Nothing to add - other than to say that I hear the exact complaints from
the left that you're making here - with as little to actually _support_
what they say as you have provided.

It's pointless to argue with both crowds over perceived anecdotes. Bring
statistics and then we'll discuss.

John VanSickle wrote:
> 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

-- 
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message