Media Bias
- Thread starter allison
- Start date
considering CNN and (to a greater extent) MSNBC/CNBC have been known to misreport, leave out, or fudge information in the liberal direction, whereas Fox is the only one to do it towards the conservative direction...
yeah, there's a bias, and everyone has it. In my opinion, CNN is least biased, and MSNBC wow yeah no can't watch that propaganda.
The airwave news channels (Fox/ABC/NBC/CBS) aren't super biased, but they generally appear to hold a mostly liberal bias on most subjects.
small edit- not all programming on these channels is biased. suze orman actually has good advice, and anthony bourdain taught me never to travel!
yeah, there's a bias, and everyone has it. In my opinion, CNN is least biased, and MSNBC wow yeah no can't watch that propaganda.
The airwave news channels (Fox/ABC/NBC/CBS) aren't super biased, but they generally appear to hold a mostly liberal bias on most subjects.
small edit- not all programming on these channels is biased. suze orman actually has good advice, and anthony bourdain taught me never to travel!
Last edited:
I believe that the majority of media has no ulterior agenda other than making money. Many would disagree, calling much of mainstream media "liberal," to which I would label as sensationalism, conflict, and laziness.
Then again, there are media stations that are infact strongly pushing a political agenda, and make it blatantly working as activist organization.
Then again, there are media stations that are infact strongly pushing a political agenda, and make it blatantly working as activist organization.
Last edited:
I agree. MSNBC is complete trash. I cannot stand Rachel Maddow, or whatever her name is. She is just plain rude. Also I cannot stand Melissa Harris-Perry. I believe she wore feminine products for earrings once. Also, she made an inexcusable, disgusting, horrifying comment about Governor Romney which I can't even repeat.
There just needs to be a network that reports straight facts.
There just needs to be a network that reports straight facts.
Well, to start, I understand the assumptions that Fox News is considered right wing, and MSNBC is considered left. Many would consider them to be mixing political bias on the news they report.
Here's what I think:
Fox News is blatantly right wing. I would go as far as to say that they act as an arm to push the conservative agenda. I believe they they are a political machine first. They monetize conservative ideals. I'd even venture to say that they have coddled this idea of "conserve-victim" attitude; that liberals are out to destroy conservatives, and that they are victims of wrong doing in liberal America. Fox has no problem with "being conservative, for conservatives."
Where I think MSNBC differs is that it claims no political stance, it is given one by what it reports and how it reports it. I would argue, however, that MSNBC has no intention of being a political player or even enforcing an agenda. I believe that they are focused on making stories people want to hear. As I said before, they operate on sensationalism and conflict.
Sure, both will bring in a guest, and bash the poo out of them with their ideals. Where they differ, I believe, is that MSNBC does this for the ratings. Fox News does this to forward a way of thinking.
I really had to think hard on this one, so if you see anything that sounds off, let me know.
Here's what I think:
Fox News is blatantly right wing. I would go as far as to say that they act as an arm to push the conservative agenda. I believe they they are a political machine first. They monetize conservative ideals. I'd even venture to say that they have coddled this idea of "conserve-victim" attitude; that liberals are out to destroy conservatives, and that they are victims of wrong doing in liberal America. Fox has no problem with "being conservative, for conservatives."
Where I think MSNBC differs is that it claims no political stance, it is given one by what it reports and how it reports it. I would argue, however, that MSNBC has no intention of being a political player or even enforcing an agenda. I believe that they are focused on making stories people want to hear. As I said before, they operate on sensationalism and conflict.
Sure, both will bring in a guest, and bash the poo out of them with their ideals. Where they differ, I believe, is that MSNBC does this for the ratings. Fox News does this to forward a way of thinking.
I really had to think hard on this one, so if you see anything that sounds off, let me know.
I mean, I'd almost argue that Fox does it more for the ratings than MSNBC - MSNBC is so far liberal that it can't really appeal to even most liberals out there. Furthermore, there's other liberal-biased news outlets (CNN, HLN) that people watch too.
However, Fox is the only conservative news out there really.. so if anything it gets massive ratings because it's not split up between people watching CNN, MSNBC, HLN, etc.
I don't really think any of them do it for the ratings though. The sad part is some of the CNN/MSNBC anchors who will spend a whole interview defending liberals while interviewing a conservative - or worse, ask loaded questions to a liberal guest so that there's no way they could answer wrong (or most times, they can easily lie about the answer). Fox actually, idk, interviews people. Brings up things they've said in the past and asks them about it. Does actual *journalism* instead of just reporting. Sure, some of the things Fox does are a little rude, such as bringing up people's tweets and inviting you on just to bring up your past, but that's what journalism is.
I'm really kinda sick of this world in which we are "reporting" the news that others fed us, instead of doing our own investigative journalism and finding out the cold hard facts no matter what they may be. I think this really shows in that CNN will spend an entire day reporting the same news in the same manner, just with different voices but similar scripts.
Furthermore, CNN has been known to report things "unknown sources" (or even known sources) have said and/or rumors as undeniable fact. They leave out information - they glorified the 1 million sign up mark for Obamacare... but they failed to mention that 5+ million had already lost their plans.
However I will commend CNN's election coverage (of all elections, on the night thereof). Even though I think there's an obvious, but small, bias in their pre-election coverage, they don't mess around on election days/nights, and they're really the ones with the most information on those nights. Guess every outlet has their thing :P
However, Fox is the only conservative news out there really.. so if anything it gets massive ratings because it's not split up between people watching CNN, MSNBC, HLN, etc.
I don't really think any of them do it for the ratings though. The sad part is some of the CNN/MSNBC anchors who will spend a whole interview defending liberals while interviewing a conservative - or worse, ask loaded questions to a liberal guest so that there's no way they could answer wrong (or most times, they can easily lie about the answer). Fox actually, idk, interviews people. Brings up things they've said in the past and asks them about it. Does actual *journalism* instead of just reporting. Sure, some of the things Fox does are a little rude, such as bringing up people's tweets and inviting you on just to bring up your past, but that's what journalism is.
I'm really kinda sick of this world in which we are "reporting" the news that others fed us, instead of doing our own investigative journalism and finding out the cold hard facts no matter what they may be. I think this really shows in that CNN will spend an entire day reporting the same news in the same manner, just with different voices but similar scripts.
Furthermore, CNN has been known to report things "unknown sources" (or even known sources) have said and/or rumors as undeniable fact. They leave out information - they glorified the 1 million sign up mark for Obamacare... but they failed to mention that 5+ million had already lost their plans.
However I will commend CNN's election coverage (of all elections, on the night thereof). Even though I think there's an obvious, but small, bias in their pre-election coverage, they don't mess around on election days/nights, and they're really the ones with the most information on those nights. Guess every outlet has their thing :P
But what I'm saying is that they aren't using their network to primarily strengthen a political ideology. Fox News is, and I believe those are two different things.
Using your example, they edited the Zimmerman tapes to make an interesting story, not to push a leftist agenda, or propagate the left.
On the other hand, Fox News will take the Benghazi story and use it to flat out verbally discredit the Democratic Party as a whole.
Does that make sense?
They edited the Zimmerman tapes to make it seem like he was a racist and was completely in the wrong. That's not "making for an interesting story", that's blatantly lying to the public.
And since Democrats seem to believe a little video caused a "spontaneous" protest in Benghazi that led to the loss of 4 Americans who begged for more protection months in advance knowing something was going to happen, after the federal intelligence agencies knew something was likely to happen, I think they should be discredited. If someone kept spewing lies after they'd been repeatedly proven wrong, wouldn't they lose credit to you?
And since Democrats seem to believe a little video caused a "spontaneous" protest in Benghazi that led to the loss of 4 Americans who begged for more protection months in advance knowing something was going to happen, after the federal intelligence agencies knew something was likely to happen, I think they should be discredited. If someone kept spewing lies after they'd been repeatedly proven wrong, wouldn't they lose credit to you?
Well, to be honest, making him seem like a racist is appealing to their audience, and making an interesting story. It makes it a sensationalist story.
And with the whole Benghazi ordeal, I believe there are a lot of uncertainties surrounding the situation to choose a side either way. That sounds like a democratic bias, but to be real, even in your own statement, knowing something is "likely" to happen is a broad statement. Let's not pretend that this is the first time this has happened. 13 US Consulates were attacked during Bush's presidency.
Again, Fox uses/manipulates/biases their information to push an agenda, and promote a political stance. For the most part, most other networks uses/manipulates/biases their information to make a story more interesting to a base audience. That can be done many ways, one of which is reporting with a bias, but I will say again that it is done in the name of sensationalism, not to influence a viewers political ideology.
Either way, neither of them are right.
I'm really confused how you think Fox's manipulation is different than MSNBC's. You keep saying it but I'm just not getting the concept. By your standards, if Fox's audience wanted them to have a conservative bias, then it'd be just like the rest and they wouldn't be pushing an agenda to promote a political stance (news flash, fox's userbase is conservative, and if they weren't conservative then they'd not get viewers).
And looking at Benghazi, I think regardless of how "likely" it was, we should both agree that a) Ms. Clinton could have done more, and b) The Democrats should stop saying that it's a fact that it was a spontaneous protest and start voting to get to the bottom of it.
And looking at Benghazi, I think regardless of how "likely" it was, we should both agree that a) Ms. Clinton could have done more, and b) The Democrats should stop saying that it's a fact that it was a spontaneous protest and start voting to get to the bottom of it.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-more-apologies-obamacare-rocks
So are you willing to say that this article entitled "obamacare rocks" is not trying to push a leftist agenda?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well with the whole Zimmerman thing, they weren't saying he was racist to discredit conservatives. Sure, it may be a liberal perception, but it isn't pushing an agenda.
Fox News reported the heck out of Benghazi to literally discredit the democratic left. It was used to influence the political playing field.
I don't think MSNBC cares about what side they represent most of the time, as long as it makes a good story for it's audience. It just happens that their audience is left, so they report with left bias. But it isn't to forward the left, it's to forward MSNBC.
Fox reports right because it's audience is right. But I believe that they don't really report to further Fox, they report to further the Republican Party.
Does that elaborate?
Just want to say that that article contains multiple blatant lies:
(the total number of cancellations is over 5 million and counting, but hey, maybe they just "forgot" to put in another zero. likely it was an "accident" -cough-)
----------
But see, did conservatives deserve discredit over something they rarely, if ever, commented about?
The democrats have been defending Ms. Clinton and saying things that are at best horribly misinformed after being proven to be wrong about this incident since it happened, and they won't stop. It's like the boy who cried wolf. They keep crying "accident" and "nothing bad happened" and you and I both admit nobody really knows because they block all investigation attempts at it. That doesn't deserve discrediting?
(the total number of cancellations is over 5 million and counting, but hey, maybe they just "forgot" to put in another zero. likely it was an "accident" -cough-)
----------
But see, did conservatives deserve discredit over something they rarely, if ever, commented about?
The democrats have been defending Ms. Clinton and saying things that are at best horribly misinformed after being proven to be wrong about this incident since it happened, and they won't stop. It's like the boy who cried wolf. They keep crying "accident" and "nothing bad happened" and you and I both admit nobody really knows because they block all investigation attempts at it. That doesn't deserve discrediting?
By the way, the only reason Fox News reported the heck out of Benghazi is because all of the other liberal media refused to. It would make their precious president and SOS look bad.
And it was kind of a big deal, by the way. 4 dead Americans, including one dead ambassador, is a big deal, whether you disregard it or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And it was kind of a big deal, by the way. 4 dead Americans, including one dead ambassador, is a big deal, whether you disregard it or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You could say it is, you could say it's to appeal to an audience.
Would you say an MSNBC reporter asking former Democratic Congressman Weiner "What's wrong with you?" at the beginning of an interview pushing a leftist agenda?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-wrong-you-weiner-answers-o
I have never, EVER seen a Fox News reporter berate any Republican congressman.
It's sensationalism. They are appealing to an audience first, not pushing an agenda.