DVD Talk
Some pretty naked CNN bias here [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Some pretty naked CNN bias here


natesfortune
10-28-05, 04:26 PM
Ridiculous.

Go to this link for the links in the post:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/10/28/124035/09

PSST, CNN! Your Bias Is Showing
By: Dales Section: SCOTUS

I'll probably be posting later more on the Gallup poll taken last night about reactions to the Miers withdrawal, but I did want to quickly hit CNN for showing their liberal bias once again. In their writeup about the poll, they report:

On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents came down solidly on the side of someone who has moderate or liberal views -- with 34 percent choosing "moderate" and 24 percent picking "liberal."

The poll results do show 34% responding "moderate", and 24% saying some flavor of "liberal." However, it is more than a little bit deceptive to write it up in a manner that makes it sound as if the public displayed a preference for a liberal. 8% answered that they wanted the next nominee to be "very liberal", while 14% said "very conservative." 16% said they wanted a "somewhat liberal" nominee, while 23% said they wanted a "somewhat conservative" one. For both modifiers, the conservative side garnered more support than the liberal side.

The excerpted paragraph could just as easily been written as follows:

On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents came down solidly on the side of someone who has moderate or conservative views -- with 34 percent choosing "moderate" and 37 percent picking "conservative."

Or, alternatively, one could have said that a clear majority prefers a candidate with discernibly ideologic views rather than a moderate-- 61% to 34%.

The choice of phrasing was totally at the discretion of the reporter and the editors. A slight plurality of adults, when choosing between a conservative, moderate, or liberal, prefer a conservative. That fact cannot be gleaned from CNN's article, and the impression given is precisely the opposite.

I tremble for those who get their news only through "unbiased mainstream media" outlets.

Jason
10-28-05, 04:28 PM
http://home.comcast.net/~thewassman/Waaahmbulance.jpg

CRM114
10-28-05, 04:36 PM
natesfortune lives!

natesfortune
10-28-05, 04:37 PM
I sure do.

And I'd love to see somebody try to defend CNN on this one.

Rogue588
10-28-05, 04:40 PM
http://home.comcast.net/~thewassman/Waaahmbulance.jpg:lol:

classicman2
10-28-05, 04:41 PM
How can I defend CNN? I can't defend how polls are taken. ;)

CRM114
10-28-05, 04:45 PM
I sure do.

And I'd love to see somebody try to defend CNN on this one.

When someone defends Fox News. Hell, Fox hardly spend 5 minutes on this leak case in each of their primetime shows. :lol:

classicman2
10-28-05, 04:47 PM
When someone defends Fox News. Hell, Fox hardly spend 5 minutes on this leak case in each of their primetime shows. :lol:

Of course you can make the argument that MSNBC spent too much time coverning the leak case.

Supermallet
10-28-05, 05:02 PM
When someone defends Fox News. Hell, Fox hardly spend 5 minutes on this leak case in each of their primetime shows. :lol:

Bingo. I feel sad for anyone who gets their news through any 24-hour news station, as they all have slants too big, imo, to be taken seriously. Fox News is so sickening, pushing hardcore right-wing views as if they were uncontested fact. I don't think a liberal bias is any better, frankly. Why not just report the news, instead of spinning it?

classicman2
10-28-05, 05:05 PM
The vast majority of the media have 'slants,' not just the 24-hour news stations; but the 3 major networks, talk radio, the weekly news magazines, and most of the country's daily newspapers.

I won't even mention how slanted the internet news is.

natesfortune
10-28-05, 05:06 PM
http://home.comcast.net/~thewassman/Waaahmbulance.jpg

Liberal:

"There's no media bias, idiot!"

Conservative:

Points out a bald-faced and unspinnable example of media bias for the liberal to try and explain, based on his first statement.

Liberal:

"Stop whining!"


Great addition to the conversation, Jason.

Supermallet
10-28-05, 05:08 PM
Conservative: Ignores all the other posts which point out how other news organizations have a bias, liberal AND conservative.

X
10-28-05, 05:10 PM
Let's stop the blanket attacks against political philosophies.

Supermallet
10-28-05, 05:10 PM
The vast majority of the media have 'slants,' not just the 24-hour news stations; but the 3 major networks, talk radio, the weekly news magazines, and most of the country's daily newspapers.

I won't even mention how slanted the internet news is.

Of course all news organizations have some kind of slant, but not every one is as bad as the other. And the 24-hour stations are pretty bad.

jhagler
10-28-05, 05:11 PM
And here based on the thread title, I was hoping for some naked pics of CNN reporters!
:hump:

Groucho
10-28-05, 05:12 PM
Here's the CNN article for reference:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/poll.miers/index.html

I don't understand this bit from the redstate.org article:

8% answered that they wanted the next nominee to be "very liberal", while 14% said "very conservative." 16% said they wanted a "somewhat liberal" nominee, while 23% said they wanted a "somewhat conservative" one. For both modifiers, the conservative side garnered more support than the liberal side.

Checking the poll results, liberal isn't split out between "somewhat" and "very." There's just "liberal." I'm not sure where they're getting the split from.

Also the redstate.org (undoubtably an "unbiased" source ha ha) article conveniently forgets to mention the very next paragraph in the quoted story:Only 14 percent thought the nominee should be "very conservative" and 23 percent chose "somewhat conservative."

natesfortune
10-28-05, 05:16 PM
For the longest time I've heard that there's "no liberal bias" in news.

This is, of course, laughable, as example after example shows, along with polls of the political affiliation of people who do the news, which skew vastly liberal.

I have always been a proponent of the idea that news cannot be unbiased, as people report the news, and even a person straining to be "objective" cannot ever be truly so. Even the most herculean effort of objectivity will be colored by the simple fact that one person sees the world, and thus reports on it, totally differently than another.

And the fact is this - liberals own the media, and have for decades. FOX NEWS is the only mainstream media outlet on TV that is a balance to this, which is why it is so valuable. Liberals have MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. They also have almost every major newspaper, with the exception of the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal, and a couple of others.

Conservatives rule Talk Radio, which isn't considered "Mainstream Media".

I'm only pointing out obvious bias to those who still hold out the ridiculous notion that "there's no media bias!"

It's good that Conservatives have at least one TV channel that fairly reports their side - but that channel is widely castigated as being "biased" itself, as if the other channels are not.

That is unfair. FOX NEWS is just a small form of balance in a profession where 90% of those working in it are liberals.

There is no such thing as ojective media.

natesfortune
10-28-05, 05:24 PM
Here's the CNN article for reference:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/poll.miers/index.html

I don't understand this bit from the redstate.org article:

Checking the poll results, liberal isn't split out between "somewhat" and "very." There's just "liberal." I'm not sure where they're getting the split from.

Here is the Gallup Poll CNN was reporting on:

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=19492

Do you think George W. Bush should nominate someone to the Supreme Court who is -- [ROTATED: very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, (or) very liberal]?

Very
conservative

Somewhat
conservative


Moderate

Somewhat
liberal

Very
liberal

No
opinion

2005 Oct 27

14%

23

34

16

8

5


Not sure how to fix that table to read out right here, but just look at the link.

It's exactly as Red State said. (It's also just common sense that Gallup would not split up the Conservative side but just leave "Liberal" without the "somewhat" or "very" modifiers in their poll)

Also the redstate.org (undoubtably an "unbiased" source ha ha) article conveniently forgets to mention the very next paragraph in the quoted story:

Nobody said Redstate was unbiased.

But they don't claim to be. CNN does.

Which is the whole point.

And they are completely correct.

The Gallup Poll showed that respondents said this:

Bush should nominate a Supreme Court justice that's

VERY CONSERVATIVE - 14%
SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE - 23%
MODERATE - 34%
SOMEWHAT LIBERAL - 16%
VERY LIBERAL - 8%
NO OPINION - 5%

Somehow, CNN summarized that data by saying:

On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents came down solidly on the side of someone who has moderate or liberal views -- with 34 percent choosing "moderate" and 24 percent picking "liberal."

Uh, they came down "solidly" moderate or liberal?

Actually, the poll showed that they came down the exact opposite way, with more people on the Conservative side of the fence than the liberal one, and by a healthy margin.

But somehow CNN tries to spin it as if "see? The people want a moderate or a liberal!"

And they did this by lying, and combining the responses to the word "liberal", and leaving the responses for the Conservative side split up.

The other paragraph you mentioned is part of the ruse - they had to report the number of people that wanted a Conservative nominee when reporting on a poll and claiming that the majority was asking for a moderate or a liberal. So they combined the liberal numbers to make it look larger, and left the Conservative ones split up to make it look smaller.

Somebody who didn't look at the actual Gallup poll would be led to the the wrong conclusion by reading this story - that, as CNN says, "most people came down solidly on the side of "moderate" or "liberal" - which is just completely false.

Their summary of the data was exactly the opposite of what the poll clearly showed.

Supermallet
10-28-05, 05:25 PM
For the longest time I've heard that there's "no liberal bias" in news.

This is, of course, laughable, as example after example shows, along with polls of the political affiliation of people who do the news, which skew vastly liberal.

I have always been a proponent of the idea that news cannot be unbiased, as people report the news, and even a person straining to be "objective" cannot ever be truly so. Even the most herculean effort of objectivity will be colored by the simple fact that one person sees the world, and thus reports on it, totally differently than another.

And the fact is this - liberals own the media, and have for decades. FOX NEWS is the only mainstream media outlet on TV that is a balance to this, which is why it is so valuable. Liberals have MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. They also have almost every major newspaper, with the exception of the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal, and a couple of others.

Conservatives rule Talk Radio, which isn't considered "Mainstream Media".

I'm only pointing out obvious bias to those who still hold out the ridiculous notion that "there's no media bias!"

It's good that Conservatives have at least one TV channel that fairly reports their side - but that channel is widely castigated as being "biased" itself, as if the other channels are not.

That is unfair. FOX NEWS is just a small form of balance in a profession where 90% of those working in it are liberals.

There is no such thing as ojective media.


There is no such thing as truly objective media. But there are outlets that at least attempt to minimize a slant to one side or the other. Fox News is not valuable, as it is essentially right wing propaganda. Similarly, the other stations aren't very valuable, either. But if you're going to bash CNN, then at least be consistent and bash Fox while you're at it.

hahn
10-28-05, 05:55 PM
Bias=wrong. Bias=wrong. Bias=wrong. Say it out loud until you believe it.

Media stories are written by human beings. Human beings, by their very nature are already biased. Even if the stories themselves are objective, one can say there is a selection bias in terms of what stories are or aren't published.

Do I think CNN as a whole organization is biased? No. Do I think individual reporters may have biases that slip through the editor's eyes? Yes. But one example does not turn CNN, as a whole, into some unreliable news source that's not to be trusted.

dolphinboy
10-28-05, 05:58 PM
You seem to be conceding that Fox exists to be a conservative media outlet to "balance" out the other liberal media outlets.

Why do you suppose that no one at Fox would agree with you? At least on the record.

They're the fair and balanced news channel. They deliver the most objective news, right down the middle...just listen to them talk about themselves.

island007
10-28-05, 06:22 PM
I find FOX to be a more 'fair and balanced news channel' than CNN.

dolphinboy
10-28-05, 06:51 PM
I find FOX to be a more 'fair and balanced news channel' than CNN.

If nate is correct and Fox is there simply to help balance the scales of liberal bias wouldn't that mean that it would have to be as biased on the conservative side as much as the other channels are biased to the liberal side?

If not, then it's not really do the job of "balancing" the existing liberal bias very well, is it?

natesfortune
10-28-05, 07:15 PM
Bias=wrong. Bias=wrong. Bias=wrong. Say it out loud until you believe it.

Media stories are written by human beings. Human beings, by their very nature are already biased. Even if the stories themselves are objective, one can say there is a selection bias in terms of what stories are or aren't published.

This is exactly what I have always said, and in fact, have also stated previously in this very thread.

Do I think CNN as a whole organization is biased? No. Do I think individual reporters may have biases that slip through the editor's eyes? Yes. But one example does not turn CNN, as a whole, into some unreliable news source that's not to be trusted.

It's hardly one example.

That said, natesfortune, are you actually going to stand there and proclaim that an article by a website called "redstate.org", accusing the mainstream media of being liberally biased, is itself fully objective, and not biased?

Of course Red State is biased. They are an activisist "Red State" website. They are not claiming any ojectivity.

CNN DOES claim objectivity. That's the entire point, of course.

Red State wears its bias on its sleeve. CNN is more insidious - they try to tell you they are objective and only "reporting the facts", when they are just as biased as anybody else.

dolphinboy
10-28-05, 07:39 PM
This is exactly what I have always said, and in fact, have also stated previously in this very thread.



It's hardly one example.



Of course Red State is biased. They are an activisist "Red State" website. They are not claiming any ojectivity.

CNN DOES claim objectivity. That's the entire point, of course.

Red State wears its bias on its sleeve. CNN is more insidious - they try to tell you they are objective and only "reporting the facts", when they are just as biased as anybody else.

Using your own words, "when they are just as biased as anybody else", who is anybody else? Would Fox be part of that group?

So you must think Fox news is equally insidious? It would be refreshing if you'd just admit that you wear your bias on your sleeve and don't see Foxs news as a conservative news channel, primarily filled with people speaking for the current administration, because of that bias.

That seems more insidious than anything CNN does, but I'd be more than willing to "shake your hand" and call it even, if you admit that Fox is biased and doesn't say so, making them insidious by your own defintion.

PS-It hardly seems like this is even something people need to debate or discuss, but at the 6pm hour CNN had Larry King Live and Fox had Hannity and Colmes.

Larry King had Gergen, Boxer, Dreier (sp?) and someone I didn't know. So, 1 conservative, 1 liberal, 1 guy who bats from both sides of the plate, and 1 unknown to me. Seems like an attempt at fairness and balance in discussing Scooter's problems.

H&C started out with Mary Matalin (conservative) by herself and let her "attack" the special prosecutor and then claim she wasn't really attacking him in their first segment. Then the second segment went to someone on the other side, someone as liberal as Mary is conservative, right? Nope. The second segment was none other than Newt Gingrinch, so we've gone about 30 minutes with nothing but conservatives attacking Bill Clinton (they can't leave him out of anything), the Special Prosecutor, Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson, while saying how impeccable of a man Scooter is and that anyone who knows him, would know he would never lie. With no one to give the other (balanced view).

Wow.

island007
10-28-05, 09:35 PM
If nate is correct and Fox is there simply to help balance the scales of liberal bias wouldn't that mean that it would have to be as biased on the conservative side as much as the other channels are biased to the liberal side?

If not, then it's not really do the job of "balancing" the existing liberal bias very well, is it?

You need to take that up with nate.

I wrote "I find FOX to be a more 'fair and balanced news channel' than CNN."

Your lame attempt to infer more into my statement is embarrassing.

Th0r S1mpson
10-28-05, 09:49 PM
Man, you're reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into this little one-liner. Who even cares? Their bias (towards shock value) is far more visible in other headlines I've seem in the past. Why even make an issue over something stupid like this? Did they trick you into not liking Bush for a few seconds?

Myster X
10-28-05, 11:43 PM
I wonder why two liberal companies are sending people to the soup lines? Sad enough, there are folks who defend them til death.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/46864.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/051019/1179389.html?.v=1

Myster X
10-29-05, 12:11 AM
Hmmmmmm..... FOX must be doing something wrong here....

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,612,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1,645,000
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 1,615,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,604,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,552,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,311,000
CNN AARON BROWN 1,198,000
CNN ZAHN 858,000
CNN ANDERSON 786,000
CNNHN GRACE 724,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 494,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 469,000
MSNBC RITA 399,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 344,000
MSNBC TUCKER 296,000

DVD Polizei
10-29-05, 01:38 AM
Hmmmmmm..... FOX must be doing something wrong here....

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,612,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1,645,000
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 1,615,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,604,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,552,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,311,000
CNN AARON BROWN 1,198,000
CNN ZAHN 858,000
CNN ANDERSON 786,000
CNNHN GRACE 724,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 494,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 469,000
MSNBC RITA 399,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 344,000
MSNBC TUCKER 296,000

If CNN would only become a religiously fanatic news station, telling others how to morally live their lives, they could get so many more idiots viewing them.

Shame On CNN.

Regardless of the witty shots on each side, both political party news outlets have bias. So, arguing whether one has more than the other, is quite retarded. What you have to do, is determine whether a particular story--from Fox or CNN--is accurate.

kvrdave
10-29-05, 01:44 AM
If CNN would only become a religious fanatic news station, telling others how to morally live their lives, they could get so many more idiots viewing them.

Shame On CNN.


:lol:

It honestly doesn't matter what side we humans are on....when we are outnumbered in the way we think it is generally because of misinformation, fanaticism, the lemming affect, or any variation of people being stupid.

The masses just don't get it....only our small cadre does.

On to the next issue.

Goldblum
10-29-05, 03:04 AM
If nate is correct and Fox is there simply to help balance the scales of liberal bias wouldn't that mean that it would have to be as biased on the conservative side as much as the other channels are biased to the liberal side?

If not, then it's not really do the job of "balancing" the existing liberal bias very well, is it?
:hscratch: The point is the mass media taken as a whole is NOT balanced, with or without FOX. Even if FOX were staunchly conservative, it's still only one channel against the hoard of others.

Goldblum
10-29-05, 03:06 AM
If CNN would only become a religiously fanatic news station, telling others how to morally live their lives, they could get so many more idiots viewing them.

Shame On CNN.

Regardless of the witty shots on each side, both political party news outlets have bias. So, arguing whether one has more than the other, is quite retarded. What you have to do, is determine whether a particular story--from Fox or CNN--is accurate.
And here's Polizei again, bringing up religion yet another thread. :lol:

:)

Supermallet
10-29-05, 03:55 AM
:hscratch: The point is the mass media taken as a whole is NOT balanced, with or without FOX. Even if FOX were staunchly conservative, it's still only one channel against the hoard of others.

Dolphin's argument is that Fox claims to be fair and balanced (even though it's clearly not). So it wouldn't balance out anything, as it claims to balance itself out.

dick_grayson
10-31-05, 07:43 PM
got a few yuks out of this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1ldyn/id2.html

CRM114
10-31-05, 07:55 PM
I still say out of all of those shows up there, Hardball is the only one that deals exclusively with politics. Every other show has some bullshit Natalie Holloway angle.

I mean, who the fuck watches Greta Van Susteren or Paula Zahn?

DVD Polizei
10-31-05, 10:24 PM
That's what I've been wondering.

dolphinboy
10-31-05, 10:58 PM
I still say out of all of those shows up there, Hardball is the only one that deals exclusively with politics. Every other show has some bullshit Natalie Holloway angle.

I mean, who the fuck watches Greta Van Susteren or Paula Zahn?

I'll watch Larry King if he has a great guest, but hate the show and listening to anything the man says. The only CNN personality I like is Anderson Cooper. It's not that Paula is bad, she's just boring, but not nearly as yawn inducing as Aaron Brown.

I do tend to watch CNN in the morning.

I like a lot of MSNBC's shows-more than the other news networks. I think I am the only person watching, though. Hardball is pretty good and my favorite of the talking heads shows.

Greta's show is flat out creepy. When I click on Fox and see even a few minutes of her, I can't believe that anyone is watching the show.

The ONLY person on the cable networks I can't even stand a second of (nope, not every single person on Fox...they are all tied for 2nd) is Nancy Grace. Hate the woman.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0