Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

How influenced are you by the news media?

In a perfect world, news organizations would merely report on the events of the world without bias, and without offering their interpretation of the events.

Instead, most news you get is skewed in one direction or the other. CNN is biased. Fox News is biased.

Some would have you believe that it's impossible to be purely objective when reporting the news. I think that's a load of bunk. Yes, there is a place for opinion and political interpretation out there, which is why newspapers have Opinion pages and there are programs like The O'Reilly Factor and Lou Dobbs Tonight. And these programs are fine... I believe people should have a forum to express opinion.

But there should be a clear distinction between news and opinion. Blurring the line is inexcusable, in my opinion.

_________________

The problem is, Lahi, that it really IS incredibly difficult to talk about certain things without bias. For example, let's say that someone brutally raped and murdered a group of teenage girls, and was finally captured and arrested. Do you think you would be able to report on that completely unbiased...ly? I mean, it's hard to argue that his arrest wasn't a good thing, isn't it? It's difficult to do a detailed report about something of that nature without some degree of bias working its way in.

And it's things like that that make the news. You don't hear much about mundane things. Pretty much everything that's newsworthy will cause some sort of bias--a report on a political campaign, for instance, or a war, or the recovery of a kidnapped child. Even the least biased news anchors will likely let some of their personal opinions slip in on such subjects, even if it's just a slight bias, and you must understand that.

_________________

Mandy makes a lot of sense. It is hard not to have a bias in the media. I myself, in answering to your question, Lahi, am not influenced by the media very much. I form my own opinions.

_________________

CHARLESTON, N.C.- John H. Smith was arrested Monday in connection with a string of murder-rapes in the Charleston area. Police cited forensic evidence such as fingerprints and DNA analysis as the basis for the arrest. Smith is expected to be arraigned Tuesday.


How hard was that?

_________________

That's not a detailed report, though. That's a brief news blurb, not a true article or report.

_________________

Give me the details and I'll write you an unbiased article, then. How many words do you want?

_________________

I think the problem is that there is always too much news to report, each segment with a vast wealth of information regarding personal history of each individual and their own influences, leading them to do whatever it is they did to get in the news, etc...for the interest of time, you HAVE to leave out a lot of details. Which details are left out end up being a mark of the editor's own personal influences. He or she may not even be trying to make something looked biased--perhaps he or she is merely trying to make the report as concise as possible while still reflecting all the aspects of the news story itself--but subconscioussly ends up filtering everything in a certain way that reflects his or her unintentional bias.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

That is an excellent point, PMG. For example, leaving out the fact that the accused in the example above was abused as a a child could be seen as bias.

But in my opinion, facts like that don't need to be in news reports anyway. News reports should report on what happened in one specific incidence and includes matters of fact, like maybe the accused's past criminal history. Maybe.

If you were writing a book on the killings, then yes, such details would be interesting and necessary, and it would be tough to toe that line of not being biased.

_________________

...It was a hypothetical example. The rapist/murderer in my example is not a real person. -_-

And even if it's not initially reported, the thing about the abuse would likely be reported later anyway.

I'm not talking about being concise, and I don't think that's what Lahi meant either. I think he's just saying that news reports, regardless of how concise they are, are biased.

And for the record, Lahi, I'm not asking for a specific number of words or anything. But it's not a freakin' ARTICLE! Go to CNN.com or something sometime, and look at the lengths of the articles there. None are anywhere NEAR that short.

_________________

Here is a good example of a news article without bias:

link

The writer does a good job of explaining the facts of the situation. They record witness statements and gave background as to why the FBI was pursuing this man in the first place.

Nowhere can I detect the writer's bias coming through in their writing.

_________________

Yes, Lahi, you don't seem to realize it's impossible to completely remove bias from any feature or newspaper article, really. It's the sort of thing that Wikipedia administrators spend their nights agonizing over, but it's unfortunately very true. That's why it's important to get news from as many sources as possible.

For example, if I were to get my news only from, say, InterruptorJones, while I would get a lot of important information, I would definitely not be getting the whole picture, since there'd be so much liberal bias (you know, the kind that Republicans are always saying is in the news media).

However, it wouldn't be any better if I got my news from someone like... well, you. Once again, while I would definitely count on getting some real truth, I wouldn't be getting the picture because of so much conservative bias (you know, the kind that the Democrats never say is in the news media, but think is).

If I got the news from both of you, plus a number of other consistently reliable sources, like maybe one of those fancy printed sources they're always talking about, like the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post or [s]the New York Times[/s] Doonesbury, I might get a more clearer... erm.... more.... clearer... picture of what exactly is going on in the world today.

EDIT: Lahi, it seems to me that you fail to grasp subtlety on the issue of bias.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I still don't buy that. If your job is to report on events in an unbiased way, you can do it. See the above example.

And of course you can't consider me or IJ an unbiased source for information... we are not acting as news reporters for a news organization. We are individuals writing posts on a message board, and as such, our opinions and biases are in full force. There's a major difference.

_________________

1. See my above edit.

2. Of course not. I was making an analogy.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Okay, I'm stupid. Educate me, defend your point of view. Find me examples of bias in the random cnn.com article I posted.



I missed your analogy. I get that your point is that we should go to many different sources for our news... is that it?

_________________

That example is fair when it comes to certain types of simplistic news stories, but there are MANY instances in which the details are so much more complex and interweaving that bias becomes unavoidable, no matter how hard the news media tries.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Okay, PMG, give me an example of something that is impossible to report on without bias.

_________________

1. There's probably tons of bias in that article. Maybe not the obvious sort that you're talking about, but subtle bias.

2. Yeah, that was the point. Good job, you get a gold star. You get first dibs on toys at snacktime!

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

1. Point some out.

2. Thanks!

_________________

I think that its very possible to report without being biased, however, I believe alot of people can have their opinions slipped into their report to make the article or whatever longer and more elaborate, but should only be in a certain magazine/news program geared toward a certain demographic. ie:

Today, a duck was shot.

This would be from a news reporter trying not to be biased at all. Maybe a local news station?

Today, a duck was brutally murdered.

This would be from a PETA magazine's(if there is such thing) point of view.

Today, Farmer Jon was able to shoot the slippery duck known to locals as "The Yellow Dart"

This would be in a hunter's magazine.

See, the person watching/reading the certain type of magazine/news program would be interested in this magazine/news program would probly agree with the program/magazine, since the magazine/program is based on their hobbies/ political views.


However, lets say someone was watching a local news program, thats not supposed to be for a certain demographic. They should try to remain unbiased, because who knows who could be watching it? But if they wanted to give their opinions, they should give multiple opinions from multiple members of the news crew.


Sorry if I jumbled my words a little. I'm kinda tired.

_________________
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

I hear complaints about Fox News all the time...

_________________

As a potential example:

IJ: Apparently, the government is planning on killing Bob Smith for alleged terrorist plots, though some are saying the evidence is inconclusive.

LAHI: Apparently, the government is planning on executing Bob Smith for plotting to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge, as proven by documents found under his bed.

ME: Apparently, the government is planning on executing some guy 'cause he decided to blow some important stuff up or something.

...You should totally get all your news from me, Einoo.

Okay, so that was a bad example, but I think you get the gist of it.

_________________

For once I'm actually on lahi's side.

_________________

I agree with Lahi that it IS possible to be more objective in the presentation of a news story. It's not very likely to happen anytime soon, though. My unfounded speculation is that, since news networks need viewers and viewers demand answers and a feeling of closure, they can't just let a story speak for itself. They have people to please and air time to fill, and the only way they can do that is to pad out the stories with random dudes spouting opinion and wild speculation. Unless viewers start choosing news outlets based on objectivity, nothing's gonna change. So, nothing's gonna change.

Some bias will necessarily leak out with story placement. SOME story has to run at the top of the hour/page 1/on the cover/whatever, and the choice of featured story and the order of the rest of them reflects the priorities of the editorial staff. I don't see how that particular thing can't be biased, or how it can be avoided without some kind of 4th dimensional impossibile stuff.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

http://www.jibjab.com/what_we_call_the_news

That explains it.

_________________

Jib Jab = Much Winnitude!

I loved that Kerry vs. Bush song.

They also did the Breakdancing Cowboy I was so fond of last year.

_________________

I think the big issue with media bias is not really how stories are presented, but what gets presented at all. This goes beyond left-wing/right-wing bias. Anything that the audience doesn't want to hear doesn't make the cut, period. Conservative/liberal bias just changes the definition of "what the audience wants to hear"; the fundamental problem is still there even with no such bias at all. The real problem is audience bias.

- Kef

The more bias = more viewers.

People want personality in their television reporter.

Yes.

Yes, I should.


^_^

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I say bias is impossible to avoid, because bias begins at the point where news stories are selected. Like people have said before, editors are only ever going to choose specific stories - or specific slants of stories - because the audience is only going to be interested in specific kinds of stories.

Either way, the whole bias question is like any ethical question within a business. If bias proves more profitable, that's what the media is going to go for. It's the responsibility of us as an audience to reject this practice by not buying certain papers or tuning into certain programmes, otherwise it will continue and thrive.

As has been said by others, bias is really hard, if not impossible to avoid.

It should be the practice of all good reporters to try their best to stick to the old Dragnet line: "Just the facts, ma'am". However, for those who don't,(see Bill O'Reilly, for example) every effort should be made to point out that the stories being presented are opinion, not facts.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.