Balance in the Media

[grannywils]

I was recently perusing a debate site called Idea, the International Debate Education Association. They were discussing the subject of Balance in the news media. This is a subject that has always been near and dear to my heart, and I imagine to many of yours. My limited understanding is that regulations differ around the world and cover a broad spectrum with respect to just how balance is maintained and/or enforced in the news media. I live in the United States and am naturally most familiar with how it is (not) regulated here. I have had occasion to listen to some BBC radio broadcasts, which have at least sounded to me to be more unbiased and straightforward. But again my knowledge base is quite limited.

 

I was curious to know what my fellow Nexus members felt about the maintenance of a balanced media. I would very much prefer to keep this a discussion that stays on the topic at hand; rather than one that immediately sinks to "they are always saying this" or "the other side controls all of that". Let's just begin by assuming that we have a lack of balance, and we need to fix it. How do we do that, at least in the U.S. where we have "Freedom of the Press" and "Free Speech", etc., etc.

 

How does the average American get to find out what is really going on, without having to sift through 15 layers of someone else's opinion and 22 layers of "entertainment" news to get at the real news. Let us also remember that Mr. and/or Mrs. Average American are busy working sometimes at two or three jobs and taking kids to school and fixing dinner and helping with homework and doing laundry, etc, etc. (S)he does not necessarily have the luxury of searching through numerous websites or every newspaper on the planet to glean the one iota of truth that might be available.

 

Was there ever a time (S)he could depend on sitting down and reading an unbiased newpaper or listening to an unbiased radio newscast or tv "news" program? I thought that there was, but maybe I am mistaken. One thing I'm fairly certain of is that it is not possible now. How can we fix it? Any viable solutions out there??

 

 

[csgators]

How does the average American get to find out what is really going on, without having to sift through 15 layers of someone else's opinion and 22 layers of "entertainment" news to get at the real news.

 

Unfortunately when you allow free speech and free press each person must check multiple sources to get the truth. It is even more true in an society that is not free but you may not have access to the other points of view. Allowing everyone to speak and allowing the merits of the speech to sift to the top is the goal.

 

Again unfortunately the average person (at least in the USA) has decided that it does not matter one way or the other if they are informed. They either think they can't make a difference or for some other reason decide not to engage. I understand you frustration with "entertainment media" but with most of the youth of this country getting their news from John Stewart how can you blame real news outlets for putting an entertainment spin on their presentation?

[Aurielius]

I think that getting balance is possible on a personal level and by that i mean that the individual must take the time to listen to sources of news that to not conform to their own preconceptions. Most of you know that I am of a conservative leaning so I take the time to listen to media sources that are not conservative in viewpoint and weigh their reports with the conservative news. In essence we live in a period of information overload that all has an agenda, it is up to the individual to sort out the truth from these conflicting presentations. Expecting to find a neutral source is a thing of the past, I miss it.. but c'est la vie.

[Vagrant0]

I think that getting balance is possible on a personal level and by that i mean that the individual must take the time to listen to sources of news that to not conform to their own preconceptions. Most of you know that I am of a conservative leaning so I take the time to listen to media sources that are not conservative in viewpoint and weigh their reports with the conservative news. In essence we live in a period of information overload that all has an agenda, it is up to the individual to sort out the truth from these conflicting presentations. Expecting to find a neutral source is a thing of the past, I miss it.. but c'est la vie.

I would agree... Now even local news is so embedded in the politics of the parent company and almost all media coverage is skewed in one way or another to serve the interests of that company, their supporters, or in many cases the governments which control what is seen. And no... In this regard, America is not the land of the free either and does control what stories get reported.

 

Then there is the information overload and total saturation of really useless gossip, watered down stories, and bad/incomplete facts. There is just no filter on what is and isn't important, and there's nobody around who can really make that decision responsibly.

[evilneko]

I blame Ted Turner and the invention of the 24 hour news network. Those hours had to be filled with something, thus giving rise to the endless op/ed shows we see today instead of news.

 

What I do is similar to Aurielius: when I'm looking for information I'll look at multiple sources and compare them, while attempting to ignore any partisan spin. I won't take, for example, a political article in the Wall Street Journal (right-wing bias) as gospel nor would I take one from Huffington Post (left wing bias) either. Certain things I won't even look at because I know the source is too heavily biased (Alex Jones, anything said by or on Glenn Beck's shows, Michael Moore) or the headline reeks of bias, and the likelihood of getting anything useful out of such sources is almost zero. I look for concordance and verifiable facts.

 

Just recently for example I went looking up articles on whether Obama's Libya intervention was constitutional, and found a lot of crap decrying it as unconstitutional, and a lot of comparisons to Bush (both), but found it odd there were no comparisons to Clinton's air war in Bosnia. But, at least one of them led me to look up the War Powers Resolution, which gave me something else to look for in the news articles, and eventually led me to conclude "probably, but not completely sure because IANAL."

 

When I'm watching "news" on TV I'll generally watch CNN or MSNBC. I like that Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnel both regularly air corrections and apologies when they make mistakes. Don't much care for Ed and if Michael Moore shows up as a guest I'll change the channel. And Anderson Cooper seems to be the only guy on CNN, ever. What's up with that guy? At least he doesn't seem to do a lot of editorializing but then, with the amount of commercials CNN shows, he probably can't fit it in. :rolleyes: (they don't call it Contains-No-News for nuthin' I guess)

[marharth]

I blame Ted Turner and the invention of the 24 hour news network. Those hours had to be filled with something, thus giving rise to the endless op/ed shows we see today instead of news.

 

What I do is similar to Aurielius: when I'm looking for information I'll look at multiple sources and compare them, while attempting to ignore any partisan spin. I won't take, for example, a political article in the Wall Street Journal (right-wing bias) as gospel nor would I take one from Huffington Post (left wing bias) either. Certain things I won't even look at because I know the source is too heavily biased (Alex Jones, anything said by or on Glenn Beck's shows, Michael Moore) or the headline reeks of bias, and the likelihood of getting anything useful out of such sources is almost zero. I look for concordance and verifiable facts.

 

Just recently for example I went looking up articles on whether Obama's Libya intervention was constitutional, and found a lot of crap decrying it as unconstitutional, and a lot of comparisons to Bush (both), but found it odd there were no comparisons to Clinton's air war in Bosnia. But, at least one of them led me to look up the War Powers Resolution, which gave me something else to look for in the news articles, and eventually led me to conclude "probably, but not completely sure because IANAL."

 

When I'm watching "news" on TV I'll generally watch CNN or MSNBC. I like that Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnel both regularly air corrections and apologies when they make mistakes. Don't much care for Ed and if Michael Moore shows up as a guest I'll change the channel. And Anderson Cooper seems to be the only guy on CNN, ever. What's up with that guy? At least he doesn't seem to do a lot of editorializing but then, with the amount of commercials CNN shows, he probably can't fit it in. :rolleyes: (they don't call it Contains-No-News for nuthin' I guess)

MSNBC as a channel has a left wing bias.

 

CNN tries too hard to be moderate. They will say that it was partly the democrats fault for something if the republicans do something wrong, and vice versa.

 

Fox news has a right wing bias.

 

Wall street journal does have a right wing bias, but I think it is more of a establishment kind of thing. I think the wall street journal does have a ring wing bias, but it is like that due to it being the news source of the establishment.

 

Huntington post does have a left wing bias, but it is not owned by the establishment.

 

 

IMO due to what I said above the main stream media pretty much sucks.

 

I only watch MSNBC on TV due to me being a liberal, but it clearly has a strong left wing bias.

[ub3rman123]

I don't think there are any non-biased American news sources. The least biased that I've seen are all based outside America, i.e. BBC.

[SilverDNA]

I agree ... to see how and why news are biased you need to follow the trail of power and money....

And beware you might dig up more than you came for...

In order to prevent a biased news view from one self you need to know how businesses structures on high levels and politicians on high levels work (Sometimes even both) additional to the above mentioned use of different types of news media.

Edited April 3, 2011 by SilverDNA

[grannywils]

I think that getting balance is possible on a personal level and by that i mean that the individual must take the time to listen to sources of news that to not conform to their own preconceptions. Most of you know that I am of a conservative leaning so I take the time to listen to media sources that are not conservative in viewpoint and weigh their reports with the conservative news. In essence we live in a period of information overload that all has an agenda, it is up to the individual to sort out the truth from these conflicting presentations. Expecting to find a neutral source is a thing of the past, I miss it.. but c'est la vie.

I would agree... Now even local news is so embedded in the politics of the parent company and almost all media coverage is skewed in one way or another to serve the interests of that company, their supporters, or in many cases the governments which control what is seen. And no... In this regard, America is not the land of the free either and does control what stories get reported.

 

Then there is the information overload and total saturation of really useless gossip, watered down stories, and bad/incomplete facts. There is just no filter on what is and isn't important, and there's nobody around who can really make that decision responsibly.

 

Well, Vagrant0, I guess you have pretty much agreed with my OP and redefined it in a much more articulate fashion. And Aurielius has made a valid suggestion; but one that although I have chosen, I believe might be more difficult for some others. I guess what I am hoping for is some way that we can get the politics out of the news media. They are meant to be reporting on politics among many other equally important newsworthy events. In my opinion, they are not meant to be driven by any of those forces. It is quite apparent to all of us that this is currently not the case. Does anyone have any suggestions for how we can correct this? Or do we just have dig up the "truth" for ourselves.

[grannywils]

I blame Ted Turner and the invention of the 24 hour news network. Those hours had to be filled with something, thus giving rise to the endless op/ed shows we see today instead of news.

 

What I do is similar to Aurielius: when I'm looking for information I'll look at multiple sources and compare them, while attempting to ignore any partisan spin. I won't take, for example, a political article in the Wall Street Journal (right-wing bias) as gospel nor would I take one from Huffington Post (left wing bias) either. Certain things I won't even look at because I know the source is too heavily biased (Alex Jones, anything said by or on Glenn Beck's shows, Michael Moore) or the headline reeks of bias, and the likelihood of getting anything useful out of such sources is almost zero. I look for concordance and verifiable facts.

 

Just recently for example I went looking up articles on whether Obama's Libya intervention was constitutional, and found a lot of crap decrying it as unconstitutional, and a lot of comparisons to Bush (both), but found it odd there were no comparisons to Clinton's air war in Bosnia. But, at least one of them led me to look up the War Powers Resolution, which gave me something else to look for in the news articles, and eventually led me to conclude "probably, but not completely sure because IANAL."

 

When I'm watching "news" on TV I'll generally watch CNN or MSNBC. I like that Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnel both regularly air corrections and apologies when they make mistakes. Don't much care for Ed and if Michael Moore shows up as a guest I'll change the channel. And Anderson Cooper seems to be the only guy on CNN, ever. What's up with that guy? At least he doesn't seem to do a lot of editorializing but then, with the amount of commercials CNN shows, he probably can't fit it in. :rolleyes: (they don't call it Contains-No-News for nuthin' I guess)

MSNBC as a channel has a left wing bias.

 

CNN tries too hard to be moderate. They will say that it was partly the democrats fault for something if the republicans do something wrong, and vice versa.

 

Fox news has a right wing bias.

 

Wall street journal does have a right wing bias, but I think it is more of a establishment kind of thing. I think the wall street journal does have a ring wing bias, but it is like that due to it being the news source of the establishment.

 

Huntington post does have a left wing bias, but it is not owned by the establishment.

 

 

IMO due to what I said above the main stream media pretty much sucks.

 

I only watch MSNBC on TV due to me being a liberal, but it clearly has a strong left wing bias.

 

 

 

Marharth, as I said in the beginning I'd rather not get too much into "they say this and the other guy says that", but everyone has been fairly correct in their discussion of the leanings of the media they have mentioned. I would only make one suggestion to you. You mention that you are a liberal and only watch MSNBC on TV. Well, I too am a Liberal and also occasionally watch MSNBC, and I would suggest that you might at least consider the advice given by both Aurielius (a Conservative) and Evilnecko (a Liberal, I think) and take a gander at what the other side is saying from time to time. It is always a good idea to "keep your hand in" so to speak. Unless and until we can find a Balanced Media, we really all need to know what is real and what is fantasy. We need to hear all sides of any issue if we are expected to make our decisions based on fact and not other people's opinions (even when they tend to agree with our own leanings)