American TV News

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Look at the ratings for the answers. Ratings = money and to find the truth you must follow the money.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...eb06ranker.pdf
Check that out for a weekly ratings breakdown on cable TV news shows.
www.drudgereport.com also commonly shows the breakdown of cable news ratings.

[Bortaz]

American television news is an abomination, except maybe for PBS, but they're still not that good.

I heard this on CNN a few months ago: "Zionism was a sympathetic movement for the **** after World War 2."

This was an 'expert' commentator. I stared at the TV for several seconds with my mouth open waiting for her to start laughing and say, "No, seriously, the modern movement's been around since Der Judenstaat."

But they didn't. And this is the supposedly GOOD news channel.

I'll stick to NPR and the New York Times, thanks.

PBS and NPR are the worst offenders of the group, when it comes to liberal bias. The NYT are a close second.

You, like everyone else, have your favorite. It's your favorite because it corresponds to your views.

[Dondrei]

I'm far more worried about lazy, slipshod, superficial journalism than I am about political bias or even commercial bias, to be perfectly honest.

[Sokar Rostau]

I'm far more worried about lazy, slipshod, superficial journalism than I am about political bias or even commercial bias, to be perfectly honest.

All three issues are hopelessly intertwined. Take, for example, the reporting of crime over the last 15 years. Crime is exciting and if an element of sex can be brought to the story it is a guaranteed winner making it a commercial decision ("If it bleeds it leads"). Half of Hollywood is based on this concept. The reporting of crime, however, qualifies as lazy, slipshod and superficial because it is over-reported on and out of context. In pursuit of ratings, which translate into advertisers dollars, certain crimes are almost always reported and given an inordinate amount of air-time, this in turn leads to a public perception of crime waves, that simply do not exist, which has a knock-on effect of politicians being elected on a "Tough on Crime" platform. During the 90's the US crime rate dropped, yet reporting of violent crime rose as did the number of prisons being built.

I am interested in what people think makes the majority of TV News 'Liberally biased' when the way crime is reported, on all stations, constitutes a 'Conservative' bias. Further, All the channels have been relatively soft on Reagan, Bush and Junior yet focussed an enormous amount of attention on Clinton and a stained blue dress (did anyone else find it creepy that Monica never washed that dress...?). If the Liberal bias, as the term is usually applied, existed wouldn't Reagan and the Bush's have been given a hard time by the media and Clinton left in relative peace?

[Stevebo]

bleh...

They all have baises... Just as we all have baises...

And of course the bias against us easily out weights the bias towards us...

[jmervyn]

I had no intention of doing so, I just want to see what the general public's opinion is.

Considering the OTF as 'general public' is also horribly invalid. The OTF has (had?) a sharp leftist slant last time it was actually surveyed, it has numerous nations' citizens skewing any demographic data, and overrepresents the sort of people who devote extensive time to an online computer game.

American TV news is pronouncedly liberal, if viewed from within, Fox being a mild and not terribly dishonest exception (nobody here screams much about the CNN "Nerve gas in 'Nam!!!" stories). Externally viewed from Europe (and perhaps some South American areas), it is so far right as to be laughable. For the mideast, the liberal nature of even Fox must be nothing short of horrific. I can only imagine what it would be considered from other areas.

[DrunkCajun]

Horror of horrors, I agree with merv.

On both the slant around here and the fact that Fox is no more biased than CNN, just biased in the opposite direction.

[jmervyn]

Horror of horrors, I agree with merv.

Join us, DC... it's bliss.

On both the slant around here and the fact that Fox is no more biased than CNN, just biased in the opposite direction.

Oddly, CNN had attempted for a couple of years to walk the tightrope. It seems like it was the reaction to FOX that caused them to spin radically to the left, though there's other things involved. The difference is that very few point out the garbage spun by anyone else but FOX.

Didja notice that Rudi Bakhtiar is at FOX too?

[Sir EvilFreeSmeg]

Didja notice that Rudi Bakhtiar is at FOX too?

Just one more reason why it's the FOX network

[Dondrei]

All three issues are hopelessly intertwined.

I don't really think so. I wasn't really talking about whether journalism is representative or not, that's a separate issue. Frankly I'm not convinced that it should be. What worries me is lousy journalism. Often when I watch a news story I notice extremely important details are muddled, omitted or covered sketchily. Analysis of any news story is superficial in the extreme. And journalism seems to feed off itself, generating its own headlines out of issues which are often far less important than some that don't even make page four. This last issue isn't only because of commercial interests, but more broadly a laziness and disinterest on the part of journalists themselves.

Commercialism in the news is a separate concern, and while it bothers me the above bothers me much more.

The OTF has (had?) a sharp leftist slant

Ha! You're comparing it to a false 50/50 standard, I put it to you that the conservative viewpoint is in fact overrepresented now that llad has left. And of course by Australian standards (pretty much any other country's, in fact) America is very conservative - here conservatism as you know it is very much a minority view. So to me (and, I suspect, a number of other non-American posters) this forum if anything has a strong conservative slant.