People talk about the media as if it were a single entity.

“The media”? Are we talking about the broadcast or print media? Are we talking about the “Colbert Report,” PBS, NPR, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal or the Cape Cod Times. Are we talking about reporters, editors, publishers, radio talk-show hosts, columnists, bloggers or TV pundits?

As Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi wrote in a recent issue of American Journalism Review, “critics often blame ‘the media,’ as if the sins of some are the sins of all. It’s not just a bland, inexact generalization; it’s a slur. The media are, of course, made up of numerous parts, many of which bear little relation to each other. Critics need to define their terms. Holding ‘the media’ responsible for some perceived slight is like blaming an entire ethnic or racial group for the actions of a few of its members.”

Still, surveys show ever-increasing public skepticism about the traditional news media. According to survey data cited by media scholar S. Robert Lichter, two-thirds of the public thought the press was “fair” in a 1937 survey but by 1984 polls it dropped to 38 percent, while only 29 percent said the same about TV news.

read it all -

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/17/9671/

So therefore if members of "The Media" refer to "Politicians" are these members also making a "slur"?

In Europe a lot of the privately owned newspapers are very clear in what politics that they support. There is no pretence of being even handed.

I can respect a newspaper such as the United Kingdom's The Guardian, more for their openstand than someone involved with a U.S. news outlet who claims total impartiality but has a tendency to lean one way or the other.

I believe that Sean Gonsalves misses an important point in his article. He seems to be stating that those you claim to see so called Media Bias are actually parroting anecdotal evidence without any first hand reading/viewing/listening to the actual source. I have never in my entire life actually got ink on my fingers from a hard copy of The Guardian newspaper. I have; however, read articles from on line web sites. It is ironic that someone who posts an article on Commondreams website would not recognize the power of the web to allow for more of us among the Great Unwashed to be exposed to a wider range of media outlets.

In addition, when I read a line like this in Mister Gonsalves article "Is all of NPR — from “Morning Edition” to “Car Talk” — “mostly or somewhat liberal?" I have to ask myself why he is deliberately confusing the issue of purported news outlet political bias with a program that National Public Radio runs that is clearly apolitical. I don't hear "Click" and "Clack" labeling an automotive lemon as being a member of either of the two main political parties. I seriously doubt that there are many who are thinking of shows like "Cartalk" when they are discussing NPR's mild liberal bend in news coverage selection.

Best Regards,

Dunno, I'll keep saying it, the media doesn't have a liberal bias or even a conservative bias, it has a corporate bias.

Most of our media comes to us from large multi-media corporate conglomerates, who have members of other corporations on their board of directors, and who are entirely dependent on corporate advertising.

I bet your daily newspaper has a business section for investors; where's the labor section for workers? Telling you about strikes or how to get involved in unions?

As always, I think Bill Moyers really nails this issue the best.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bigmedia.html

Did you know that some of the same people responsible for your favorite (and least favorite) TV shows make your movies, CDs, books and might own your baseball team?

Six companies now own the majority of print and electronic news outlets in this country.

AOL Time Warner
Disney
General Electric
News Corporation
Viacom
Vivendi Universal

Journalists as a whole, due to education and other typical factors, tend to almost always rate liberal on social issues - although less so on economic ones.

Whatever bias might exist due to their background, it's likely cancelled out by the fact that publishers, editors, and media program directors, coming out of business programs, tend to be conservative.

And it's they that decide the stories that get published. Plus advertisers who often get the call on the ones that are not.

Seeker, I found this article this morning pointing to part of the problem, ethics in Journalism:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

"I'm inclined to believe that a liberal-oriented media in the United States should be viewed as a good thing," especially considering that the last several presidential administrations and the bulk of Congress have been "a succession of conservative/centrist leaders, either right of center or just left of center, who pursued mainstream policies designed to satisfy the vast bulk of middle-class American voters." "Over the past forty years, there have been no flaming liberals in positions of greatest power in American politics. Under these circumstances, a generally liberal or left-leaning media can serve an important, useful role. It can stand up for the interests of people and causes that get short shrift from conservative and mainstream politicians."

Tell your right wing friends to put that in their Limbaugh pipe and smoke it.
above link ....
.......................

"the media as if it were a single entity"

... the majority, of what most people are subjected to, is a single-minded conservative
[orthodox, right, right-wing, rightist, traditionalist, traditionalistic] slant -
maintaining the status quo .... of the Administration, various whoring contributors'
agendas ... Is irrational, prejudicial, distortions and obscurations; disseminating unreal and the irrelevant ... to ignore relevant issues.



Has been since the Nixon years .... "conservative good - liberal bad ..."


Katie Coric after Scott McLellan's book release ....
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/28/d...own-complicity/


Phil Donahue was booted off MSNBC before the Invasion of Iraq - fake ratings excuse - [advertising-based/motivated - crap !] .... they booted him, based on content.


How many people are aware, the Buch/Cheney gang were illegally wiretapping before 9/11 ???
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/13/warran...ace-before-911/
No terra-ist EXCUSE .... should have prevented it - if they were after them!!!!
Yet, had names, addresses and pictures of all the terrarist in the paper the next day !!!!!



And McCain's false claims on Obama's policies not accurately covered.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...amp;#entry26866
mediamatters.com


One of the Obamas farts in public, and they will send in NCIS, CSI and take DNA !!!!


Percentage of play of the stories on TV/Radio ..... is imbalanced and extremely biased.

i.e. Rev. Wright vs the two wacho's McCain was sucking up to ..... extremely, biased and insidiously racially prejudicial.
How many average viewers even know the names of McCain's ministers or their "extreme points of view" ...
but they know Rev. Wright's statements and have seen them 100's to 1000's of times.

Why not Hagge and Parsley EQUALLY. It bleeds, it should lead.
_________ "God Damn - American MSM !!!!"


Just the fact McCain was sucking up to these extreme "agents of intolerance" [McCain's characterization] is a major issue ....
of his desperation and hypocracy.
A comparable issue would be Obama, going back to Rev. Wright's church !!!!


Mostly uncontested Crap out of Bill Kristol ... like explosive diarrhea ... I can not remember anything factual out of him, yet he is everywhere on MSM... Fox, Weekly Standard, NY Times ... 100% wrong on everything in Iraq .......
And like the Bush administration his is given a "promotion" ..... editorial column in the NY Times - D'oh why don't they bring Judith Miller back, too ...



Best example in the Bush years :
.... when charges were leveled against Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby the prosecutor specifically stated her status as a protected agent of the CIA [a NOC]
How many times was that perniciously spun by the MSM - 1000's ... with various talking points to "deck jockey", etc. For the purpose of protecting the administration from what it really was - treason !!!!! Outing an NOC and exposing the CIA's cover company, Bruster Jennings.
Treason "should bleed heavily" ...... but no - we got the </SPAN> [orthodox, right, right-wing, rightist, traditionalist, traditionalistic] slant - maintaining the status quo. Protect the administration ... treason in War for distraction of lies, bad judgements and incompetance !!!!!!




Proof: illegally, lied into War in Iraq - ignored ......


False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945

telling the administrations lies, more profitable than telling the facts .... ???

......
Has been since the Nixon years .... conservative good - liberal bad ...

the amount of intentional distraction and bombardment of Bullshit ....
the real problem.

funded by the same rightwing conspiracy .....
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Castle Rock Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
The Carthage Foundation
JM Foundation
......



"... they view the media "through a funhouse mirror that renders everything--even the facts themselves--as manifestations of insidious bias."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center

I would like to see the media treat McCain - just one day - as the Clintons have been for 15+ years !!!!

I am sitting hear listening to the Sunday talk shows systematically tear down Barack Obama. They are literally doing John McCain's job for him. I have not heard one substantial examination of the zillions of flip-flops on the part of John McCain. The would not even have to work hard because it is all over youtube.

The Media's Pro-Business BiasToday, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel discussion to mark the release of a new report analyzing how the media covers the economy. The report, "Journalists Give Workers Business," finds that "the media ignores ordinary workers and instead covers economic issues from the perspective of business." The analysis by David Madland, Director of CAP's American Worker Project, looked at newspaper and television coverage of unemployment, minimum wage, trade, and credit card debt issues in 2007 and concluded that "the perspective of workers is largely missing from media coverage, while the views of business are frequently presented." A front page story in Wednesday's Washington Post, for instance, asked why Americans are "gloomier than the economy" but avoided talking to a single worker. The article failed to mention that incomes for most workers have declined since 2001, that health care and retirement benefits have become scarcer and more expensive, and that inequality has risen to unprecedented levels. As the report argues, this type of the coverage is the norm, not the exception. All too often the traditional media prefers "elite sources, such as government or business representatives, over ordinary citizens."
...

WORKERS SHUT OUT OF THE DEBATE:
...
...

WHY BIAS MATTERS: The report notes, "our belief in democratic debate demands informed citizens and requires that different points of view are allowed to be heard." An April 7, 2007 article in the New York Times, however, undermined this ideal. In fact, the story, which discussed "whether the job market is strong," sourced economists representing business and advocacy groups, but did not offer the worker's perspective. This type of coverage "is repeated again and again," artificially narrowing the spectrum of debate and misinforming policy makers and the general public of alternate viewpoints. Moreover, the media "has the ability to help determine which issues people think are important" and "can even influence how people vote." Madland notes, for example, that "studies have found that as Fox News expanded into new towns, these areas were increasingly likely to vote for Republican candidates," while viewers of ABC News were "influenced to vote for Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale because Peter Jennings used more positive facial cues when talking about the president than he did about the challenger."
....
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/prog...8/06/pr20080620