The biased media

[Evanescence]

My wife gets Rolling Stone magazine. I like it for the music and film reviews and info but HATE it for its blatant and proud Democratic Bush bashing and Rep smearing. Its so blantant, its sickening...

Today we got it and there's a full page ad by the HSUS-Humane Society of the US. They're protesting the seal hunts in Canada. These losers dont know ANYTHING about wildlife!!!!!

I wonder if Rolling Stone would allow an ad that opposses animal rights? Or supports a third party or some other NON agenda of theirs. They cater to the sophisticated, spoiled, weak minded and rich.

Other forms of meadi do the same. here in Lanc, we have a dem newspaper and a rep newpaper. Both print and spew crap abouyt the other party etc etc. Its supposed to be about NEWS, not a biased slant.

Is anyone else digusted with the biased media with agendas?

Down with biased reporting!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[cheewiee]

I don't believe the media is biased in the way we think it is, but most media companies have agenda...Profit!

In the 1970's two Journalists were entered into the annuls of history as hereos standing against corruption in Government. They using secret sources landed the scoop to beat all scoops. In the end, these two men took down an American President. They turned his name into mud. He became a pariah, to be avoided like the plague. They were champions, them and the newspaper they represented stood out among all their peers as an institution against government corruption.

This I suppose you know sold ALOT of newspapers...

The media looks at Demographics and figures out how to cater to their specific demographics. That is why you can have to Newspapers thrive in each city.

Rolling Stone Magazine, is geared towards a younger, hiper, and more artistic crowd. Their readers are decidedly more liberal. So because the magazine sells its audiance as a younger, hipper, artistic, and liberal, it makes sense that companies that share similar values with that demographic would advertise in that magazine. That means you probibly won't see an oil company ad in Rolling Stone...

Now of course the editors of Rolling Stone know their demographic, so I wouldn't expect to see a Bush puff peace in an issue, even if his raitings were through the roof.. Because Bush unlike Clinton, doesn't appeal to the young, hip, artistic, liberal crowd. (Nether does Gore for that matter).

So they will craft their publication for their demo, and promote that demo to their advertisers...

Now stepping away from Rolling Stone and onto the rest of the Media, you can see this same principle in operation throughout...

New York has the Times and the Post, as does Washington. On TV you have the more center CNN, but you also have MSNBC to the left of the political spectrum, and Fox News to the right. When you study cable news raitings, you can learn one unique trend.. Conservitives like their news with a righty slant, where as liberals don't seem to mind as much.

But even MSNBC, and Fox News target their content for their intended Audience, and the advertisers that want to reach that specific audience follow suit.

[kiwisongbird]

Kevin used to work as a photographer at a newspaper in NZ - he was fascinated when after going to an interview with a reporter and listening to the interview... he would read the article and say at times it was like the reporter had just made it up - nothing like the interview at all...

So many things come into it - the age, politics, sex etc of the reporter...
the type of newspaper etc...

I always think there are three truths anyway... this side, that side and the truth God sees - go figure!!!

The media is much more about money now than anything else - don't trust it... think about this one for example - the huge fuss made about SARS - when it killed less people than dengue fever kills per year.... I like to look around and see what else is happening in the world when things like this are reported... :)

[middletree]

I don't have a problem with Rolling Stone being biased. That's who they are; that's how that magazine was born. They don't try to pretend they aren't biased. Good for them.

Newspapers and TV news, however, are different, because they are presenting themselves as neutral, yet they still typically show a liberal bias.

[Evanescence]

I don't have a problem with Rolling Stone being biased. That's who they are; that's how that magazine was born. They don't try to pretend they aren't biased. Good for them.

Newspapers and TV news, however, are different, because they are presenting themselves as neutral, yet they still typically show a liberal bias.

Any type of bias is dishonest.

[larryl]

New York has the Times and the Post, as does Washington. On TV you have the more center CNN, but you also have MSNBC to the left of the political spectrum, and Fox News to the right. .

cnn is in the center? news to me.

[kiwisongbird]

I don't have a problem with Rolling Stone being biased. That's who they are; that's how that magazine was born. They don't try to pretend they aren't biased. Good for them.

Newspapers and TV news, however, are different, because they are presenting themselves as neutral, yet they still typically show a liberal bias.



I agree - expecting Rolling Stone to be un-biased is like expecting a Feminist magazine to have articles on how to be a good at-home house wife and mother!!!!

:)

[River]

Any type of bias is dishonest.

Yep.

Isn't that what the media is supposed to be about...? Giving an unbiased report?

It's sad that our standards have apparently been dropped so low that we don't even Expect that anymore.

[kiwisongbird]

Yes, indeed, that IS what the media is supposed to be about - however for a looooooooooooong it has not been about that at all...

I even often wonder if down through the eons of time women had been the writers of history - what would the bias of history have been??

Would the stories of our countries be the same as it is now?

People cannot write or present things without bias merely because they are people...
:)

[Jason]

People cannot write or present things without bias merely because they are people...
:)

Then why do we expect that media is supposed to be unbiased?

When I write my devotionals, I have a bias ... that is that Jesus is Lord and that no one can come to the Father except through Him. Many of us on the board would assert this as truth, but the LJ's Buddhist friends would see this as biased toward Christianity.

[kiwisongbird]

Then why do we expect that media is supposed to be unbiased?

When I write my devotionals, I have a bias ... that is that Jesus is Lord and that no one can come to the Father except through Him. Many of us on the board would assert this as truth, but the LJ's Buddhist friends would see this as biased toward Christianity.


I agree - I guess because Kevin worked for so long in the media I've just known for a long time that it's definitely biased so haven't had the assumption that it won't be....

As for Rolling Stone advertising for anti animal rights stuff - I think that's a bit of a silly comment really - kinda like saying would a Southern Baptist magazine run a beer advert? of course not... :eek:

[middletree]

Any type of bias is dishonest.
No, no no. Do you expect James Dobson to be pro-choice? Some people and organizations make it clear from the outset that they are coming from a particular perspective. Rolling Stone has never pretended to be Time magazine. They should not be held to the same standard. It's a mag started by a gay man who was very anti-war (in 1967, when the magazine started). Those two facts alone make it clear where he's (Jan Werner) coming from. Newspapers are completely different.

Disclaimer: www.middletree.net is biased, too.

[bdfwinn]

Most Journalists are well educated but lacking in their academic experience is values and morals. It is a secular society so it is unrealistic to expect Christian values to be taught on college campi. However with that in mind it still leads to a pitfall to have educated people with no values.

I will let the great modern prophet C.S. Lewis sum it up,

"Education without values, as useful as it is, only seems to create a more clever devil." -- C.S. Lewis

[HotWireD]

Of course the media is biased - they are in the business of making money by selling advertising space and news.

They compete for the available money by pandering to different 'prey' - different sectors of society.

People want to hear and read what they want to hear and read - they want their perspective of what the world is like to be confirmed.

My mother told me when I was still young enough to sit on her lap 'never believe anything you see on the tv or read in the news' and 'always check out information for your self'.

EVERYTIME I have had 'the inside knowledge' about a story in the news I have found the reporting to be at the least sloppy and incorrect and usually biased and dishonest to boot.

The only way anyone would be able to know the truth about anything would be to go and see for themselves, even then, 'we' would discover that we only see what we want to see.

If I was a millionaire I could pay people to go and check out stories for me - but then they would most certainly report back what they thought I wanted to hear.

I think we just have to accept that unless we are actually involved in some way with a story we will never know the full truth.

I also do not think we can expect the press to be unbiased - the people that pay for advertisements in their media wish to contact a particular section of society. For example SUVs in republican newspapers and hybrids in green newspapers (sic).

Even the 'independent' media is accused of biase by both the 'left' and the 'right' and they also have their own agenda..

[HotWireD]

Most Journalists are well educated but lacking in their academic experience is values and morals. It is a secular society so it is unrealistic to expect Christian values to be taught on college campi. However with that in mind it still leads to a pitfall to have educated people with no values.

I will let the great modern prophet C.S. Lewis sum it up,

"Education without values, as useful as it is, only seems to create a more clever devil." -- C.S. Lewis

Right, I agree - the journalists have an agenda too - to sell stories and get paid well for sensationalistic news.

'Educated people with no morals' is one of the greatest dangers to society.
They know best, they know what we want and they can make sure we get it.

The euthanasia societies in the USA and Germany of the early last century was just like that. They had control of some of the press.
Fortunately, in the USA the Christians (fundamantalists in the main) fought amd campaigned against them. In Germany (state controlled press) it led to the forced sterilisation of the unemployed, of mentally and physically disabled persons and eventually to the concentration camps.


At least we have the choice of extreme and not so extreme news media. It would be much worse if we only had one end of the extreme (left or right) in control of the press.