Warp wrote:
> Carlo C. <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> The Best are the nations of Northern Europe and Scandinavian countries: Iceland,
>> Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden (top five worldwide).
> 
>   Note that even though there's no governmental pressure on what the press
> can publish, there may still be (and actually *is*) cultural and sociological
> pressure on what kind of things the press will allow itself to publish.
> Self-censorship in certain subjects is quite common.
> 
>   Also "free press" in no way implies that the press is unbiased. While some
> very small newspapers may be more willing to publish even more "taboo" points
> of view, it's rather common that the big ones tend to be rather biased on
> how they approach certain "taboo" subjects. In extreme cases the press at
> large may engage in open witch-hunting against certain movements or even
> individuals (it *has* happened, even here).

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).

They routinely repeat, without even a token effort at corroboration, the 
statements issued by one of our two major political parties, and in so 
doing have reported things which are objectively false.  They have 
assisted the character assassination of opponents of that major party, 
and of opponents of that party's positions on just about any topic you 
can name.

It is no secret that they definitely took sides in our most recent 
presidential election, and given how close the election was, had a 
decisive effect.

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.

The one major media format that runs counter to this picture is talk 
radio.  The talk radio audience is, as a rule, not interested in the 
viewpoints that predominate in print and television, and therefore only 
those shows which oppose those views can make a profit (the major 
exception is subsidized by the government); the most recent major effort 
to make talk radio more like the other news media resulted in massive 
debt and (IIRC) bankruptcy.

It goes without saying that talk radio is routinely demonized by the 
print and television media.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

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. 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.

	From the rest of the industrial world's perspective, it's almost all
"right" - in the sense that what print/radio/TV advocates in the US is
closer to what the the right wing folks in those countries say, and what
they consider the ordinary "left" is far too left even for most people
who think they're left in the US.

> 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.

	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.
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.

> The one major media format that runs counter to this picture is talk
> radio.  The talk radio audience is, as a rule, not interested in the
> viewpoints that predominate in print and television, and therefore only
> those shows which oppose those views can make a profit (the major
> exception is subsidized by the government); the most recent major effort

	Can you say Clear Channel?

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

	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.

	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.

> It goes without saying that talk radio is routinely demonized by the
> print and television media.

	See above. I'll add that from what little talk radio I heard, it was
replete with demonizing other news media - far more than the converse.

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 03 May 2009 05:31:58 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> The demonstrations were run by the demonstrators themselves with no
> significant overall organization

Well, except for Fox News, who at one point even claimed the movement as 
their own....and sent correspondents to "host" in 4 major cities as I 
recall.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 2-5-2009 21:21, nemesis wrote:
>> At the very least, you have better internet access than, say, Chinese, 
>> right? ;)
> 
> You know the chinese internet access is censored, how do you know yours 
> isn't? If it was, that fact would be censored as well.

You can check out for yourself, right?  Or do you believe we're all 
italian internet moderators here fooling you? ;)

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It is no secret that they definitely took sides in our most recent
> presidential election, and given how close the election was, had a
> decisive effect.

Heh; I heard tell that you had *much* closer election runs before - presidents
winning elections only by electoral collage, against the majority of people's
votes and some such - with nothing but some dangling (or non-dangling) bits of
Floridian cardboard tipping the scales :P

> 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.

Well, maybe there's reason to be thankful that at least there *is* such an
"against-the-stream" news outlet, and talk radio and such - and they can do
their thing without putting their (and/or their audience's) life, liberty or
pursuit of happiness too much at risk...

And there may even be reason to be thankful for "left biased" media in the first
place, considering how things went 50-60 years earlier in that great country of
yours. Back then, I heard tell Mainstream was flowing much different - and with
much stronger pressure - than what you percieve nowadays.

Post a reply to this message

On 4-5-2009 1:59, nemesis wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 2-5-2009 21:21, nemesis wrote:
>>> At the very least, you have better internet access than, say, 
>>> Chinese, right? ;)
>>
>> You know the chinese internet access is censored, how do you know 
>> yours isn't? If it was, that fact would be censored as well.
> 
> You can check out for yourself, right?  

I don't think you can, at least not easily. If there is a domain that is 
blocked by not being visible, you need someone that knows it's existence 
that *is* visible for you.

> Or do you believe we're all 
> italian internet moderators here fooling you? ;)

I am not sure if I understand you, but it is not about what I believe 
but about being able to prove I have access to every page written 
anywhere. Or at least access to those that should be public.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> presidents winning elections only by electoral collage,

All presidents only win by electoral college. That's how the system works. 
Presidents are never elected in the USA by popular vote.

> against the majority of people's votes and some such 

That has happened several times in history.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

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

On Fri, 08 May 2009 08:05:54 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

>> 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.

Are not - what, left on some things, right on others?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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