Obvious Media Bias, rediculous

[RGacky3]

I was just reading this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27893484/ article, about the election in Venezuela, and I just want to show some examples of rediculously obvious Media twisting and sophistry.



Some voters in Caracas said they support Chavez on some issues but are dissatisfied with the city's rampant crime, trash and crumbling infrastructure.


That statement implies that things like crime and trash are a direct result of Chavez, of coarse people would be dissatisfied with that, but that does'nt mean that they are dissatisfied with Chavez.


Many Chavez supporters, however, followed the party line and voted for the president's chosen candidates.

I LOVE this one, they link voting forr a party with "following the party line" making it look all evil and USSRish, like by voting its not that they are voluntarity supporting one person over another, they are following a party line. Imagen if it was reported that people were following the republican party line and voting republican.

Even the title, Mixed election results, EVERY ELECTION IS MIXED (other than for Saddam Hussein)

Another http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27874803/ one


The anti-U.S. leader of Latin America's radical left

Ever heard Bush refered to as the "anti-Arab leader of the Wests far right"?



Opposition activists complained about polling stations staying open late, worried that it would give Chavez's Socialist Party time to mobilize more voters.


WHich is labeled as a bad thing, closing them early would be more like election manipulation, because less people can vote, its making it sound like Chavez is manipulating the vote by Letting more people vote.


"I voted for the opposition. They are the defenders of democracy and they are the ones who are going to win," said Yulitza Manzano

They never quote chavez supporters.


The party did not function well last year but now has "platoons" to turn out voters even in the most out-of-reach shantytowns.

Funny, here in America they are called political volunteers, activists that everyone looks up to, there they are called platoons.

Now I"m not going to look it up now, but read an article somewhere about Saudi Arabia and see how that dictatorship is described, and the words they use for that, words like "Stable" and "Moderate".

Anyone that believes that the Corporate Media DOES NOT have class interests is fooling themselves. These are just a couple examples, next time you read or watch the news, think about the word choice and focus.

[Ele'ill]

:laugh:

That's worse than indymedia's call to action news flashes where the world is ending in every post.

Both the left and right do this however i'd argue that the media isn't right or left its tabloid.

I've trained myself to catch reporting bias and it makes it terribly hard to watch the news. All I can disipher is the lies and nothing else means much after that. Until my ears start bleeding.

[danyboy27]

I was just reading this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27893484/ article, about the election in Venezuela, and I just want to show some examples of rediculously obvious Media twisting and sophistry.



That statement implies that things like crime and trash are a direct result of Chavez, of coarse people would be dissatisfied with that, but that does'nt mean that they are dissatisfied with Chavez.



I LOVE this one, they link voting forr a party with "following the party line" making it look all evil and USSRish, like by voting its not that they are voluntarity supporting one person over another, they are following a party line. Imagen if it was reported that people were following the republican party line and voting republican.

Even the title, Mixed election results, EVERY ELECTION IS MIXED (other than for Saddam Hussein)

Another http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27874803/ one



Ever heard Bush refered to as the "anti-Arab leader of the Wests far right"?



WHich is labeled as a bad thing, closing them early would be more like election manipulation, because less people can vote, its making it sound like Chavez is manipulating the vote by Letting more people vote.



They never quote chavez supporters.



Funny, here in America they are called political volunteers, activists that everyone looks up to, there they are called platoons.

Now I"m not going to look it up now, but read an article somewhere about Saudi Arabia and see how that dictatorship is described, and the words they use for that, words like "Stable" and "Moderate".

Anyone that believes that the Corporate Media DOES NOT have class interests is fooling themselves. These are just a couple examples, next time you read or watch the news, think about the word choice and focus.

i am sure you are are not surprised of that, things like that happen in all the countries of the world, including venezuela and the us.

what the point of posting that?
do you think the venezuelian governement is more fair toward the us?

[RGacky3]

do you think the venezuelian governement is more fair toward the us?

Its not teh government ist the private media, but I've read news from other countries, and the United States Media has much more balls than others, they get away with saying much more hypocritical outrageous stuff, I point it out to show how the media is tied in with class interests.

[danyboy27]

Its not teh government ist the private media, but I've read news from other countries, and the United States Media has much more balls than others, they get away with saying much more hypocritical outrageous stuff, I point it out to show how the media is tied in with class interests.

the whole point is to sell, and if depicting venezuela has a copycat of Cuba to sell more, they will.

its not about class interest, its about selling news.

nobody would watch msnbc of they would depict venezuela has a wonderful place where unicorn and kitten live in harmony.

[Killfacer]

I recentlyu saw a channel four program about Venezuela, called "unreported world" and it said that murder rates had tripled under Chavez. This from a program which has a pretty good track record of fair representation.

[RGacky3]

the whole point is to sell, and if depicting venezuela has a copycat of Cuba to sell more, they will.

its not about class interest, its about selling news.

nobody would watch msnbc of they would depict venezuela has a wonderful place where unicorn and kitten live in harmony.

Your right it is about selling, but its also about class itnerest (its definately in MSNBCs interest to bash socialism, and defend capitalism, because the more capitalism in the world, the more profit potential).

But look at how the news depicts saudi arabia, and also why does the news focus on venezuela? Also. Its definately class interest.

[danyboy27]

Your right it is about selling, but its also about class itnerest (its definately in MSNBCs interest to bash socialism, and defend capitalism, because the more capitalism in the world, the more profit potential).

But look at how the news depicts saudi arabia, and also why does the news focus on venezuela? Also. Its definately class interest.

news focus on venezuela mainly beccause Chavez hardly bashed several time the us, same goes for Iran. Now attention is getting toward Peru, beccause he responded to the american.

if there is one thing you cant do with the american, its to answer loudly, china understand that long time ago, Lybia understand that etc.

[Dean]

the whole point is to sell, and if depicting venezuela has a copycat of Cuba to sell more, they will.

its not about class interest, its about selling news.

nobody would watch msnbc of they would depict venezuela has a wonderful place where unicorn and kitten live in harmony.

It's very easy to defend actions with the "profit motive" because one could say that just about any action is based on that. It is meaningless. The fact is that the media is woefully unbalanced against U.S. "enemies." Just look at how CNN and NBC covered the S. Ossetian crisis. It is obvious that those news outlets have no interest in the future of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Even in regards to the profit motive, there is not even a hint of that in the imbalance. But the bias is still there; there is simply no excuse for it.

[RGacky3]

Class interests are tied in with profit motive, you defend the class, you defend the class' profits.

you also have to remember spetnaz, the media is not the government, they are tied together, but they are not the same, that being said, a lot of their information comes from the government, and they don't challenge it.

[danyboy27]

i know wacky, but after january or so, watch the new again.
maybe things will be different.

i remember during the clinton era the news, and how radical it changed after george bush have been elected.

who know?

[Rascolnikova]

I don't know what you think unbiased media coverage would look like.

Personally I don't feel such a thing is possible. Even outside obvious indications of bias such as you've pointed out, everything is framed by it's ideology.

I think the better approach would be to admit this and call all media propaganda.

[Ele'ill]

I don't know what you think unbiased media coverage would look like.

Personally I don't feel such a thing is possible. Even outside obvious indications of bias such as you've pointed out, everything is framed by it's ideology.

I think the better approach would be to admit this and call all media propaganda.

Certain media tends to be at a consistent state of hysteria (that one channel we get here on the east coast of north america always covers missing blonde rich kids) other news media outlets lie while some try to find facts.

Facts as in, a man standing in a field drops a shovel which is reported as a man in a field dropped the shovel with a full interview with the man. Not, the man in the field had the shovel ripped out of his hand by gravity and against his will now his family is starving because of the terrorists.

In a round about way, I think certain media is devoid of being pure propaganda.

[Killfacer]

I don't know what you think unbiased media coverage would look like.

Personally I don't feel such a thing is possible. Even outside obvious indications of bias such as you've pointed out, everything is framed by it's ideology.

I think the better approach would be to admit this and call all media propaganda.


It may well be impossible to have a completely neutral media, but it certainly isn't impossible to improve on what we have. Some American reporting in particular is fucking atrocious in quality and content, it is definatly possible to improve upon the current crapness.

[danyboy27]

personally, i love the BBC world channel, i cant say its not bias, but they often got the fact straight, unlike fox, CNN or any other american media.

its probably one of the best channel to get info on the current situation in India tight now.

[Rascolnikova]

There's a difference between propaganda and sensationalist lies.

Covering the increase in sales for the holiday season instead of the genocide in Darfur involves no lies; it's merely a value judgment about what ought to be reported. No news outlet is without such choices--examining what choices are made reveals what ideology is served.

There is some outright terrible or dishonest reporting out there--especially in the US. I think this bias in coverage choices is a much bigger issue.

[JimmyJazz]

Every single person in this thread besides Dean and Rascalnikova is either drunkposting or highposting judging by the standerds of spellign and grammer. I'm not usually a grammar nazi but wtf.

[danyboy27]

Every single person in this thread besides Dean and Rascalnikova is either drunkposting or highposting judging by the standerds of spellign and grammer. I'm not usually a grammar nazi but wtf.

tanks for insulting me and the other folks here

[Killfacer]

Every single person in this thread besides Dean and Rascalnikova is either drunkposting or highposting judging by the standerds of spellign and grammer. I'm not usually a grammar nazi but wtf.

Yeah nice one you fucking moron. It's SPELLING not SPELLIGN. Now fuck off you nazi grammer/spelling fascist prick.

[spice756]

[quote=RGacky3;Anyone that believes that the Corporate Media DOES NOT have class interests is fooling themselves. These are just a couple examples, next time you read or watch the news, think about the word choice and focus.".quote]

Who runs and controls the media not the people or government.The big businesses runs and control the media.

On CNN they where saying the other day the US is not really capitalism do to bailout ,food stamps ,welfare money ,medcare and subsidise.

Look at the media over Obama they thought he was a socialist or the media over the movie sicko .

[synthesis]

I don't know what you think unbiased media coverage would look like.

Personally I don't feel such a thing is possible. Even outside obvious indications of bias such as you've pointed out, everything is framed by it's ideology.

I think the better approach would be to admit this and call all media propaganda.

Yeah, total objectivity is literally a scientific impossibility, but I don't think that means that it isn't a worthy ideal to strive for.

It's like knowledge - you can never know everything about everything, but if you at least try, you'll learn something about some things. "Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon" and all that shit.

[Drace]

Its not only the biased news but also the censorship of important information. Instead we get celebrity news...

Seriously though, American news stations do not show any real news. F'in annoying.

[spice756]

This is why the news has to be run by the people not big businesses.

Also you think that is bad try talk-radio:scared::scared:

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah nice one you fucking moron. It's SPELLING not SPELLIGN. Now fuck off you nazi grammer/spelling fascist prick.

:cool:

[Rascolnikova]

Yeah, total objectivity is literally a scientific impossibility, but I don't think that means that it isn't a worthy ideal to strive for.

It's like knowledge - you can never know everything about everything, but if you at least try, you'll learn something about some things. "Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon" and all that shit.

How should objectivity on coverage selection be determined?

[RGacky3]

How should objectivity on coverage selection be determined?

Simple, do they give all the facts equally, or do they pick certain ones for ideological reasons.

Media coverage of Venezuela is a shining example of how not to be objective. Focus on small negative facts while ignoring huge positive facts.


Who runs and controls the media not the people or government.The big businesses runs and control the media.


Don't think government run media would be so much better, because in its current state the government is more accountable to big business then it is to the people. Social-Democrats need to understand that.


Its not only the biased news but also the censorship of important information. Instead we get celebrity news...

Its not traditional censorship, its market sensorship, the media in the states is entertainment, hell DL Hugely has his own show on CNN, how are you supposed to take that seriously.

[danyboy27]

the thing is, if american would really care about what happening in other countries, there will be 2 hour new programs.

there is no demand for that amongst the general public.
people are more interested by their own local or national situation than what happen oversea.

hell, i am sure on a 3 km perimeter i am the only one that probably know who the president of venezuela, and i am living in canada, imagine the us.

people are not stupid, they are just not interested in what happen oversea beccause thye got already shitload of things to take care.

[synthesis]

How should objectivity on coverage selection be determined?

I'm not saying it's some sort of quantitative judgment, more a mentality that should be encouraged on the part of the news media.

I'm not saying that the concept that all media are inherently biased is wrong, but focusing on it seems to provide journalists a good excuse to just say "fuck it" and only write about the evils of socialism or capitalism or pedophilia or whatever their personal bogeymen, when in fact it seems to me that their audience should be privy to newsworthy information free of ideological tint, at least in intention.

[RGacky3]

there is no demand for that amongst the general public.
people are more interested by their own local or national situation than what happen oversea.

Thats a big arguement made a lot of the time, unfortunately thats flawed, because what people are interested is the news, and who desides the news? Not the public, they don't know of it yet, the news stations, their only job is to make the consumers 'feel' like they are informed, whether or not they are.

There are also clear class interests involved in this.


hell, i am sure on a 3 km perimeter i am the only one that probably know who the president of venezuela, and i am living in canada, imagine the us.

People here know damn well who hugo Chavez is, its not because people care or not, its because thats what their fed.

[danyboy27]

its all about the auditor rate, if they drop thing they dont like, they get less people watching, loose pub contract and die

[spice756]

hell, i am sure on a 3 km perimeter i am the only one that probably know who the president of venezuela, and i am living in canada, imagine the us.

That's besuse Canada does not obsess over Cuba ,China ,Venezuela and communism.

In the US there was red scare:crying: in the 60's communist put in jail and beaten , non stop propaganda,blacks beaten and civil rights beaten and put in jail .

It was not view back than like now has a crackpot idea with tin foil hat for people like coast coast AM but evil threat to the US .

The US is soft on communism and socialism now but it is more a crazy idea that does not work.Time have change but not the propaganda just different propaganda .

Out side the US like the UK and France it is not view has a crackpot idea but works on papper not in real life.

In the UK and France they know difference of the political compass in the US all they know it is republican and democratic and the US founding fathers free-mart and small government like Adam Smith.

The media has twisted communism,socialism,social democratic ,fascism and liberalism has being same.Thank the media and schools for that.

Why do you think people call Stalin a nazie:( it the media and schools.Why do you think they call Obama is a socialist or Michael Moore is a socialist ?

Why do CNN call food stamps ,free healthcare ,welfare money socialism and not part of capitalism.And CNN going on to say the US is really not true capitalism but has some socialism like bailout they like to use has a excuse along with the social programs the US has ?

[RGacky3]

its all about the auditor rate, if they drop thing they dont like, they get less people watching, loose pub contract and die


Yeah, but like I said, all the have to do is make people think they are informed and entertain them at the same time, read my posts please.


Why do you think people call Stalin a nazie:( it the media and schools.

I don't know any one that calls Stalin a Nazi, but he's just as bad as one.

[Rascolnikova]

Simple, do they give all the facts equally, or do they pick certain ones for ideological reasons.

Media coverage of Venezuela is a shining example of how not to be objective. Focus on small negative facts while ignoring huge positive facts.


What constitutes "all the facts" is a judgment call. There is not enough room for Everything to be said. Size of facts and whether they are "negative" or "positive" is also a judgment call. All of these are revealing of ideology.




Its not traditional censorship, its market sensorship,

certainly true


the media in the states is entertainment,

no; the media in the states is marketing.

[Drace]

the thing is, if american would really care about what happening in other countries, there will be 2 hour new programs.

there is no demand for that amongst the general public.
people are more interested by their own local or national situation than what happen oversea.

hell, i am sure on a 3 km perimeter i am the only one that probably know who the president of venezuela, and i am living in canada, imagine the us.

people are not stupid, they are just not interested in what happen oversea beccause thye got already shitload of things to take care.

Thats bullshit. I'm thinking its just that people have no idea that there is a bigger world outside of America...due replacement of news with entertainment. I have a picture to go perfect with this...

http://www.msxnet.org/humour/world-according-to-america.png

:laugh:

News is actually very interesting to a good amount of people. That's the problem though, they get more viewers showing entertainment. But, there's who would actually watch real news are likely to spread them among the non-viewers.. So its not to say that having news actually show world events is pointless.

[eyedrop]

In the UK and France they know difference of the political compass in the US all they know it is republican and democratic and the US founding fathers free-mart and small government like Adam Smith.


I always had some trouble understanding the leftist Obama-bots, as even the right-wing newspapers here admit that Obamas politics is miles to the right of norwegian politics.

Aftenposten (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/usavalg/article2777718.ece)


Barack Obama går inn for et skattenivå som - ifølge Civita - ligger "milevis unna norsk sosialdemokrati" og som "norske høyrepartier, Frp inkludert, bare kan drømme om".


Translation; Barack Obama goes for a tax level that, according to Civita, lies miles away from norwegian social democracy, and that norwegian rightparties, FRP included, only can dream about.

According to the article he ends up quite a bit to the right of the extreme right wing parties here on almost all accounts. US official politics is in reality just the extreme right vs the somewhat less extreme right.


And Civita is a libertarian think-tank founded by the NHO (Business Main Organisation)

[RGacky3]

What constitutes "all the facts" is a judgment call. There is not enough room for Everything to be said. Size of facts and whether they are "negative" or "positive" is also a judgment call. All of these are revealing of ideology.

Thats true, but most of the mainstream media does'nt even try, does'nt even come blose.

Saying its a judgement call is ok, and I suppose would apply if a news station is actually trying to be objective, but these arn't even trying, its clear and obvious propeganda.


no; the media in the states is marketing.

Its not JUST marketing that is involved, unlike other markets, the media is very politically and socially important, its the gateway to global information, because of that important class interests are involved, and that is very clear by the way the news is reported.

[Rascolnikova]

So apparently I always look skeptical. . . hmn.

but, that's me. sleep deprived and grainy, just like real life. :)


http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr53/Jainaday/grimace.jpg