Politics Media Bias

[Jamison]

I recently did a whole project and report on this very topic.

Just wanted to see what your takes were. Whether you thought there was a lot of bias, no bias, or if you thought the bias present affected news stories...or your views of the stories.

 

[xdancer]

of course there's bias!

from a New York Times front page article today (i know it can get irritating to read such a long article if you're in a hurry, so i bolded a few of the lines conveying the main idea):

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005


t is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.  Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts. "There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press," Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies.

In interviews, though, press officers for several federal agencies said the president's prohibition did not apply to government-made television news segments, also known as video news releases. They described the segments as factual, politically neutral and useful to viewers. They insisted that there was no similarity to the case of Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist who promoted the administration's chief education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, without disclosing $240,000 in payments from the Education Department.

What is more, these officials argued, it is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government. "Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution," said William A. Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. "This is not our problem. We can't be held responsible for their actions."

Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper "covert propaganda" even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."

It is not certain, though, whether the office's pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a few federal agencies have stopped making television news segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and "purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers.

Even if agencies do disclose their role, those efforts can easily be undone in a broadcaster's editing room. Some news organizations, for example, simply identify the government's "reporter" as one of their own and then edit out any phrase suggesting the segment was not of their making.

So in a recent segment produced by the Agriculture Department, the agency's narrator ended the report by saying "In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture." Yet AgDay, a syndicated farm news program that is shown on some 160 stations, simply introduced the segment as being by "AgDay's Pat O'Leary." The final sentence was then trimmed to "In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting."

Brian Conrady, executive producer of AgDay, defended the changes. "We can clip 'Department of Agriculture' at our choosing," he said. "The material we get from the U.S.D.A., if we choose to air it and how we choose to air it is our choice."

that's only part of it. you can find the rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics...l?th&oref=login

 

[Jamison]

Oh trust me I know there's bias. It's really obvious too. I always knew there was bias, but the research I did for my reports, really opened my eyes to just how blatent it was.

 

[ConcreteGirl]

When I look at the last election and see how alot of reporters handled it, you could tell by the way they talked about the candidates who they were for. Reporters are suppose to be objective, if they show which side they are leaning toward then they are biased.

I think it is very sad that we can't have an objective look at the news. We see it through other people's perspective and if that person has already made up their mind on the issue, we tend to hear their opinions along with the story.

 

[AliasHombre]

Most reporters are staunch liberals, and it shows in their work.

Left side: CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the internet, most journalists, most teachers (not media but still influence people), most newspapers and several magazines.

Right side: FOX news, talk radio, The Wall Street Journal

 

[Jamison]

Most reporters are staunch liberals, and it shows in their work. 

Left side: CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the internet, most journalists, most teachers (not media but still influence people), most newspapers and several magazines.

Right side: FOX news, talk radio, The Wall Street Journal

[post="1258579"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Actually you'd be surprised about the number of teachers, internet bloggers, and news publications (mainly newspapers) that lean to the right.

To base 'most reporters' as staunch liberals is a hasty generalization and not really correct.

 

[ConcreteGirl]

Did anyone watch Boston Legal last night? One of their cases involved media bias. It was very interesting. It was said that the majority of the media is liberal. And that is coming from David E. Kelly - the writer - who is liberal himself.

 

[Hibou]

Of course there is bias in the media. Every piece of writing you ever read will be biased in one way or another.

 

[facade47]

There's definately bias.

 

[ms.katejones]

While I agree that bias will always exist, what troubles me is that people seem to gravitate toward media that fit with their own biases. So you've got liberals reading left-leaning magazines/newspapers/bloggers/whatever and conservatives doing the same on the right. This means that no one is getting any information that challenges their way of thinking because they tune out anyone who disagrees with what they already believe. This only encourages the media to tailor themselves to one side or the other instead of trying to remain objective. Personally, I think the BBC does a pretty good job of reporting "just the facts" and it's always interesdting to get an international perspective.

 

[Jamison]

I agree BBC does an excellent job of just reporting the news.

But it is interesting to watch a 'conservative' biased cable news network and 'liberal' one, and see how they can both skew the exact same story.

 

[noggi16]

The BBC's not perfect though. It does have some bias in its reporting on certain issues and by certain reporters. Its bias is not as obvious though and certainly when it does its British politics is pretty fair.

Its like that becuase by law it has to be impartial so whenever it has a story it will have representives from all sides so it balances out.

 

[ConcreteGirl]

Ok, I will answer my own question. - Why yes, I saw Boston Legal on sunday. Great show. When talking of "media bias" Alan Shore made a very good point. They are in it for the money. The media is trying to get ratings and money. That is why they mix the important news with news like Jen and Brad's break-up.

These news stations may cater to one side or the other, but when it's all said and done, they are in it for the money.

(but I do think there are some that are there to push their point of view)

 

[ms.katejones]

Ok, I will answer my own question.  - Why yes, I saw Boston Legal on sunday.  Great show.  When talking of "media bias" Alan Shore made a very good point.  They are in it for the money.  The media is trying to get ratings and money.  That is why they mix the important news with news like Jen and Brad's break-up.

These news stations may cater to one side or the other, but when it's all said and done, they are in it for the money.

(but I do think there are some that are there to push their point of view)

[post="1262461"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I totally agree that is comes down to making money and for the most part, the most profitable way to report the news is to cater to one side or the other. Most people just want to hear what reinforces their own belief systems.

 

[sugababyboo]

So, this thread has been well..inactive for quite awhile but n the wake of Katrina, it should be revisited. I clearly remember seeing the Associated Press posting two pictures of people wading through water holding supplies. The caption under the picture of the white couple said that they were "finding food or supplies" while the black person was "looting" Come on, there was not an extensive article written about the people in these pictures so there was no way of knowing if they were "finding" or "looting". The caption doesn't mention the people by name. Here's a link click on mirrors, right, here to see the pics.

DISCALIMER I am posting this because I want to make one thing perfectly clear, I am in no insulting or disrespecting the women that I am about to name. In this excerpt from one of my blog entries, I am criticizing the Mainstream media! I don't want my words to misunderstood or twisted around, which is this disclaimer is here. I apologize in advanced for the passion but not the position.

Now children, it's time to put on your thinking caps because it time for a pop quiz! Get it? Got it? Good! Let's begin!

1. When was the last time you can recall a national news network (like CNN, MSNBC, the heavily tilted Fox News, NBC, ABC, and CBS)having around the clock coverage on a missing person that was a man?

2. Can you remember any of the networks that I have listed above doing a feature on a missing woman that wasn't white/Caucasian? And your local news doesn't count.

Now, if you answered no for both questions then you rank with many others including me. So, you get a gold star! Here's a bonus question:

What do JonBenet Ramsey, Elizabeth Smart, Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, and, Scout Taylor Compton, Natalee Halloway have in common?

They are all beautiful, white and are the picturesque image of the All-American girl. Oh and their stories captivated America and our news networks for weeks and in some cases, even months. So wait, only beautiful white women have horrible things happen to them? According to the mainstream media/press, yes they do. No, I'm not insinuating that the media is racist, it's known fact that they are. Everyday, women, men and children of all races are kidnapped, murdered, raped, or become missing yet the media chooses to only focus on the desirable ones. In this case, desirable is female, white and beautiful. That desirable image is a false representation of this country's citizens and a blatant display of its racism.

Don't believe me? Watch a national news network like CNN or MSNBC. If you don't have cable watch NBC's or ABC's NATIONAL news broadcast. Now, view these programs for a week. Honestly, try to find a story that focuses on a missing or brutalized minority man, woman or child. Were you successful? Because I've done this for years and I haven't even come close to succeeding.

I'd like to add that when it comes to brutalized or missing children or any race, I believe that MOST people can identify with that type of story. Yet, the networks only choose to concentrate on the ones that look like Elizabeth or Jon Benet.

And no, I'm the type to cry racism any chance I get. But I think it's wrong and sad that I have read or watch my local news station or newspaper or even blogs to find out that three young Latino boys went missing around the time that Natalee did, yet they weren't even featured on a national network. Or how about three year-old Ronnie Paris Jr. (he was black) who was murdered by his own father because he feared that he was gay? Other than visiting the same sex marriage thread, did any of you hear about him?


I brought back this thread to show that the bias is not purely political and that sometimes, it's not fueled solely by money.

 

[Jamison]

So, this thread has been well..inactive for quite awhile but n the wake of Katrina, it should be revisited. I clearly remember seeing the Associated Press posting two pictures of people wading through water holding supplies. The caption under the picture of the white couple said that they were "finding food or supplies" while the black person was "looting" Come on, there was not an extensive article written about the people in these pictures so there was no way of knowing if they were "finding" or "looting". The caption doesn't mention the people by name. Here's a link click on mirrors, right, here to see the pics.

DISCALIMER I am posting this because I want to make one thing perfectly clear, I am in no insulting or disrespecting the women that I am about to name. In this excerpt from one of my blog entries, I am criticizing the Mainstream media! I don't want my words to misunderstood or twisted around, which is this disclaimer is here. I apologize in advanced for the passion but not the position.
I'd like to add that when it comes to brutalized or missing children or any race, I believe that MOST people can identify with that type of story. Yet, the networks only choose to concentrate on the ones that look like Elizabeth or Jon Benet.

And no, I'm the type to cry racism any chance I get. But I think it's wrong and sad that I have read or watch my local news station or newspaper or even blogs to find out that three young Latino boys went missing around the time that Natalee did, yet they weren't even featured on a national network. Or how about three year-old Ronnie Paris Jr. (he was black) who was murdered by his own father because he feared that he was gay? Other than visiting the same sex marriage thread, did any of you hear about him?
I brought back this thread to show that the bias is not purely political and that sometimes, it's not fueled solely by money.

EXACTLY! You know I agree with you 100%