Comments on: Media Fairness As Justice

By: Safesite

Safesite — Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:02:24 +0000

Parents need more kid safe web sites! We cant let our kids surf the web without being directed to some inappropriate site. Dont believe me? Do a search on Pocahontas and watch how many inappropriate sites come up. Even major kids search engines only block certain words, there are ways around that. The only one I have found so far was at http://www.netsx.org , I dont know about most parents but we dont have time to monitor our kids every second when they want to go on the computer. Anyway rant off.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:14:24 +0000

Nobody appreciates the Lawrence Sterne of the blogosphere

By: George

George — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:18:42 +0000

Big Ben: ordinarily I’d agree with you, but this post is the equivalent of a blog filibuster. Actually I was enjoying it, Holbo of course writes quite well, but after about 10 pages it felt like he was purposely avoiding the subject. But in fact the subject is quite simple: every media source is biased, consciously or unconsciously. You can either raise a stink about it in the hopes of enlightening everybody else, or you can avoid it in your own case by reading as many sources as possible. But you can’t change it.

By: ChrisDA

ChrisDA — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:21:31 +0000

In trying to engage with conservatives media bias, it’s important to disguish different types of issues. I’d be happy to concede that there IS liberal media bias on social issues (vid. Sam’s examples); but on economic issues I’d insist that in general the bias is clearly towards the rich/business (as you see in Chomsky’s media analysis). When it comes to foreign policy, the media generally bang the war drums: any apparent liberal bias is to be explained as GOP policy getting out of hand, such that it runs counter to elite interests, eg later on in Vietnam, now in Iraq.

By: VJ

VJ — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:58:05 +0000

This is flatulantly and indulgently long winded. More folks would read it through if it was shorter. This is part and parcel of media bias too. We are getting deluged with fire and brimstone rockets of right wing raving lunatics, everywhere present on all media outlets in the US, and we have here some finely nuanced 7 course long winded response. It’s like the Polish lancers going up against the German Panzers. Utterly besides the point. Nice effort for academics, but it won’t get the job done. We’ve not had a real working ‘liberal media’ for well over a generation by now. Anyone who does not understand the game is not fit for the warfare. Now build us a better, faster more useful tank boys, OK?

By: Big Ben

Big Ben — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:11:32 +0000

Sorry to go OT on such a brilliant post, but I’m amazed at the arrogance of people who say, “I can’t be bothered to read all of what you wrote, so I can’t be sure if you’ve already covered this, but my opinion is so important that I’m going to spout it anyway.” Look people, the minimum requirement for commenting on a post is having acutally read the post in question. (Actually understanding the points made, and then keeping your reply relevant to the discussion, might be nice, too.)

By: Shai

Shai — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:04:17 +0000

“Personally, I get my news from sources with a wide variety of biases” well we’re both news junkies. and the second paragraph is a wild inference of the false dilemma variety. i’d love to tell a story about the media in canada in the 1820s and 30s (there’s even a funny part about the publisher of the Colonial Advocate having his printing press thrown in lake ontario), but I’ll have to stop, grit my teeth, and say that this web site is a wonderful tool for procrastination.

By: MQ

MQ — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:18:04 +0000

From Steve above: “…there’s no attitudinal/professional/moral difference between a cabal of DNC [Democratic National Committee] members and a cabal of journalists,” I can’t even imagine the level of bias required to have lived through the last ten years of U.S. political history and believe this to be true.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:59:40 +0000

Shai—my last, parenthetical paragraph was intended for you. Note the word “priorities”, not “prejudices”—those who want to be exposed to views they disagree with obviously consider that exposure a priority. (And those who don’t want to be so exposed are unlikely to have their minds magically opened by being force-fed views they despise.) Personally, I get my news from sources with a wide variety of biases. I find that that works much better than relying on the pseudo-neutrality of any of the traditional large, mainstream outlets. But if the latter is the sort of thing you like—well, I’m sure you’ll be able to find it. I see no reason to believe, however, that the news oligopoly of the “big three” networks, plus a couple of dominant establishment newspapers, has ever significantly contributed to any of the grand social objectives you credit them with.

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:54:41 +0000

Holbo, Very thoughtful article. I come to CT because I hope to find that you guys with more depth than me can actually help me understand the depth of the story. This article is the one that has paid that benefit, of all I have read here. NOW, I have a hypersensitive media bias detector. I look for the framing and assumptions behind articles that attack my pet topics, and in general the underlying value is self-righteous dismissal of alternative views. I read Chomsky; he whines about bias. I read Faludi; she whines about bias. I read the VRWC; they whine about bias. I write, and I whine about bias. Your dissertation above is missing something; if we all perceive a (balancing) problem it doesn’t mean there isn’t one! I suggest that there is an underlying problem with the framing of reportage and debate. The present ‘gotcha game’ passing as electoral debate is deficient. The conflict model of news reporting is deficient. The influence of self-image of journalists on their text is deficient if we want to improve our understanding. The academic environment that we of the VRWC like to slag off, actually works(in science at least) to encourage full exploration of issues, illuminate the dark corners of fudging and strengthen the whole group’s understanding. How the hell you get the public debate into deeper understanding of real issues in this media climate has me puzzled. I think the right way is to improve the values of journalists as a population so that they reward clarity rather than controversy. Perhaps use of the stocks would help too.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:24:22 +0000

“The Leftist Bias in the mainstream media violate these, often. The Swifties and Vets against Kerry; their charges and the media attention paid to them, as compared to attacks on Bush, seem clearly biased.” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By: Tom Grey

Tom Grey — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:29:12 +0000

“Just War” ~ “Just Arguments” 1) Reality should be compared to Reality; Theory to Theory. When reality based on a theory is compared to non-reality based on an alternate theory, theoritical conclusions can NOT be justly made. 2) All real policies have good points and bad points; costs and benefits. A Just Argument must include good and bad points of oposing arguments. 3) Attacks against the speaker of an argument (ad hominem) are reasonable for casting doubt, especially to avoid the False Witness sin, but do not refute the argument (though may justify calling the argument unjust/ a false accusation). The Leftist Bias in the mainstream media violate these, often. The Swifties and Vets against Kerry; their charges and the media attention paid to them, as compared to attacks on Bush, seem clearly biased.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:53:52 +0000

The unusual thing about Rathergate wasn’t that it was biased, and it wasn’t that it was fraudulent. Biased and fraudulent news reports are common. It was that we finally managed to make it MATTER that it was biased and fraudulent. That still has me stupified. I wonder if we’ll be able to make it matter again next time, or if this is just a flash in the pan?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:41:52 +0000

“Another illusion in this is that the only bias the media have is political. Nonsense. The media is biased politically, culturally, ethnically, morally, and religiously.” Most conservatives who talk about media bias would not suggest that political bias is the only form of media bias. They would argue that it is one of the more prevalant forms of bias. (Probably just after sensationalism).

By: George

George — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:24:36 +0000

Either I’m shallow or John Holbo is long-winded. Probably both. In any case I failed to read to the end of his argument, but nonetheless have a comment: News bias is inevitable, because news consists of saying something about something. Since bias includes both what you say on a topic and what topic you choose to talk about, and it’s impossible to fully and completely give all facts, all background and all context at all times, no single media outlet can fail to display bias. Beyond that, every reporter also has a bias, sometimes unconscious, and every media institution allows those biases to accumulate and/or express themselves to a greater or lesser extent. No way to avoid it. So if you’re a normal person and read one newspaper on the way to work, or watch one or two TV news programs in the evening, your news is biased both by the source and by scope limitations. If it’s biased to your liking, you are blissfully unaware. If you find it to be biased in favor of the other guy, you yell and scream about it. The reason that Rathergate has caused such a ruckus is not simply that the story was biased; plenty of people have used it to demonstrate bias, but that’s in the nature of the game. The reason the episode is so important is that it was fraudulent. Whether CBS or the Kerry campaign was in on the fraud has yet to be shown. (The former is either incompetent or guilty as hell; the latter should be treated with a presumption of innocence.) Whatever you think of “media bias” or fairness, we should all agree that manufacturing evidence for any point of view is out of bounds.