http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4320873.stm

Is the US media too political?

The American media are well known for having journalists who are open about their political allegiance.

But recent cases have opened the debate on whether partisanship in the media is going too far.

The Bush administration has already come under fire for paying commentators to espouse its views.

And now journalists themselves are questioning whether their profession is being undermined.
...

I was actually a little suprised, when I saw the gallup started by Wildbore in the other thread. Almost all Americans consider their primary media source being biased. This is weird. After all, even if you know your news sources to be biased, their information will still affect your judgement..

I personally read Helsingin Sanomat (Finland's biggest newspaper) and Suomen Kuvalehti (Finland's biggest weekly magazine), which I have found responsible and also having a good level of journalism. These magazines have reached almost an institutional status in here Finland (I am quite sure that SporkLord agrees) and they are read by all kinds of people with all kinds ideologies. Also I consider the Dagens Nyheter (the Sweden's equivalent for Helsingin Sanomat) reliable and unbiased.

The U.S. situation seems a little odd. We have just a couple of really country-wide newspapers in here Finland, but we're not really facing these kind of problems. You have a much wider selection of all kinds of media. At least I would see a clear demand for an unbiased news-source. Isn't there an unbiased media available or are people just more comfortable with the information supporting their own personal views, even when they know the information is biased?

I barely saw one American considering his news source unbiased. Don't you think this is a problem?

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

scary isn't it. americans arn't exactly fans of free media, hence why when they went into iraq, the first thing they done was shut down the various arab newspapers etc, when the posted things the americans didn't like. why do you think you never hear storys of americas friendly fire incidents on the brits, or their willingness to kill civilians to 'might' be a threat.

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

But look at the state of American entertainment in general. I'm sure you've seen (or at least heard) of all these stupid reality shows on every network.

So, what does this have to do with the media? Because, just like most everything on TV, the news is rapidly becoming a form of entertainment (its reliability and accuracy seems to be secondary).

The news networks (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.) only show programs that are profitable. And in America, profitable is whatever can stir up the most controversy, bring up the most absurd opinion, and cover the most trivial event to the point of saturation. Americans would rather watch partisan hacks yelling at each other over professionals rationally debating an issue. The former is simply more entertaining and captivating (and therefore makes more money).

Sadly, most people associate non-biased “nothing but the facts” reporting with stuffy intellectualism or boring documentaries.

The media is incredibly complex, but I find that biases only occur if it’s profitable to do so (and profits translate to how many people watch or read your news). If, for example, Americans demanded unbiased news, FOX would tank in an instant. But quite the opposite has occurred: FOX is currently the number one cable network. CNN, while liberally biased, is less so than FOX is conservatively biased.

Personally, I think FOX gets major ratings because they’ve mastered the “infotainment” format. Not trying to be offensive, but I find FOX’s reporting sophomoric when compared to, say, the BBC.

Americans really have no where else to turn to, which is why there is little outlet against all these biased news sources. Not only that, but Americans like to watch stuff they agree with because 1.) it makes us feel good about our opinion 2.) analyzing both sides of an issue requires too much thinking for your average American.

So that’s my elitist critique of the American media.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

I agree.

There certainly is a political bias in American media, but the bias we should be worrying about most is the entertainment bias. Something is wrong when you get hours and hours of coverage on Michael Jackson, but can't even get the basic facts on Sudan where 1000's of people are dying.

The information is available if you look for it... just as long as you arn't looking at your TV set.

www.cnn.com/ and even www.foxnews.com/ are both very good sites. If you don't care about michael jackson, don't click the link.

as for TV news, well.. it usually takes about 5 minutes of watching fox news on TV before i want to puke. CNN is a little better, but, as has been mentioned before, it's mostly entertainment, not news.

The internet, however, is plump with real news, and the bias is much less apparent. If you are interested in Sudan, here are a few links from CNN.com :

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa...eut/index.html

a just published story about possible systematic rape of women in sudan.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/sudan/

The main page of a cnn special on sudan. Contains many links to articles and information about sudan and the genocide taking place there.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

While I certainly agree that the news is better on the internet (my above comments were directed at TV news) -- I still believe that today's reporters are lazy and largely ignorant, at least when compared to their counterparts from a few decades ago. Today's media is more apt to report what's generally known rather than to investigate things for themselves.

Today's media:

Heavy on advertising the findings of other investigative sources, light on trying to understand and investigate things themselves.

hmm.. so i suppose you'd like to go to sudan with a video camera and see how the milita's treat you? And do you really think that a foreign reporter is in the position to determine how many rapes occur in darfur? The people arn't going to talk to them. Eitherway, there is plenty of information.

still, they do plenty of dangerous reporting... if you recall, about a month before 9/11, Christiane Amanpour did a report on life in afghanistan under the taliban. She went there with a video camera traveling secretly... and showed pictures of women in full burkas begging on the streets, executions, guards in the street with assault weapons, as well as the stunning scenery of the mountains and ruins. At one point she and her group was captured and they took her video tapes, except that she gave them blank tapes instead and got away.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

See, Im glad we can all agree on this.

I hate it when everyone whines about liberal bias.

Its not the fact that its liberal thats wrong....its the fact that its biased in ANY fashion.

Journalism is meant to be objective. If any bias is in it, its not journalism anymore.

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

I think we talk about a liberal bias because that's what it is and has been. But if it were conservatively biased I would agree that is equally wrong. Media should not be biased at all. It's one of the reasons I don't like Sean Hannity, I don't need to hear someone who agrees with my positions. If I want analysis I want honesty and I just don't think he's intellectually honest.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.