Your thoughts on "Media bias controlled by ratings, not politics".

[EDT]

I haunt both right and liberal political sites on a regular basis, and find both sides accusing the media of being against them in general.

In particular both here and Freeper sites seem to claim CNN and NPR are against them with some degree of regularity.

Watching the media report political events, I really am coming to my own conclusion that (with the exception of a few like Fox, which is obviously right wing) most media outlets will whore on either side of a story, if it makes for an exciting story, with no real regard for the political ramifications.

For instance, if either Kerry or Bush were found to have an affair with stunning undercover video, nearly any media giant which could break the story exclusively would relish and replay the video every half hour for the first day, then almost as much everyday thereafter, until every last rating point was wrung out of it.

This scares me almost as much as political bias in reporting, as in my mind it means the media is a car rolling down the highway with no intelligence at the wheel, right or left.

Anyone else agree or disagree, curious on your opinion on the "This will make a huge story! vs. Political agenda", keeping in mind the above "Affair video" as an exclusive sitting on the desk of a major TV news source.

[Dookus]

1. i agree with you

but I may be the only one here.


If there's a buck to be made pimping for socialism, believe me, they'll pimp it.

If there's a buck to be made with liberal hosts, they'll find 'em.

If there's a buck to be made doing ANYTHING, they'll do it.

That's all the explanation you need.

[vi5]

2. I completely agree with what you are saying....

I think right now the money is to be made by showing a right wing bias. However, if something came along that was anti-republican but sensationalistic they would sell that story all the live long day.

[KeepItReal]

3. I disagree

"if something came along that was anti-republican but sensationalistic they would sell that story"

Where is the critical coverage of Bush & Co. backing the Haiti coup?

Where is the critical coverage Bush & Co. ignoring and underreporting military deaths and W.I.A.s in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Where is the critical coverage of voting "irregularities" in 2000, 2002 and 2004 that seem to benefit Republicans so consistently?

The popular media truly is "embedded" with Bush & Co. and it seems to take outside forces to make them report *both* sides of a story and not just the GOP line...

[vi5]

6. Uh....I think I specified "sensationalistic"....

None of those things qualify as titilating or sensationalistic to anything more than a small minority of people. People yawn at that stuff and turn off their TV. It's why even when they seemed to be reporting about the Plame case, they eventually stopped because they realized that Joe and Jane 6 pack just didn't care enough about the issue.

The fact is that people don't care and people don't tune in unless something appeals to their prurient interests or affects them in a specific, direct way.

If you honestly believe that people want to hear cable news reporting on that stuff and would be really enthused about hearing about it then I think we've been spending too much time on the internet where the interest in these stories runs deeper.

I care about them and I know about them and I enjoy reading reports or articles on the issues that you mentioned. I just realize that I am in the minority.

[papau]

13. Sorry- the "story has no legs" "not interesting" doesn't work to cover

media right wing bias.

Every run through a stop sign is reported if it is a Dem - with video at 11.

Every GOP mis-step is "story has no legs" or "not interesting" and is lucky if it gets on page A29 on Saturday.

Media owners and editors decide what gets to print or air - and stuff bad for the GOP just does not make it to air. And God forbid any bad for GOP getting multi-day coverage or a follow-up on what has not happen in the last 4 weeks report.

[BiggJawn]

20. And Bush and Cheney's dirty financial dealings?

Martha Stewart is going to jail for less. Jeff Skilling is getting what Pinkie and the Brain ought to be getting.

And I do NOT think the media would cover it even if Shrub was caught with his limp-on in Condi's mouth.

100 Freepers email in complaints about "all that Commie shit on your channel" and the execs think Murka Has Spoken.

Yeah, ratings drive the Media, but politics drive the ratings. That's the most profound thing I'll probably say today.

Most of us like Olberman on BS-RNC, right? Well the suits know that, so we get Olberman. Why Phil didn't pull those numbers, I don't know. maybe he wasn't "hip" enough with those annoying distracting background graphics

They just don't pick these ratings off trees...

[snoochie]

4. Disagree

Even in cases where media has no dog in the hunt, if a scandal hurts republicans, it's not a story.

e.g. Wen Ho Lee vs. Katrina Leung

[vi5]

9. I don't know anyone other than rabid republicans....

Who even have any idea what the Wen Ho Lee story is. That wasn't sensationalistic and the majority of americans other than the wingnuts didn't give a whiff about that story. And I don't know anyone other than rabidly political liberals or dems who even know or care about the Katrina Leung story.

I'm not saying this isn't sad or pathetic because it is.

The Laci Peterson story is not a liberal or a conservative story. But it's sensationalistic so they report about it ad nauseum.

[snoochie]

10. Whatever people decide to pay attention to,

it's still a disparity of coverage. You can't say in one breath that the media only does sensational stories, they're not really biased according to party affiliation, but then as soon as I provide an example where they showed just such a bias, change gears and start talking about what people respond to.

The media beat the hell out of the Wen Ho Lee case, and barely said peep about Katrina Leung. When you factor in which one was actually guilty, it only makes the evidence of their obvious bias more glaring.

[salin]

21. I disagree... perhaps it was regional - but it was widely covered

in the California Bay Area. Could be that there are several large institutions involved in physics with DOE money and direct and indirect Defense applications - and thus there was local interest. But for whatever reason, one would have had to be reading zero newspapers during the time the story broke if one lived in that region to not be very familiar with the Wen Ho Lee story.

Not living in the area any more so I can not compare the coverage to that of the Leung story.

[teach1st]

5. I agree. I just posted this on another board...

I just posted this on another board in an ongoing discussion with a conservative (who will not vote for Bush) who complained about "the liberal media":

I think corporate media is a more accurate label than either the liberal press or the conservative press. You, coming from the conservative side, naturally see liberal bias, while I, coming from the left, see conservative bias. But I think what is really happening is inhibited reporting. Reporters are constrained based on corporate decision-making - they don't want to upset their stockholders and advertisers. Profits versus gutsy reporting has always been a concern for news outlets, but now that mainstream media is dominated by a few corporate giants, profits are winning. Media are no longer servants of the ruling rich, they are the ruling rich. It's easier to accept the status quo when one is part of the status quo.

Witness Iraq: Although the facts about the lack of WMD and the lack of Hussein's ties with Al Qaeda had been out there long before the most recent invasion occured, mainstream media, for the most part, did little to question Bush's policies. They rushed in to embed themselves in the war machine within which little in the way of active investigative reporting was allowed. What's more, most of the time they surpressed or minimized any reports of dissent. Guests on the cable stations who did speak against the invasion were ridiculed and ganged up upon during media coverage of the run up to war.

George Bush is a corporatist first and formost. The media owners are his natural allies; they both have the same financial interests. Remember, who did Bush's tax cuts most benefit? It was easy for the media to be more favorable toward Bush, especially given the polls. Money and polls are the driving force now. Bush's fabled photo-ops are perfect for the rather lazy corporate media: instant ready-packaged stories right in the can. Bush feigns animosity toward the media, but I don't believe it. He's been their partner in ratings these past three years; his FCC policy has allowed corporate media to consolidate even further.

It's hard to talk about what corporate media did to Clinton, Gore, and Dean, because they all must share some of the blame for their troubles. But corporate media can take a bow, just the same. The media unleashed the full wrath of the right wing's efforts to destabilize Clinton's Presidency to the exclusion of any sort of fact-based reporting. Most of the charges were not born out by facts, but the damage caused by the constant repititon of untrue charges had already been done. As a result, there are a vast block of citizens who don't know what Clinton did well. Most people can tell you that Bin Laden slipped through Clinton's hands, but almost nobody can talk about the many successes brought about by Clinton's three year fight against Al Qaeda. (Most people can't remember the right's loud criticism of his anti-terrorism efforts, either.)

I think the same thing happened to Bush's opponent for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, John McCain, and Bush's attacks on him (Bush people called McCain "A cheat, a liar and a fraud" among other things). They got by the media with little inspection. On the other hand, as I remember it, McCain's attacks on Bush ("religious bigot") were disassembled nightly.

Now that things appear to be crumbling for Bush and his administration, it's not hard to imagine corporate media losing interest in Bush if he loses his juice. They might like him, but they're going to go for the status quo most of the time. I'm listening to CNN as I write this, and in my opinion, the media is still very comfortable with Bush.

(None of the above, by the way, has anything to do with Fox News, which is something else all together.)

[mrdmk]

17. Fair and balanced, excellent post teach1st

The one thing you fail to mention is that the media whether print or video does not feel the obligation to give the history of the subject anymore. They give the current circumstances if that. If someone wanted to get the history of a subject they need to take the time to wade though several books to find the facts they were looking for. People can look on the Internet at this time, but the facts maybe in question, this is a risk. This is what our news service has come to. We need to check up on them to make sure we are getting correct information.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. Sure

They do what makes them money. FOX "News" started because some on the right came to believe that the mainstream media was "liberal" because it did not subscribe to their simplistic black & white view of the world. So Murdoch jumped in and gave them what they wanted and reaped the profits.

Most of these media outlets are owned by large corporations and they want what is good for large corporations. So yeah they sensationalize if that will make them a buck, but if there is any systemic bias it is pro-corporate. And which party best represents the corporate interest (whines from the Naderites aside)? Does a defense contractor like G.E. benefit or not from the invasion of a foreign country?

Plenty here accuse NPR of being corporate whores, but I think the right wingers don't like them because you can't do a 20 minute news story on a subject and adhere to an absolutist view of right/wrong good/evil when you get into details and contest. NPR just does details, subtlety and context better than most other broadcast media and anything that requires a moment's thought is anathema to the far right.

[salinen]

8. I don't agree

Imagine if you were the owner. Would you allow 24/7 pro-chimp coverage? This is the most corrupt regime in our history. That's news!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I agree in principal

But you always have to bear in mind that the media is owned by wealthy people with a lot to lose financially should Bush be ousted. These people think only with their pockets, and if you were to weigh the difference between Bush making his tax cuts permanent and Kerry repealing them, well, guess which way you're going to try to push it.

That said, the journalists themselves are going to start sucking up to Democrats as they well know the tide is turning and they personally have to weigh the notion of being on the outside looking in if they don't hop on board now. We're going to start seeing a very odd dichotomy in the media soon.

[Dookus]

14. But do they really stand to lose a lot

if Bush is ousted?

Big corporations do pretty damned well under Democratic administrations. In fact, MOST corporations do better under Democratic administrations, because the economy grows better.

[KeepItReal]

15. The *do* have something to lose with a Democratic congress

Remember one upon a time the Democrats controlled congress and had those hearings with Big Tobbacco executives sweating under tough questions and having to admit that they knew their product was a known killer?

At that point I think alot of CEO's said "Never Again"....

Right now big companies can merge, pollute, break regulations, get no-bid government contracts, etc. with little-to-no scrutiny thanks to this Harvard-MBA-having, lassiez-faire Bush & Co. regime.

Why would a corporation stop this particular GOP gravy train?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. They don't see it that way.

They can take direct profits in the way of tax cuts or they can hold their breath and hope for indirect profits under a better administration. Business isn't about taking THAT kind of risk...

[Cat Atomic]

12. If you're talking about "approved" candidates, then sure.

When the two choices are people that the establishment is comfortable with (moderate Democrat vs. Republican) then sure- ratings might drive alot of the bias. We're talking about political dialogue ranging from right to far right.

When you're talking about people with ideas that put them outside the approved power structure, then it's not about ratings. It's about maintaining the status quo.

[struggle4progress]

16. Multiple sources of bias:

(1) advertising dollars: this includes ratings but it more generally means whatever affects time: if usedcardealers buy most late night spots, you won't see much about crooked usedcardealers. keeping the client happy is a basic business principle.

(2) integration and conflicts of interest: if the company that controls a network has close ties to another industry, coverage will be limited.

(3) media owners can have political agendas. so can their advertisers.

(4) limited competition: if you own radio, TV, and newspaper in the same region, it's less likely somebody'll scoop you. great! always pressure to reduce expenses, so you can cut down in the newsroom.

(5) complacent public. "nobody complained when we failed to cover ..."
the evil side consistently exerts pressure (often directed at spin rather than content). some of the NC papers for the last few months have been full of LTTE "I'm so sick of seeing pictures of Edwards"
(<edit> local news sometimes may cover issues if people contact them)

etc etc

[salin]

23. I would agree

with this assessment. A number of complicated conflicts of interest come into play.

[kodi]

18. they won't rock the boat & have a vested interest in corporate viewpoints

as stated by Chomsky,

“Whether they’re called liberal or conservative, the major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger corporations, they sell a product to a market. The market is advertisers, that is, other businesses. The product is the audiences. For the elite media that set the basic agenda to which others adapt, the product is, furthermore, relatively privileged audiences. So we have major corporations selling fairly wealthy and privileged audiences. Not surprisingly, the picture of the world represented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers, and the product.

"The media are only one part of a larger doctrinal system: other parts are journals of opinion, the schools and universities, academic scholarship and so on. We are much more aware of the media, especially the prestige media, because those who critically analyze ideology have focused on them.

"The doctrinal system, which produces what we call propaganda when discussing enemies, has two distinct targets. One target is what is sometimes called the political class, the roughly 20% of the population that is relatively educated more or less articulate, playing some roll in the decision making. Their acceptance of doctrine is crucial because they are in a position to design and implement policy.

"Then there are the 80% or so of the population. These are Lippman’s “spectators of action”, whom he referred to as the “bewildered herd”. They are supposed to follow orders and keep out of the way of the important people. They are the targets of the “real” mass media: the tabloids, the sitcoms, super bowl, and so on. These sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc. the goal is keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It is unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what’s happening in the world. In fact, it is undesirable ---if they see too much of reality they may set themselves in charge.”

just plain Chomsky.

[SanchoPanza]

22. The "media" is not some all-encompassing monstrosity

Different sectors of the newsmedia have different institutional mechanisms and, as such, different biases. Reporters who go to NPR are more than likely not looking for the big bucks, and as such probably wont have much on the way of a corporate, ratings bias. Reporters who go to CNN are probably looking to become the next on-air personality.

The main problem with journalism today is the abject laziness that has settled in on top of the profession as a whole. With few exception investigatory journalism is pretty much dead in the United States simply because it takes far to much time and effort to pursue a story such as the Watergate burglary. Why have a dedicated staff of hard-working investigators when you can simply cut to your local affiliate station in Colorado covering Kobe Bryant or California covering Scott Peterson. When its time to have an anchorperson at a desk to report story blurbs, just hire someone pretty who can read a few paragraphs off the AP wire (I know someone who works on the AP wire, and this happens constantly and often verbatim).

FOX is really an entirely different animal. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, it's America's Al-Jazeera. It is primarily reflection of its creators: Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. Ailes brings to FOX the propaganda techniques he employed as producer of Rush Limbaugh's failed TV program as well as other conservative commentary shows. Murdoch brings the tabloid sensationalism of his past media ventures (such as the NY Post, famous for its eye grabbing and often insipid headlines). It's sort of a combination of the Limbaugh radio show, Inside Edition, and the Weekly Standard all in 24 hour televised format.