Dugger

The problem is everything is political. Pick your adjective and we’ll disagree about what balanced or unbiased is ,as in your case, what ‘effective’ is. See, I don’t think Fox is biased. I think they are middle versus a bunch of leftie, Bush hating networks. I’m sure that sounds idiotic to you, believing Fox is probably far right. I see no way to win. In an intellctually perfect world, I agree with you: we should have an unbiased, effective media. It’ll never be that way. About he only man I might trust to set up a new network , with a chance of being unbiased (and seen that way by both sides,would be Brian Lamb (CSpan).

Dugger (a lot of the problem goes back to ‘advocacy journalism’ and journalism schools that teach young journalists that they should ‘make a diffrence’ rather than report clearly and factually.)

Well, seeing your ‘accuracy’ is based on emotion and shallow thinking, bereft of any ability to discern between ‘true’ and ‘false’, I will say it is proper to use the second one, alternately known as ‘real, factual based accuracy’.

Thanks for asking!

Liberal media bias is an old canard. I’m not going to say the media is biased toward the right, ultimately, just as I don’t think the media is biased toward the left. Proclaiming total media bias is just a lazy admission that your own side lost the argument. There is no doubt that media bias creeps its way in, on all sides – pure objectivity is impossible and, frankly, boring. But to say that the entire media is stacked one way or another is just silly.

So-and-so said “such and such”. In response Mr. Nobody said “and that
and that.’ There was no context to the story. It was just ‘he said; she
said”. An endless game of zero-sum pong that gave no real texture to
the public.

The bias began simply.

When Chet Huntley of “The Huntley/Brinkly Report”
repeated a quote from president Johnson, he made no comment but would
raise his eyebrow to indicate a lack of credibility in the quote.

That was wrong because it was innuendo. It is not the reporters job
to edit the facts to give a slant, but to fill out the story so that an
accurate picture of unfolding history can be deduced by the
listener/reader.

But today, if a quote is read that conflicts with previous public
statements, the press is derided for dredging up some old quote
that results in someone’s ox being gored.

That’s not bias. It’s context.

You don’t have to have a college education, just be a nut…job!

Dorothy’s got herself another strawman.

And if you are going to hand me the line that we don t want balance we want accuracy, fine – my accuracy or yours?

Ooh, how postmodern! Grab that beret, dugg-dugg, and call yourself Jacques.

Setting up a 50/50 media where people can consume (good word) the news which is most aligned with their worldview is frightening. Most people don’t have time to check out FoxNews and PBS, let alone all networks. Average Joe’s news-watching, I would guess, consists of turning the television onto one particular station and treating all information as capital-t Truth. A media-imposed “split” populus isn’t going to help anything other than allow people to consume news which is most satisfying to them. Watching the news should not give one ‘satisfaction’. Just fact-ion. (Oh, that was good.)

We don’t need a “fair” (Dem-Rep split) media. We need an “effective” media.

Seems to me that since, then, we won’t agree on what is bias and what isn’t, that roughly 50% of the media output should be Bush-ish in orientation verus 50% – liberal-ish. Or to think of it another way, convert ABC and say NBC to Fox clones and we’ve got major network balance (you’ve got PBS and CBS). And if you are going to hand me the line that we don’t want balance we want accuracy, fine – my accuracy or yours?

Dugger

Does this lady have a bed sheet hanging in her closet? Some republicans pretended to be “outraged” about the CSK funeral, however I have heard little from them regarding her comments regarding muslims. Has O’Reilly critized her? I think not.

Most of the posts at MM are ones that either include “this newscast did not include this”, involve Bill O’Reilly, or praise Keith Moonbattermann. Am I right, or am I right?

I don’t get the point of calling someone biased for omitting information that wasn’t needed … i.e. spending precious airtime rolling 35 seconds of applause. Until you run a show that only has 2400 seconds of airtime, you communists should probably step away from doing that in the future.

Sean Hannity complaining about “main stream media bias” on all five radio stations that carry his show in Ventura County… oh and he does it on television too.

My newspaper links from their website to Ann Coulter’s column! There’s some left-wing bias [NOT].