Town Square

Talking Points

Original post made on Sep 12, 2008

At least twice a month I end up in a conversation about the "media's liberal bent" with friends and family, and I staunchly defend my brethren in both print and broadcast.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, September 12, 2008, 12:00 AM


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 12, 2008 at 7:54 am

Media's real bias is towards what makes it money.

Faux News is mostly editorial presented as news and everyone just laps it up. Go watch the excellent Sidney Lumet movie Network from 1976 to understand the transformation that has occurred in media.

Like this comment
Posted by MSNBC pushed envelope
a resident of Mohr Park
on Sep 12, 2008 at 11:46 pm

You (mistakenly) say media doesn't allow staff to support. How naive! Easy to tell in matter of minutes. MSNBC pushed the envelope too far. Olberman was a vicious, destructive liar. His followers syrocketed, others left in droves. Matthews thought it was cute to spout bias like Olberman, & followed in his wake. 'Ol one bad apple, spoils bunch. Williams & Brokaw got tarnished with the blatent over-the-top excesses of Olbereman & Matthews. So?Nothing has changed...they're at their mikes spewing their bias, insults,& snarky comments. Big deal, called commentators, not newscasters, they're still on preaching bias on a major network. So Fox Republican, MSNBC Democrat, CNN populist/socialist, what's one to do?
CBS & ABC Very, very biased, but plain NBC tries to get it right.

Like this comment
Posted by Grow Old Waiting
a resident of Mohr Park
on Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54 pm

It's risky reelecting Hosterman Mayor,(Brozosky either) who would have the
swing vote for Stoneridge extension. Opportunties for corruption are huge. What quarantees would we have as a swing vote.
Once November's over, we're stuck.
I'll root for Haggerty and Dublin, until I see Stoneridge extension.

Like this comment
Posted by MainStreetDiva
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Sep 13, 2008 at 7:58 pm

I like the London model better. There are two main newspapers. One is openly left, the other openly right - they don't pretend to be fair.

Personally, we subscribe to several different newspapers, including the WSJ, to get a more balanced picture of events and issues. When you lay out articles side-by-side, it's easier to see which papers aer biased, and in which direction. You can't see it as easily just getting news from one source (print or online).

Sometimes the bias is as subtle as burying a story on page 8 below the fold versus placing it on page 1 or 2. Other times it's careful undermining by word choice in the headline. Sometimes it's the picture the editor choose to run alongside the article - it's pretty easy to find an unattractice photo for a candidate that doesn't fit the paper's ideology.

What we noticed recently, for example, is one party getting 8-9 articles written about their activities versus 1-2 for the other party, consistently, for weeks. In most cases, over time (and I'm talking weeks/months not days), the number of stories should be close to even. When you see a pattern (again, over time) of significantly more stories about one party or the other, it's time to question why.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Ridgeview Commons

on Apr 25, 2017 at 12:46 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?