavorable? However they define this could well tip the resuslts of the study.

I get my news from cable (one of the least "biased" media as per the study)and the internet, so I don't see as much of it as someone watching broadcast TV or reading newspapers. But even so, from what I see of it the bias is worse than it has ever been. And yeah--from both left and right--I'll grant ya that one. But another bias that I see that is very disturbing is the blending of news and commentary (i.e. editorial). I rely a lot on CNN, but I cannot stand that self important, over-inflated, cause promoting, in your face Lou Dobbs. I might agree with some of the things he says, but ya know what? Just STFU and report the news! I have my own brain thank you very much.

And that's pretty much how I feel about FOX too. Just STFU and report the news without the slant and leave commentary out of it.

I worked as a newspaper reporter for 15 years, so I can give my perspective, however narrow and limited it might be.

For one thing, in my experience, there's not really time to put a "spin" on things. When you're on deadline, you've got to go with the sources you can find and reach in time for a comment.

Also, I never worked for an editor who wouldn't chew my ass if I turned in a story that had only one perspective on it. So, say for instance there was a story having to do with the local Democrats doing this or that -- well, if you don't bother to at least call the local Republicans to get some sort of comment and reaction, then your editor is likely to remind you in a not-so-nice-tone that you need to do that.

Also, what defines "negative" and "positive?" Sometimes, the facts are just flat-out negative, and make the person or party look bad.

Also, what really drives the presses isn't any agenda, per se, it's advertising dollars. At least in print (and I imagine it's the same in the electronic mediums) subscriptions provide only a fraction of the budget. The real money has always been in advertising.

Of course, it loops back around, because if you don't serve the readers' best interests, there's no reason for the advertisers to be there.

I was a radio newscaster years ago with a brief stint as News Director at a small station. We pretty much just read it directly from the teletype (back in the days when there was such a thing). And we never editorialized during a newscast. That content was kept clearly distinct and was presented in other venues when it was presented at all, and most of that involved sports rather than hard news anyway. We had both AP and Reuters and they were both very cut and dry in their reporting, and I don't remember either of them having a slant. They both always said almost exactly the same thing.

Yeah, you radio people.. always counting on us print journalists to get your news for you....

Lol--I'm sure there were a newspaper outfit or two that had the same teletypes, but yeah--that's pretty much how it worked.