US Media

[Starglider]

I'm debating the 2008 election in this thread and I can handle the discussion of the electoral college system and statistical arguments fine. However I have run into a problem with my lack of personal experience of the US media. Here is the relevant section;

This is another highly disingenuous statement. The so-called 'Big Three' networks now have a combined market share of less than 30% of all TV programming, but of course for elections what we really care about is news. Fox News regularly achieves over a 50% share of all US cable TV viewers and in overall terms is over twice as popular as the next competitor (CNN, which is well ahead of the nearest big-three news source, MSNBC). Fox News is of course completely and unashamedly Republican-biased.

On the contrary, its a highly-accurate assessment. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, AP, UPI AFP and Reuters plus every major newspaper in the country plus every major news magazine plus all the major FM radio stations all unequivocably and overwhelmingly supported Obama, gave hima pass on every issue, never questioned him, never investigated him, never raised any issues that might embarras him. In contrast, they hounded McCain and Palin mercilessly, picking up on every slight flub and inventing issues when none could be found. Of all the news media, Fox and only Fox actually tried to give the Republican candidates an even break. Your viewing/listening figures are correct but this simply shows the vast gap that has grown between the far-left political orientation of the news media and the center-right orientation of their audience. That's also why newspapers are bleeding readers and money at a laudable rate. With a little luck, they'll go bust soon. Your readership figures actually emphasize the point I'm making; the US is a center-right country and the workings of electoral demographics mean that it is likely to stay that way.

I can't personally appraise this statement because I had only limited exposure to US media through the election - I stayed up for the election night and I do sometimes watch Fox News for the comedy value but that's it. However second-hand experience seems to suggest that Obama had his fair share of scandals, the birth certificate thing, the mad preacher, dubious property dealings etc. He did get away with various flubs, but then Palin also got away with some horrendous ones.

Completely wrong. All the negative issues surrounding Obama were glossed over and buried very quickly. Palin got away with nothing and many of the accusations and issues poured out by the press turned out to have been completely invented. Remember the "who is the real mother?" meme that went around and the number of media people who actually took it seriously. The vicious campaign of character assassination against Sarah Palin (which continues by the way) was probably the U.S. media's lowest point and effectively destroyed it had left.

Again I don't have personal experience of this but I find it highly unlikely that a market exists for Republican-biased news which is not being filled. I suspect the situation is that Democrats (who are more usually urban) tend to buy newspapers while Republicans (who are more usually urban) prefer to listen to Rush Limbaugh. TV and to a lesser extent Internet sources are probably more important however.

I'm afraid argument from incredulity doesn't get one very far. And your basic presumptions are utterly wrong. Get out of the urbanized areas and local newspapers get to be very important community tools. Newspaper readership in such areas is actually greater than in big cities. That's why local papers remain relatively ehalthy while teh national ones are collapsing. You are correct on TV news, but as we've seen, with the exception of Fox, all the television media and are far-left orientated and all the internet news sources easily available. A sign of just how corrupted the U.S. national media is can be seen from one simple fact. The Chinese Xinhua news agency, the official news agency of the Chinese communist government gave better-balanced coverage of the U.S. elections than any of the main U.S. media.

Democrats are favoured by 'traditional' media sources. However Republicans have abandoned these sources in droves and now almost exclusively use alternative, heavily pro-Republican sources. The effective result is a roughly 50/50 split between media consumption (not necessarily number of outlets) biased in each direction, which is unsurprising, because it's exactly what supply/demand economics would predict. This split is now so severe that there were several interesting articles published about 'two halves of America living in separate worlds'.

Which simply proves my point. The news media are completely out of synch (and far to the left of) the American political center of mass.

Basically, does anyone have any evidence I can use or failing that just personal experience relevant to the question of how much of the US media is 'Democrat-biased' and how much is 'Republican-biased' (of course both sides would probably call most of their side 'fair and balanced'). I can dig up more readership/listeners/viewers figures, but I don't know the respective outlooks of each publication; I am pretty sure there are in fact right-wing newspapers, you could hardly sell anything in the deep south states otherwise, but I don't know which ones.

While I'm here, can anyone give me a US perspective on this;

I would note that personally I was a Libertarian up to age 21 or so, and have been getting progressively more moderate since then, although I am still a strong supporter of the Conservative party in the UK. Annecdotal, but definitely the reverse of the trend you are postulating.

In US terms, "libertarian" is a code-word used by democrats who don;t want to admit the fact. (Interesting point how most Democrats try to conceal their actual identity either by Mobying or by claiming to be libertarians. Republicans very rarely do that).

I am of course going to argue against this on general principles; aside from anything else, 'Libertarian' can hardly be a code-word for 'Democrat' in the UK when we don't have any Democrats. But can anyone else confirm the presence or absence of this in the US? My impression was that Libertarians are basically more extreme than the Republicans on economic/tax/budget issues but disagreed on isolationism (Libertarians want it more) and personal liberties (Libertarians won't allow them to be sacrificied for national security or religious reasons). AFAIK Libertarians generally vote Republican not Democrat, if they don't vote for a minor third party.

[Darth Wong]

What's to refute? He's making claims about US network coverage of Obama vs McCain which are complete bullshit, and he does not support those claims in any way other than his personal authority.

If the media was so hard on Sarah Palin, why did they give her a free pass on claiming she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" when she pushed for it in the first place? Why did they give her a free pass on taking credit for the oil pipeline she supposedly built when it was not yet built at all, and she had not even bothered to meet with the native tribes contesting the land rights for the Canadian portion of the pipeline? Why did they give her a free pass on her incredible hypocrisy of ranting about the evils of socialism and taxing the wealthy when her biggest vote-getting accomplishment as Alaska governor was to slap a wealth tax on the oil companies and distribute it to the people, a la Robin Hood?

Conversely, if the media was so easy on Obama, why did they completely buy into the Reverend Wright "scandal", even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's policies? Why did they ignore McCain deliberately seeking endorsements from radical extremist preachers himself?

And what about McCain's glorious war record? If the media attacked every weakness, why did no one dare point out that he actually had an unimpressive military service record until he was captured? He was using that (relentlessly flogging it, actually) as proof of his leadership ability, yet he never demonstrated any actual leadership ability while he was in the military: the great unreported fact of that election.

If the media was so pro-Obama and anti-McCain, why did they play down the fact that Obama's academic scores and professional history shows that he is quite simply far more intelligent than slacker McCain and dumbshit Palin put together? The fact that both McCain and Palin were slacker morons was largely ignored in the election. Where was the Newsweek headline asking "WHY IS IT OK TO ELECT A C STUDENT PRESIDENT?"

His argument is nothing more than bald-faced proof through emphatic assertion.

[Samuel]

the US is a center-right country and the workings of electoral demographics mean that it is likely to stay that way.

No, South Korea is probably a center right country. The US is a far right one. As for staying that way

Basically, does anyone have any evidence I can use or failing that just personal experience relevant to the question of how much of the US media is 'Democrat-biased' and how much is 'Republican-biased' (of course both sides would probably call most of their side 'fair and balanced').

Does the fact they cheerleaded Bush for years count?

The Chinese Xinhua news agency, the official news agency of the Chinese communist government gave better-balanced coverage of the U.S. elections than any of the main U.S. media.

What is so surprising about that? The Chinese government has no reason to censor trash talk about the US.

In US terms, "libertarian" is a code-word used by democrats who don;t want to admit the fact. (Interesting point how most Democrats try to conceal their actual identity either by Mobying or by claiming to be libertarians. Republicans very rarely do that).

The libertarian party platform is so different than the Democratic one that I don't know where to begin. Should it be drugs? Social programs? Taxes? Regulation? States rights?

[Darth Wong]

It occurs to me that the best way to respond to this guy's argument is to simply quote it back to him, but switch the names "McCain" with "Obama" and "FOX" with "MSNBC". All he's doing is spouting a bunch of unsupported claims; you can easily produce an argument of 100% identical quality by simply doing a word exchange:

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, FOX, AP, UPI AFP and Reuters plus every major newspaper in the country plus every major news magazine plus all the major FM radio stations all unequivocably and overwhelmingly supported McCain, gave him a pass on every issue, never questioned him, never investigated him, never raised any issues that might embarrass him. In contrast, they hounded Obama and Biden mercilessly, picking up on every slight flub and inventing issues when none could be found. Of all the news media, MSNBC and only MSNBC actually tried to give the Democratic candidates an even break.

Completely wrong. All the negative issues surrounding McCain were glossed over and buried very quickly. Obama got away with nothing and many of the accusations and issues poured out by the press turned out to have been completely invented. Remember the "Reverend Wright scandal" meme that went around and the number of media people who actually took it seriously. The vicious campaign of character assassination against Barack Obama (which continues by the way) was probably the U.S. media's lowest point and effectively destroyed [any credibility] it had left.

You are correct on TV news, but as we've seen, with the exception of MSNBC, all the television media and are far-right orientated and all the internet news sources easily available. A sign of just how corrupted the U.S. national media is can be seen from one simple fact. The Chinese Xinhua news agency, the official news agency of the Chinese communist government gave better-balanced coverage of the U.S. elections than any of the main U.S. media.

As for his idiotic arguments about the American political "center of mass", he seems to believe that Obama's decisive victory was somehow a trick, and that most of the country actually hates him. He'll have to provide better evidence than "because I say so", which seems to be the sole underpinning of his entire argument.

[Count Chocula]

Regarding the Libertarian party: they are actually far more conservative, in the original sense of the word, than either major political party in the US is by examination of their party platforms. The general Libertarian belief (from my perspective, as a registered and active Libertarian until approx. age 30) is that the Constitution and first 10 amendments, plus maybe the Louisiana Purchase and Monroe Doctrine, are the ideal federal government. Basically, they're 1789ers.

Regarding media bias, that should be relatively simple to determine: just write down a list of prominent news personalities from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox, then find out or ask the networks if they're registered to vote as Democrats, Republicans or Independents. I'm tempted to tell you my bias, but I'm working from musty memories that are not reliable. Plus, I'm cynical enough to believe that ALL of the networks slant the news for sensationalism over veracity. That depth of research may not be worth your time for a board debate, however.

[D.Turtle]

If you want a good source for Media bias, you can go to http://MediaMatters.org

Yes they are a progressive/left-leaning Group, but they provide sources/video/recordings/transcripts of all of their claims.

[Mr Bean]

Regarding media bias, that should be relatively simple to determine: just write down a list of prominent news personalities from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox, then find out or ask the networks if they're registered to vote as Democrats, Republicans or Independents. I'm tempted to tell you my bias, but I'm working from musty memories that are not reliable.

Political affiliation means little to reporting since so many FOXNEWS's anchors pull that trick of registering independent yet being so damn Neo-conservative it's not even funny. And so many of the talking heads they bring on are "independent" as well. A better comparison would be your classic Positive/Negative Statement assignment.

It's simple enough to do, watch a channel for 24 hours for a week, or have a few dozen people do that. Every time a political party is mentioned grade up each comment as either negative, positive or neutral. At the end of the week grade up the number of Democratic postives/negatives/neutrals, the number of Republican postives/negatives/neutrals then break it down by individual person.

I recall a recent study such as this one showing that positive comments on FoxNews Re:Barack Obama had dropped as low as 8%, 11% being neutral informative comments and the other 71% being negative comments while conversely MSNBC was kicking it 63% positive, 19% neutral and 18% negative.

It should be noted that one week's stories are not as good over-all indicator for example a study last week would have shown MSNBC almost negative on Democrats with two high profile screws such as the Air Force 1 buzzing new York and the 100 Day Leadup featuring several stories about Obama keeping Bush era policies on state secrets.

Plus, I'm cynical enough to believe that ALL of the networks slant the news for sensationalism over veracity. That depth of research may not be worth your time for a board debate, however.

This used to be true only of the local news programs, but since CNN kicked off and 24/7 news got channels all to themselves then every producer does prefer sensationalism over truth or good reporting. Since pretty much all American news groups are forced by their owners/shareholders to chase every last time, the relative quality of news has gone down. There is sans the rare program(Such as 60 minutes) been an unending increase of attention grabbing if rarely true news headlines and stories.

[Count Chocula]

Political affiliation means little to reporting since so many FOXNEWS's anchors pull that trick of registering independent yet being so damn Neo-conservative it's not even funny. And so many of the talking heads they bring on are "independent" as well. A better comparison would be your classic Positive/Negative Statement assignment.

Agreed. On a personal note, my wife and I are registered "Independent" which means no votee in the primaree. I voted for Bush II the first time around, couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate in 2004, and with reluctance and a tinge of nausea hit the "McCain" box in 2008. Now that you bring up the point, I've been doing the same thing as the Fox folks! Hmm.

[Darth Wong]

Regarding the Libertarian party: they are actually far more conservative, in the original sense of the word, than either major political party in the US is by examination of their party platforms. The general Libertarian belief (from my perspective, as a registered and active Libertarian until approx. age 30) is that the Constitution and first 10 amendments, plus maybe the Louisiana Purchase and Monroe Doctrine, are the ideal federal government. Basically, they're 1789ers.

Ah yes, the Libertarian party: building a bridge to the 18th century.

It's sad that people can honestly be so fucking stupid that they think the ideal blueprint for a 21st century society should be taken from the 18th century, and yet they're still allowed to reproduce and operate motor vehicles.

[CaptHawkeye]

As for his idiotic arguments about the American political "center of mass", he seems to believe that Obama's decisive victory was somehow a trick, and that most of the country actually hates him. He'll have to provide better evidence than "because I say so", which seems to be the sole underpinning of his entire argument.

This mindset is actually prevailing amongst conservatives. Many of whom are still self-convinced that Bush was an under rated President who was simply "overloaded" with problems. They don't bother to think where the problems came from of course.

The scary thing about the "he tricked the country" mindset is that it reeks of racism. The people claiming might as well just come out and say "Obama's a dirty nigger".

As for modern libertarianism, the modern day extension of Jeffersonianism, you'd think someone would have told them that Jefferson wasn't even very good at following his own mantra. Once he got into office it turned out his grandiose dreams of letting the country "run itself" didn't work too well in practice.