Media Bias Wars

[DVaut1]

After reading the thread on Fox News (along with numerous others which have been in a similar vein), I have a hypothetical scenario to present, and then two questions:

Imagine that, tomorrow, the results of the most comprehensive study ever done concerning media bias was released. Imagine the study was done collaboratively among social scientists, media analysts, statisticians, etc. at the best universities and think tanks in the country. Before the results were released to the public, they were given to a bi-partisan panel of 50 party leaders (25 from each party), along with various other political activists and non-partisan media watchdog groups; everyone who read the results agreed they were extremely accurate. The study was done so accurately that there is absolutely NO criticism of the study. Everyone accepts these results as the best empirical evidence ever created concerning contemporary media culture and bias.

The study is iron clad and the results are akin to the word of God and cannot be disputed.

The results are then released to the public, and here they are:

- CNN is proved to be unquestionably liberal
- Fox News is proved to be unquestionably conservative
- The NYT is proved to be unquestionably liberal
- The WSJ is proved to be unquestionably conservative
etc., etc., etc.,...

My fictional results of the study aren't particularly important; but imagine the study contained results comparable to my imagined ones.

In other words, imagine that among the thousands (millions?) of media/information/news sources available in all mediums (television, internet, radio, daily newspapers, weekly/monthly magazines, etc.), each was placed on the political spectrum, and there was conclusive proof concerning whatever bias they may or may not have.

Keep this hypothetical study in mind, as here are my two questions:

1) In the hypothetical world where such a media study exists, what is our recourse? In other words, what is the solution to a media full of biases? Should we demand that the state censor media? Certainly, that would violate the 1st Amendment, along with our common conceptions of the role of the state in affairs among private entities and their audiences/markets. That’s not a viable option.

So, in our hypothetical world where media biases are proved conclusively, what should be done about it?

Next question...

2) Consider our current world. No such studies exist (at least, none that everyone agrees upon). But some of us are fairly certain media biases exist. Some of us are so convinced that we expend a lot of time and energy attempting to prove to our peers that our convictions are true. Why do we engage in such behavior? How do we recommend our peers should behave in regards to our current (non-hypothetical) media culture - one full of apparent biases - biases which we cannot satisfactorily prove to our ideological opponents.

Remember to keep in mind that the media market is self-selecting; that is, each consumer decides for themselves which media to consume. Also keep in mind that media biases are almost ubiquitously known; everyone watching Fox News realizes it has a reputation for having a conservative bent; conversely, everyone reading the New York Times knows that it has a reputation for having a liberal bent (also bear in mind those who are unaware of such reputations; their levels of political knowledge, the value in engaging such people in political discourse, and how these consumers might effect our recommendations).

I’m trying to flush something out here, so if you choose to answer, make sure you answer both questions.

[PhatTBoll]

1. When you rule out government coercion (which we should), then what else is left? The only response to bias in the media is to get your information and opinions from another source. I guess you can organize a boycott of a certian source, but people who think like you do are likely to be avoiding it anyway. Why do we need "recourse" anyway? Why not just accept that there will always be bias in the news outlets and choose the outlet that best represents the world as we see it?

2. America's founders knew that freedom would flourish best in an atmosphere where every opinion would be voiced, and ordinary people would be able to choose an appropriate course of action from the "marketplace of ideas." Therefore, the best possible scenario is one where everybody gets their news from different sources and viewpoints. With the advent of blogs, doing so has become more practicable than ever. If you're going to read editorials or blogs by people with reputations of bias, read opinions from both sides. Challenge yourself to question your own point of view, and try to make a convincing argument for the other side.

I'm rambling a bit, but I think it all comes down to intellectual laziness. There is so much information that the average person can't help but get a well-rounded view of the world from the resources available. However, many intelligent folks would rather have the "truth" spoonfed to them by one outlet. And that gets us back to square one I suppose...

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The only response to bias in the media is to get your information and opinions from another source.

[/ QUOTE ]

How ridiculous. You don't believe the only source of news is from an objective source, do you? If you do, then you have never actually received news, only sugar-coated spin that you accepted as news.

ALL media outlets are biased and have been forever. The idea that this has not been so is a testament to the propaganda efforts of the biased media.

The myth of the unbiased press has always been a myth. Before WWI, there was never any question that the media was objective in the main. The answer to the question is to let the biased media thrive. Each side will point out the biases of the other.

I have no problem with a liberal media person pushing his agenda, as long as he says "I'm a liberal and this is what I think is right." I respect Al Franken more than I do Peter Jennings, simply because Al admits he is a liberal pushing an agenda, while Peter pretends to be objective while he pushes his agenda.

We don't need the study mentioned in the OP. It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The people know that the media is biased. They know CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN bats for the left and Fox bats for the right. This knowledge is power.

Only the phonies in the media who still pretend they are objective don't get it yet.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
1. When you rule out government coercion (which we should), then what else is left? The only response to bias in the media is to get your information and opinions from another source.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2. America's founders knew that freedom would flourish best in an atmosphere where every opinion would be voiced, and ordinary people would be able to choose an appropriate course of action from the "marketplace of ideas." Therefore, the best possible scenario is one where everybody gets their news from different sources and viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, we can agree that the best possible solution (in fact, the only viable solution) is caveat emptor, or buyer beware?

I think you're onto what I'm getting at here; even if we could satisfactorily prove bias, the recourse would be the same - consumers should seek out whichever news source which comforts them most. And, as you said, with the prevalence of the internet, that task has become relatively easy.

Since you've touched upon what I thought was relevant, I can move onto my larger point: if we agree that, no matter how conclusively we can prove media bias, the only recourse is to recommend that consumers look upon their information sources with scruitny, why do we (that is, those of us interested in discussing politics) expend so much time and energy trying to prove systemic media bias? Even if we could prove which sources have blatant biases, the conclusion would be the same; that conclusion being something along the lines of, "consumers should seek out news sources which they feel most comfortable with."

The conclusion that we would hope to reach has already been reached, sans being armed with empirical evidence. So, why spend so much time trying to prove biases?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The people know that the media is biased. They know CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN bats for the left and Fox bats for the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would dispute this - the fact that people know (most 'know' what they are told) - that is, but otherwise I agree with you 100%

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the question is to let the biased media thrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what ideally would (and had, as you had mentioned, previously happened up until the middle of the 20th century in the US and still happens in Europe) - with the growth of the internet, I think we're moving back in that direction; lots of unabashedly partisan media, with a marketplace that chooses whichever news it feels most comfortable with.

In which case, why fight endless media bias wars; no matter how loud we shout about which media sources are biased, the conclusion is the same: consumers should seek out their own media. There are thousands, if not millions of information sources available.

I couldn't agree more with this:

[ QUOTE ]
We don't need the study mentioned in the OP. It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The people know that the media is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

You rightly claim that we don't need such a study! This is at the heart of my post.

But everyday on this board, and in a multitude of other places, I see people going to battle, trying to cite enough evidence to prove media bias on behalf of Media Source X. Why do such a thing?

The only conceivable reason I can imagine that someone would want to expend so much energy trying to prove biases of media sources is to fulfill some duty to inform others; but as you say, BGC:

[ QUOTE ]
It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The people know that the media is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, I couldn’t agree more. In which case, I think we ought to recommend those trying to fight the media bias wars – trying to prove that Media Sources X, Y, and Z are biased – need to get off their elitist soapbox and realize that consumers are savvy, and have already judged for themselves which media sources they feel are biased. The reputations of almost all major media sources are almost ubiquitously known. And those completely unaware of those reputations don’t have the capacity/interest to understand/care about the biases that we spend so much time trying to prove anyway.

[PhatTBoll]

I think you took one sentence of my post and responded to it before reading anything else I said.

If you had read the rest of my post, you would have realized that I recommend reading several different news sources, as opposed to just one. I guess I could have said "The only response to bias in the media is to get your information from various sources." But it was like 2 a.m. and I was a little tipsy.

[DVaut1]

I think we misunderstand each other.

I think you came up with the right answers; or at least, the answers I was hoping to produce - that is, consumers ought to get their news from various sources, whichever ones they feel most comfortable with.

We're in agreement here, if I understand you correctly.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we're moving back in that direction; lots of unabashedly partisan media, with a marketplace that chooses whichever news it feels most comfortable with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made this very point myself in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
In which case, why fight endless media bias wars;

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, which is why I have hard time understanding why FoxNews is as I put it is such a bone in the liberals throat.

[ QUOTE ]
no matter how loud we shout about which media sources are biased, the conclusion is the same: consumers should seek out their own media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I asked the jackass who stated that watching FoxNews led to misconceptions and that's why it's a bone in his throat, if he could name the competitor to FoxNews which led to the least amount of misconceptions. Simple question that requires a simple answer. Which study can quantitatively show that one news source leads to the least amount of misconceptions? And even as ridiculous as such a study would be, it will still lead to misconceptions. It seems like you support the notion that following one news source exclusively will inevetibly lead to misconceptions. I support that notion.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we misunderstand each other.

I think you came up with the right answers; or at least, the answers I was hoping to produce - that is, consumers ought to get their news from various sources, whichever ones they feel most comfortable with.

We're in agreement here, if I understand you correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to BGC. I think we are on the same page.