What say you? Media Bias.

1. 86

   tsmogposted 2 years ago

   Is it advisable to use a guide for Media Bias such as AllSides? Of course it is like a double edged sword as one can use it to denounce a source or to support one's position. Yet, facts are facts contained within an article, eh?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting question:  It’s a little easier in Britain to get to the facts because in the UK, TV & Radio are heavily ‘Regulated’ to ensure ‘Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy’ by law – the watchdog being Ofcom (Office of Telecommunications) which was set up by the Labour (Socialist) Government in 2003 as the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the UK.
      
      In practice it means that the News you see on television in the UK, regardless to which ‘news’ channel it is, has to be non-bias, and factual.
      
      In contrast, the British newspapers retain their ‘Freedom of the Press’, so like in America, we do get Media Bias in the ‘Press’; which in conjunction with all the rubbish on-line, far too many people are still gullible to believing what they read in their favourite newspaper, even though we get quality news on the TV that would, and does, dispel all the crap printed by ‘some’ British newspaper in conjunction with all the crap on the Web.
      
      What does Ofcom do?  https://youtu.be/cdVUr-NrXng

      replyreport
      1. 86

         tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting regard the regulation of TV news. We do have some regulation. A little of that in the following link. However, cable news is a very gray area.
         
         Government Regulation of the Media
         https://www.sparknotes.com/us-governmen … /section3/
         
         The chart shared above is for print, not TV, although the likes of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC have multiple platforms being print and cable. Thus, they follow suit to the bias chart for cable.
         
         One thing that is interesting to me is the emphasis tossed about how one of those three cable news agencies political shows are suppose to influence all of America or of least the political bent that follows them. I say that because all together for the prime time political shows of all them is an audience of maybe at most 6 - 7 million.
         
         Eighty percent of the American adult population watches prime time TV, which means about 258 million. So, those watching those political shows amount to only 3%. I don't see that as big influence unless you consider it followed by word-of-mouth spreading the news. However, one must consider social media is an extension of word-of-mouth as followers of whomever will be influenced by their post as being reliable or not.
         
         Just for giggles following is a link to what is watched in Prime Time. Note: Does not include cable networks or streaming audiences.
         https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv … 235161738/
         
         Yet, how much of the voting populace does that 3% equate to. Over 159 million people voted in the last general election. So, that combined 7 million equates to 4% of voting populace.
         
         However, studies show that 80% get their news meaning any news is digital as a source. One may assume social media, yet that is untrue. There are many digital sources for news such as YouTube, websites, newsletters, and etc. Remember we are discussing any news, so that includes sports, which one may ponder the choice of reading a political news spot or a sports one.
         
         For giggles take a peek at:
         
         100 Best NFL Blogs and Websites. (NFL = National Football League)
         https://blog.feedspot.com/nfl_blogs/
         
         One of many articles is the following discussing . . .
         
         Trust in Media 2022: Where Americans get their news and who they trust for information
         https://today.yougov.com/topics/politic … -news-poll
         
         A footnote for you is the BBC is rated second for trust.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Fascinating; I found your last link the most revealing:-
            
            •    53% of Republicans find Fox News trustworthy, as opposed to only
            •    19% of Democrats find Fox News trustworthy.
            
            While in contrast:-
            
            •    66% of Democrats finds CNN trustworthy, compared with just
            •    11% of Republicans find CNN trustworthy.
            
            The above comparisons speaks volumes
            
            Interesting, although not surprising:-
            
            •    39% of Democrats finds The Guardian trustworthy, while only
            •    12% of Republicans finds The Guardian trustworthy.
            
            The Guardian is a British Newspaper that was founded in 1821, and in 1936 a ‘Trust’ was created to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference”.  Thus the Guardian prides itself in ‘factual reporting’.  Its target audience is the ‘Middle Class’ (well educated) Labour Supporter.
            
            The Guardian isn’t the only British Newspaper that takes pride in ‘fact checking’ what they publish; other such newspapers include The Independent (Social Democrat/Democrats target audience) and The Times (Conservative).  In fact Boris Johnson (current UK Prime Minister) was sacked from ‘The Times’ as a journalist in 1988 for publishing ‘fake news’ (tarnishing the reputation of the newspaper).
            
            The actual audience of influential channels like CNN and Fox maybe (as you say) only a small fraction of the American population; but their influence does spread far and wide because what they broadcast does get repeated (passed on), quoted on, and reported on etc., across a wide range of News Media and Social Media. 
            
            A prime example of that being when Fox News broadcasts ‘fake news’ about Britain (which it does all too often) it gets picked up by the British News Media, and tarnishes the relationship between Britain and America e.g. Fox News’ many false claims over the years that that “Parts of London, and Birmingham and Paris etc. are all ‘No-Go’ zones (to none Muslims) where even the Police won’t go”; a complete fabrication, but ‘fake news’ that was often perpetuated by Trump in his ‘tweets’, reaching a ‘wide audience’.
            
            Birmingham reacts to US TV (Fox News) 'no-go' slur: https://youtu.be/am2XFnENUFk

            replyreport
            1. 86

               tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks for the info. I think of myself as an open minded curious sort. So, I go off on tangents looking for oddities at times. I tend to think of average Joe/Jill more than not. In other words as compared to the shall we say political junkies in this forum I pondered how much average Joe/Jill pay attention to politics thus follow it in print or some TV format.
               
               If you get down to the nitty gritty most read the headline and that is it. That is why Twitter's format of 280 characters is so influential especially capitalizing on emotions.
               
               Gallup a very respected polling organization says in a Nov '21 article the following:
               
               "Each September, Gallup updates its annual measure of Americans’ attentiveness to national political news. The latest survey found 38 percent of U.S. adults polled said they follow news about national politics “very closely,” and 40 percent follow it “somewhat closely.” Another 16 percent indicated they follow the political news “not too closely” and 6 percent “not at all.”
               
               https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5817 … al-gallup/
               
               Yet, a later study by Knight Foundation and Gallup Feb '22 shows it is the lowest in four years. This is an interesting article to at least skim as there are graphs beginning with Apr '18. It would be interesting to know what is today since the recent abortion stuff and the raid on Trump's residence. It has graphs for:
               
               ** Americans' Attention to Local, National and International News
               ** Americans' Attention to National News, by Political Affiliation
               ** U.S. Democrats' Attention to National News, by Age Group
               ** Americans' Attention to National News, by Political Affiliation and Age
               
               A really deep source was published at the National Library of Medicine. It's aim was investigating TV contrast online regard partisan news.. I read the abstract and discussion at the end skimming the rest. The last statement of the abstract is; "Our results suggest that television is the top driver of partisan audience segregation among Americans."
               
               Yet, as shared earlier one should question how large is that audience while considering it followed by word-of-mouth. In other words I trust my brother, co-worker, drinking buddy, and etc. who said such and such said. Such and such of course will have a reputation (Outspoken) and name recognition arrives giving authority.
               
               I'll post the study just to offer it, although that last line of the abstract says it all.
               
               Quantifying partisan news diets in Web and TV audiences
               https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278856/

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Oops! I see I didn't post the link to the Knight Foundation / Gallup poll. For those interested it is:
                  
                  Americans’ Attention to National News Lowest in Four Years
                  https://knightfoundation.org/articles/a … our-years/

                  replyreport
               2. 92

                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, absolutely, as you say; too many people just read the headlines (which can and often are misleading), and sadly too many people are ‘turned-off’ by politics, even though politics affects their everyday life.  So when it comes to elections too many people, who haven’t bothered taking an interest in politics, and have only gleamed the ‘headlines’ are ill equipped to make an ‘informed’ decision at the voting booth and invariably end up voting for a political party that doesn’t best represent their interests.
                     
                  And thus, how misinformation from the like of Fox New for example can spread wide and far and have a negative effect, even though the actual viewing figures for Fox News may be just a small percentage of the American population e.g. Comments made on Fox News are incorporated into headlines in newspapers and on TV, not necessarily in support of Fox News, but because the comments are controversial e.g. Muslim areas in British cities that are 'no-go' zones to even the police; the full newspaper article may explain and rebuff the comments made on Fox News, but that’s not obvious from just the headlines; so people who just read the headlines can get a false impression of the facts because they didn’t bother reading the whole article.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     All great points especially about how news is presented as well as how it impacts people thus voters. Of least the last decade study after study shows in the area of 80% of people get any news via digital. And, as shared earlier political news competes with other news important to a person. That is why in an earlier post I used the NFL stuff being competition for a person's time today.
                     
                     News is different in the digital world. What I mean is I watched the construction workers when the switched out our electric/gas infrastructure over a year's time taking quick peeks on their phones all day long. A quick five minutes or less short enough to not get caught. Even when I worked back before 2012 I would quickly check my personal emails several times a day and one site for the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA).
                     
                     I may do an expedition one day to study how the top ten social media platforms presentations are done. I know Twitter is 280 characters and Facebook mainly uses memes. Those both capitalize on how memory and memory recall work being we learn in chunks. Memes is visual learning too and easier to recall for a large segment of the population. A person will see the meme in that quick five minute or less peek, remember the message, and never read the article linked to it. Just as impactful as reading a headline and with as meaning, yet what is the message actually being presented. And, you and I both know they use emotion to drive it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 92

                        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Yep, emotion is a dangerous weapon e.g. scaremongering seems a common tactic in politics.
                        
                        Yep, I think you’ve summed it up nicely; people can handle bite-size (small chunks) of info, such as twitter, memes, and headlines, far better than trying to read the full text to put things into perspective (context). 
                        
                        One thing I like about the British TV News Channels is that they always give the headlines on the hour; which means you don’t have to sit through the whole news programme to find out what’s happening in the world.  And if there is anything of interest in the headlines you know it will be reported on in depth during the next hour, and you can gauge when that might be in that the first news item given in the headlines will be the first news story to be covered in detail, and the last item in the on the hour headlines will appear towards the end of the hour.
                        
                        The British TV News Channels, at the end of the day, also do a ‘Press Review’, where the headlines of all the British Newspapers are given, and a couple of professional journalists then go through some of the main stories (in tomorrow’s press) in detail.  It can get a little feisty at times when for example Sky News invite the editor of the Guardian and the editor of the Daily Mail (two opposing politics) to discuss main stories in ‘tomorrow’s newspapers’ – as those two editors never see ‘eye to eye’.

                        replyreport
            2. 100

               DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I think the problem is, and the reason that so many people on both sides do not trust those sources, is that when someone is biased they do not do a good job of fact checking, even when they claim that this is their function. I read an article in a Spanish newspaper the other day and it discussed "former Brazilian general Bolsonaro, who is now president of Brazil". He was a capitan.
               
               So much for jouranistic integrity. It happens on both sides. It may bother you that Fox publihes misinformation about the UK but is also happens with the Guardian too, whether or not you are willing to accept it.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I largely agree with what you say, but the stark difference between Fox News and The Guardian is that Fox News deliberately and repeatedly broadcasts 'fake news' about the UK; even when they know it's fake - whereas if the Guardian, like most respectable newspapers (left or right) take great care to 'fact check', and if they do make an error are quick to issue a correction.

                  replyreport
      2. 69

         Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         How does "heavily regulated" ensure it's factual?
         
         Couldn't that just as easily mean, stick to the narrative, promote these ideas, don't publish these ideas, etc.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No, not at all; Ofcom have 10 Codes of Practice for Broadcasters to follow; it’s Ofcom that sets the codes, and Ofcom is ‘Independent’ of the Government (for obvious reasons).
            
            The 10 codes set by Ofcom are:-
            
            1.    Protecting the under-eighteens.
            2.    Harm and Offence.
            3.    Crime, Disorder, Hatred and Abuse.
            4.    Religion.
            5.    Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy.
            6.    Elections and Referendums.
            7.    Fairness.
            8.    Privacy.
            9.    Commercial references on TV
            10.    Commercial references on Radio
            
            The section I’ve referred to above is Section 5 of the Code (Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy); you’re insinuation is that Ofcom interpretation of ‘factual’ could be to follow the ‘Government’ narrative!  However, the safe-guards built into the system which prevents that includes:-
            
            •    Ofcom is ‘independent’ of the Government.
            
            •    Part of the code also includes ‘impartiality’.
            
            •    Anyone, including members of the public and political opposition parties can and do submit complaints to Ofcom when there’s a breach of the code; and the fact that political opposition parties have faith and trust in Ofcom’s judgement is testimony that Ofcom is doing its job of ensuring due impartiality and due accuracy in media broadcasting on TV and Radio.
            
            So in answer to your question, if something of importance is broadcast on the TV News is NOT factual then you can be sure the aggrieved parties will complain to Ofcom, who will in turn investigate and make a judgement.
            
            Below is a link to where Ofcom fined the BBC £400,000 ($473,806) for breaches of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, relating to unfair conduct of viewer and listener competitions. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/la … mpetitions

            replyreport
2. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   The US once had a Fairness Doctrine that said if you are using the airways the government provides you will give equal time to both sides of an issue. Reagan put a stop to it and now we are flooded with what brand of journalism do you prefer. I have an article on the doctrine as do many others or you can always Google it.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Neither Fox nor CNN are journalistic news sources, they are entertainment corporations which is why they get away with such over the top bias and ability to take such liberty with the facts.
      
      Anyone who believes either are reliable factual news sources are going to carry those biases and falsehoods into their beliefs.
      
      It's sad, many older people don't understand this and buy into it, thinking these "news" reports are vetted and truthful.  They are not, often it is political in nature leaked by a source to do maximum harm to an opponents reputation.
      
      Younger people may not be as hard working or respectful as older generations, but they seem much wiser when it comes to sniffing out the BS from the likes of Fox and especially CNN.

      replyreport
3. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   The Fairness Doctrine did not ensure factual. But it insured equal time to both or all sides of an issue - on any or all networks.

   replyreport