Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Happens in the U.S. all the time.  Of the major media institutions
>> (print and media), the majority of them are well to the left of the
>> American populace (in polls taken of journalists, they tend to vote for
>> one party over 80% of the time, whereas the general populace, as whole,
>> favors both parties evenly).
> 
> 	You do realize that the other side says exactly the same with just
> substituting the words "left" with "right"? And their "evidence" is just
> as valid.

Except that they have no evidence.  Not a single poll of journalists has 
ever shown them favoring both parties evenly, or favoring the other party.

> I tend to tire of these statements (from both sides), because
> from my observation, they're both correct. And that doesn't mean that
> the media is centrist. It means that putting these issues on a one
> dimensional spectrum is faulty. Some news channels are very "left" on
> certain issues, and very "right" on others.

With one exception, the broadcast networks here here are not.

>> On April the 15th, there were literally thousands of demonstrations in
>> the U.S. against the massive taxing and spending agenda of the current
>> administration.  The demonstrations were run by the demonstrators
>> themselves with no significant overall organization (what we call a
>> "grass-roots" movement).  With one exception, the major media houses did
>> their best to ignore the demonstrations (which were weeks in the
>> planning) up until the day of the demonstrations, and then portrayed the
>> demonstrators as a minor extremists fringe, misrepresented their views,
>> and dismissed them as puppets of the one major television news outlet
>> that does not share the other news outlets' views.  On-location coverage
>> was notoriously biased.  Demonstrators interviewed on-camera were
>> frequently not allowed to speak as much as a complete sentence without
>> interruption by the reporter, whereas in coverage of demonstrations on
>> the other end of the spectrum, demonstrators are essentially handed the
>> microphone.
> 
> 	And left wingers complain of the same treatment by the media (i.e.
> being ignored) when they march for various things.

Odd, given that just about every march they have gets into the news and 
receives, at the very worst, neutral treatment.

> 	I have a feeling you're suffering from selection bias.  You follow
> activities you care about, and notice the various "injustices" against
> your side. When things happen on the other side that the media ignores,
> you probably don't hear about it because you're not in the other camp.

Except that the media doesn't ignore them.

> Additionally, if the media ever does represent your side, you don't view
> it as a positive and may not even notice - you just think they're
> telling the truth and that's it. Ditto for the other side.

No, I do observe it as being on my side.  Believe me, the instances are 
so rare I *do* notice them.

> 	From my experiences, talk radio is as bad if you want something
> _representative_ of the people. The problem with it is that they are
> almost always *opinions*, which are not backed up by facts. And when
> they back them up with facts, they're often wrong, or out of context. Or
> they conveniently don't mention facts and stats that go counter to their
> view. And when someone tries to point out to them that what they claim
> as facts aren't, the throw a whole tantrum about media conspiracies.

This would be interesting, if it resembled what I actually hear when I 
tune in to talk radio.

> The
> only way they're "better" is that at least it's openly opinion - as
> opposed to news agencies who claim being unbiased.

There is no need for the quotes you just used.  Being honest is better.

> 	But "populist" they are not. I've lived in states on both sides of the
> spectrum, and you have to go a _long_ way to find someone who actually
> shares their opinions.

Heh.  I run into people who share their opinions all the time.

> 	There's a problem with all these formats - including the Internet.
> Given the *choice*, most people (at least in the US) will gravitate to
> listening to only those sources that reflect their opinions. Most people
> don't want the truth - they just want the truth that agrees with their
> own world view - and they want to find an authoritative agency that
> "backs them up". So the various agencies in the media cater (what do you
> expect - there's money in it). So it's quite normal for me to find a
> bunch of people listening only to a few sources - and a different bunch
> listening to some other sources, and a third bunch doing likewise, and
> their sources don't have any intersection. Those sources will frequently
> report the truth that those people want to hear, and conveniently omit
> truths that go counter to their audience's view. It's true for radio,
> for news channels, and probably for print.

And this is worse than a centralized source, broadcasting only one view?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message