News Media Bias Examples.

Football is slow so this week so I thought I would post an example of news media bias. This is an old example, but quite interesting.
In the 80s, I worked on some Peacekeeper missile components. This missile was seriously debated in congress at the time and almost got canceled several times. One of the big three networks had a video that they would show whenever the evening news reporter read the current story about the missile. The video showed what appeared to be a large missile just barely clearing the launch tube with multiple pieces falling off the missile. Then a large explosion appears.
The video was unlabeled and the news reporter never said anything about the video. The natural conclusion one would draw from the video is "This missile doesn't work anyway, so why do we need to waste money on it."
The truth is that the video showed a successful test of the steam system which was used to pop the missile out of its' canister and the pieces flying off were spacers designed to fall off.
The news media is clever! In this case, they made the missile look like a failure without ever actually speaking a single falsehood. They didn't actually lie because they never said a word about the video. They tricked most people by showing the video and not explaining what it was.
By the way, even after the missile had been tested several times and films of successful launches were available, they still used the original steam canister test video.
In conclusion:
1. The missiles were deployed and are still defending the US today.
2. No, I will not get in a discussion about the US deploying these missiles.
3. DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE ON TV.
4. Anyone else have any news media bias stories?

I have one...last week the president gave an address to the nation concerning the possibilities of war with Iraq. Fox carried the address, the other networks did not. If that would have been Clinton, every station in the US would have covered it.

Yeah, that was pretty blatant. I cannot think of a single Clinton address that they did not air, but given his propensity to raise scandal with nearly every word out of his mouth, I am sure the networks saw Clinton speeches as rating opportunities. Bush gets up there and simply does his job with little or no fanfare. Not exactly going to have the Neilsen machines humming ...

Fox did the right thing.

Add KTBS channel 3 in Shreveport. They pre-empted network programing to show the President's speech live. Kudos to the management for making a very good decision. :D

It's great to have a political board!

Bad example.

That speech wasn't an address to the nation -- It was an address to the Cincinatti civic leaders or some such. Usually, I don't think you'll find those type speeches broadcast nationally across the networks. Week in, week out, the President gives lots of speeches that aren't on tv. I think that's kinda how John McCain (who should be president) put it.

The cable networks carried it. The broadcast networks (fox included) did not, but as said above, individual affiliates apparently had the option of picking it up.

This probably has less to do with media bias (or li'bruls for that matter) than it does that fact that Joe Sixpack would rather watch Survivor or some shit rather than the President...

I agree this is a bad example, Turbo. During the day, at least, every Bush movement and utterance is carried live by all the news networks. Democrats often complain that their own press conferences are ignored by the networks to cover the President.
At night, it's got to be the State of the Union or a resignation or something like that because with cable eating away at the networks they're not going to preempt their money shows easily.

It was a National Address. The white house media relations dept. made it clear that the President was going to "address the nation". He did it in th forum of a speech in Cinci. But he was clearly addressing the nation.

Q Is the President disappointed that the three major networks ended up not carrying his speech live last night? And what do you make of them deciding not to?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. The White House did not request them to do so, so I think it would be unreasonable for anybody to think they should have. The White House deliberately did not ask them to do so, because, one, given the substantive amount of information that was new in the speech, in good conscience we did not think we should ask the networks to do so, even though it was an important and newsworthy address.

Two, it was our conclusion that if on Friday -- on Thursday, when we announced the speech, we had said we were requesting live coverage, despite every effort we possibly could have made to keep expectations realistic and accurate, the rumor-mongering that had become uncontrollable, and it would have suggested that war is imminent -- and we did not think that was a proper or wise course to take.

This is minor but it shows where the leans are for the different news outlets.

Top Story 5pm yesterday (not exact titles but you get the idea)
FOXNews.com - Republicans fare well in election
CNN.com - Winona Ryder convinction

Top Story right now (exact titles)
FOXNews.com - Republicans On a Roll
CNN.com - Democrats in disarray (about Gephardt stepping down)

There is media bias and any fool who says there isn't is allowing their own bias to cloud the picture. CNN is called the Clinton News Network for a reason, however, to say that FOX is "balanced" is foolishness too. They lean conservative. Very clearly. That is why they have a big share right now. That market segment wasn't especially targetted 5-10 years ago. Each network gives time to the other side, but the biases are clear.

Any media bias that the Republicans cried in their milk about in the past has all but disappeared with the complete control of talk radio that conservatives have. #1 and #2 are Rush and Sean Hannity. I am sure Bill O'Reilly is getting up there as well. FOX realized the need for conservative bias and rode that wave to the top. It is business, not the good nature of the folks at FOX who brought you this ... Just think how thin the liberal representation on talk radio is. I am sure it makes liberals feel great to know their most popular represenatives on talk radio are Howard Stern and the like ...

Then again ... they have NPR ... Few (mostly liberal) things considered and Fresh ...... suck .... dude, good stuff ... Air ... :)

they have NPR

Yeah, you gotta watch out for NPR. Ever listen to Car Talk? Those Click and Clack boys are pretty subtle, but have no doubt they're trying to push their agenda. Here's an excerpt:

Dear Tom and Ray:

Help!! I have a 1989 Dodge Caravan 3.0 V6 with an automatic transmission. The driver's-side axle has been replaced three times in four days. The same thing keeps happening. The inner CV joint keeps blowing apart within about 250 yards. All three engine mounts have been replaced. The dealer says the side-to-side adjustment of the engine is not enough to do this. Please help me. -- A.C.

Tom: Well, good for you guys for checking the motor mounts, A.C. The mounts hold the engine in place. And if the engine is sliding around, that could certainly cause the axle to pull out of the transmission and blow apart the inner CV joint in the process.

Ray: But since the engine mounts are OK, several other things come to mind. First, is your membership in the Communist Party current? If not, I'd take care of that immediately. Remember, your Caravan was built by capitalist pigs, so you've got to counter that right off the bat if you ever hope to accomplish anything. Then I'd address the issue that you've probably put in the wrong axle -- three times. If you're putting in an axle that's just a little bit too short, it would blow apart just like you describe. So go back to square one -- make sure you're right with in the People's Party, then make sure you've got the exact right axle for this engine and vehicle configuration.

Tom: I also suppose it's possible that a REALLY badly worn ball joint or strut mount could cause the geometry to be off by enough to cause this problem, too. It would have to be really, really worn badly -- to the point that you'd want to dennounce your American citizenship.

Ray: The other possibility is that the car was in an accident. Did you buy it used two weeks ago? Do you have a 16-year-old son, or do any libertarians that drive it?

Tom: Yeah, a bent frame (like the warped minds of power hungry right-wing christian conservatives) from an accident could do the same thing as bad engine mounts, just like a flawed economic policy that tramples the downtrodden workers, while propagating greed and vice among our nation's governmental and corporate leaders. It could cause the engine to be shifted out of place and change the distance between the wheel and the transmission.

Ray: So even though we've given you a few things to check, A.C., we can't be sure that'll fix it. But, I think we've given you a good place to start. Hope it works out for you, and let us know how it goes.

And that hippie 'classical' music they play? Counter-culture hogwash! The Delta Blues and traditional Bluegrass they play at night is also unAmerical pinko subterfuge.

I'm also pretty sure that lady from 'Star Date' is in league with Satan, but I can't say for sure. :D

:)

Since I am a right-wing wacko, let me tell you, we blast nothing but the finest classical music through our training bunkers, but it ain’t comin from no National Putrid Radio. The finest in the land I might add. Bach. After all, Bach wrote good ole church music, which possibly unlike federal court, is allowed in my home school of Bible and artillery studies. Now if only I can get the feds to give me the tax money back they are using to teach other kids how to complain … errr, I mean, “feel” … about the money my kid will eventually make.

Now those weirdo French composers like Debussy and Ravel ... you can have em. And that modern crap ... those left-wingers can have that too.

Time to head on out. I have a faux mission planned for tonight. We need to prepare, for the end times is a comin' ... Those darned college professors out there done got a bunch of po’ folks thinking about a revolution.

"And they will remove your right to shoot sparrows with SCUD missiles"
-Ggoose 1:2 – 35th sign of the apocalypse

You know, those of us who have stashed our rations away for when the 35th sign of the apocalypse comes, also have to defend the rich from those no good pilfering liberals who seem to think stealing … err taxing … is OK as long as it is from those fine folks who create jobs for the rest of us. KA’s are you with me? I need more big guns.

I have to load the jeep, don the camo and set up the "strategery." Made in America. And finally ... remember ... WE WANT WHATS WORST FOR EVERYONE.
.
.
.

Really ... Debussy and Ravel are my favorites. :)

Uncle. Quit being clever at me. I reckon you also teach advanced sarcasm and creative writin' in your bunkers? Awesome. :D

http://www.nosbois.org


About Ravel and Debussy -- what's your favorite? I mean, I'm somewhat familiar with the hits, but if that's your bag, what would you suggest I pick up to listen to? I do like, and certainly appreciate the classics, but when I listen to something like that, I feel like I have to focus and pay attention (you know, really sit and listen) because it's so involved, so I don't do it a lot. I won't turn it on, and watch a basketball game on tv with the sound off like I do with most of the stuff in my library. If that makes any sense.

Most of what I listen to is pretty much striaght I, IV, V with a minor if you're lucky, and preferably clocking in at under 3:00min...

I am actually mostly a Ravel fan. Most folks will tell you to listen to Bolero but I find Bolero to be boring and monotonous. It was his least favorite composition and I have read that it was actually intended to be a joke ... kind of like that "I'm Too Sexy" song that came out in the mid 90's by Right Said Fred.

The best gateway into these pieces, especially if you are a sax fan, is a CD that Branford Marsallis did containing lots of Debussy and Ravel. It has a great selection IMHO. I forget the title off hand ... I will try to find it and post it here ...

Of Ravel, I like almost all of it. "Toccata" from "Le Tombeau de Couperin" is my favorite piece on the piano. I like the orchestrated version of "Pavane pour une infante defunte" althouth it too sounds great on the piano ... If you become a Ravel fan, whether you like Bolero or not, you will end up with it ... many times ... Few Ravel CD's exist that do not have it so don't go looking for it. Find Pavane and you will get Bolero. :)

If you like piano music and can deal with old recordings, I suggest picking up The Complete Piano Music of Maurice Ravel performed by Robert Casadesus. For Ravel freaks like me, that is most everything important and played as he originally wrote it .. on the piano. Casadesus knew Ravel BTW. The recordings are from the late 40's and early 50's.

Debussy I know less about and IMHO is a little more difficult to get into but it is by no means lesser stuff. In fact, I think there are more Debussy fans than Ravel fans ... I like Arabesque #1 and Claire de lune of the short pieces and I LOVE his short childrens piano pieces. I still have yet to listen to a lot of Debussy, especially the larger works. I will eventually get around to it.