Book Suggestion: Bias

[farnham54]

G'day, Gents.

i am currently about halfway through a book called "Bias". I highly reccomend it to all of you--it's basically about the liberal bias in the media. Very interesting read, and a rock-solid argument.

Regards,

Craig

 

[STHill]

I haven't rocked the political boat lately, so hear I go: I don't believe there is a significant liberal bias in the media. WHAT?? No, I'm serious. Now, understand, I'm talking news reporting, not op/ed columns--those are supposed to be biased.

There is no question, that most journalists are liberal. However, most journalists (I'm talking mainstream journalism, here) take their professionalism very seriously, and go to great lengths to write as objectively as possible. Because they're human,some of their political bias (whatever it may be) seeps through. This results in a slight overall liberal bias, perhaps.

People that feel strongly about certain issues naturally feel that reporting that doesn't agree with their view, is "biased." "He can't be reporting that accurately! That's not the way I see it!"

Of course that's not the way you (I'm talking the generic "you") see it. You see it filtered through your "strongly-felt" view. It's only human. But because you're reading a relatively objective report on something you feel very strongly about, the objective report seems biased. Again, human nature.

Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it (though donning my flameproof suit even as we speak).


DISCLOSURE/DISCLAIMER:

I am not a journalist. I am, however, married to one.

I consider myself a political moderate, though my liberal friends consider me conservative, and my conservative friends swear I'm a liberal.

I haven't read "Bias."'

I'm talking mostly about the print media.

Oh, and I could be wrong.

 

[Marlowe]

In other countries besides the U.S.A., newspapers are not expected to be so impartial. There are many newspapers available; you pick the one or ones that agree the best with your point of view and buy it. You berate your friends and acquaintances who subscribe to some other paper or papers. Sometimes you buy some paper that DOESN'T agree with your point of view just so you know what the opposition is thinking.

What concerns me is inaccuracies in news reporting. I am talking especially about television news. Whenever they report on something that I know something about, I realize that they almost always failed to get all their facts straight.

Remember when that electronic surveillance plane had an inflight emergency and had to land on a Chinese island? The Chinese interned the crew and conficated the plane. The plane was designed to pick up electronic, magnetic and radio signatures from afar. It was flying in international airspace, performing its mission when it had its emergency and headed for the Chinese airport to perform an emergency landing. The talking heads of television labeled it a "spy plane." It wasn't a "spy plane!" It didn't fly over enemy soil, taking pictures or whatever. It flew in INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE, picking up radio signals, magnetic signatures and so on. The Chinese might not have liked it being off their coast, but they didn't have a leg to stand on, calling it a "spy plane," and neither did the oh-so-dignified anchors on the national evening news.

Remember ValuJet? You'll probably recall something about how a plane had some kind of fire in the cargo or baggage area due to oxygen tanks or something, and went down in the Florida swamps, right? Not exactly. That's just what you heard on TV. Here's what happened:

The plane was an MD-80. (Basically the same as a DC-9, but with a longer fuselage, for the purposes of our discussion.) It has a long, narrow "hold" under the passenger cabin to stow luggage or freight in. This particular flight had an aircraft tire in the forward part of one of the two "bag bins," as they are called. Behind the tire, someone put a box (or more) of oxygen generators. Oxygen generators are not oxygen tanks. They are the devices that produce the oxygen for the masks that drop out or the overhead panels above your seat if the plane you're in depressurizes at cruising altitude. They basially consist of a triggering device, a brick of potassium superoxide and a catalyst. When they are stored or transported, they are disarmed (the trigger mechanism is disabled). There is no free oxygen under pressure in them. When they are transported by air, it is required by Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation rules that they be tranported as "Dangerous Goods," which requires them to be packed in certain types of boxes, certain markings need to be on those boxes and that certain types of paperwork must be filled out--one of those documents is a release to be signed by the Captain of the aircraft, allowing the material to be put aboard his or her plane. None of this was done. They were just tossed in a box (or boxes) and the box was put on the plane.

When the plane took off, it tilted its nose up, causing the aircraft tire (a large, heavy object) to slide downhill, into the box of oxygen generators, crushing them. This caused some of the oxygen generators to go off, despite their not being armed, due to the catalyst being smashed into the potassium superoxide. the chemical reaction caused free oxygen to be released. It also caused heat to be released. Now we have heat and plenty of oxygen in this closed environment. So a fired started, which burned through the control cables and hydraulic control lines which run along between the the floor of the passenger cabin and the ceiling of the cargo bay/"bag bin," severing the pilots' control of their aircraft.

If the plane had been carrying oxygen bottles, it's likely that the accident would never have occurred. When pressurized gasses are released, their temperaure drops, due to their molecules spreading further apart. The heat generated by all those oxygen generators' chemical reactions was what contributed to the fire. And they generate a lot of heat. I recall the account of a passenger interviewed after the plane she was on suffered depressurization at altitude. She said that "the cabin got very hot." Considering that the temperature outside the airplane at 35,000 feet is down somewhere around -60F, you can understand something of the heat generated by these devices.

So, contrary to what you heard on TV, it wasn't a simple case of an oxygen tank breaking. The answer required a little brainpower and was, therefore, beyond what you can expect from the evening news.

I guess the old saying is true: "Don't believe everything you read in the papers." It's especially true of TV.

 

[Andykev]

Simplification vs. technical accuracy

There is a difference in censorship, bias, and inaccuracy when a news story is reported.

Censorship is deliberate, and intended to give one side of the story, bias is when you only report what is benificial to your political view. Inaccuracy on the other hand is sometimes unintentional. The ValueJet example, while technically true, means nothing to the average person who know very little about science or aviation.

PBS did a great piece "Why Airliners Crash" or some similar title. They examined 4 or 5 crashes, very technical. I loved it. The average person missed much of it. "Oxygen generators" and "Oxygen Cylinders" for the lay person is interchangeable. The point was that the canisters ignited and set a tire on fire, destroying the plane. A halon fire suppression system in the cargo hold would have helped, but the generators were providing their own source of oxygen, dooming the plane.

Heck, some people think a plane stalling is when the engine quits! Or if the engine fails, we drop like an anvil. NO!

Good point.

 

[The_Edge]

I read Bias right around the time it was released. Excellent book and highly recommended. I also recommend Slander by Ann Coulter.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

To say there?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s no bias in the media is fantasy. It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a lie. You can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t say there isn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t. Some writers are biased towards the right, while most are biased towards the left. There are some who can do their job and be objective. Here in the Boston area?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ there?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s an obvious bias in the larger of the two papers we have: The Boston Globe.

A case in point was an event that I was an actual witness to. On 96.9FM Talk Jay Severin was doing his a live show in Braintree Mass. One of the audience members was challenging him on a few issues he stands for?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ and said that his approach was wrong. The Audience member said that we American?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s should be making FRIENDS with those trying to kill us. Mr. Severin?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s cut him off and said: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìNo?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ we should be killing them all.?¢‚Ǩ?

A Muslim listener sent a letter to Consul on American Islamic Relations and misquotes Mr. Severin?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ reports that he says Mr. Severin said: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìLet?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s kill all the Muslims here in the United States.?¢‚Ǩ?

CAIR sends out a freaking press release saying this is an outrage and Mr. Severin (who has the highest ratings in all of New England for a radio show of it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s kind in the North-East States) should be fired for his racist remarks?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ if not they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll do what they can to shut the radio station down. (CAIR cares about free speech like I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m an advocate for Dorfman lids)

Boston Globe runs a story in the Sunday paper derived from the CAIR news release?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ with out verifying the facts and according to Mr. Severin The Boston Globe never contacted him for a statement, the same weekend he was contacted by news organizations from as far west as Hawaii and as far east as Holland. THE NEWSPAPER FROM HIS HOME CITY COULDN?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢T BE BOTHERED TO CONFIRM THEIR FACTS, while other news organizations were practicing real journalism. They also printed an outright LIE that Mr. Severin was suspended for making similar comments. Severin has taken vacations and time off for back surgery?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ but was NEVER suspended for his comments.

Monday?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ Severin tells the whole story from his side. A caller alerts the rest of our listeners to a web site (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/) that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s dedicated toward debunking some of the lies spread by CAIR?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ and Severin reads to the audience that some of the founders of Consul on American Islamic Relations have ties to terrorist organizations and have been working hard to shut down all Conservative Radio Stations in the United States...

The Boston Globe prints a retraction the next day, with an ?¢‚Ǩ?ìexplanation?¢‚Ǩ? of what happen?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ only to print an editorial by Scot Lehan which says in Black and White: Yea?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ we printed a retraction because technically we were wrong, but Severin and his listeners are racist. Technically what we printed was wrong, but what we printed is essentially true.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

Wow, this actually has to do with my job at ExFed. I'm a dangerous good specialist, and as a result of ValuJet and the O2 generators, we can barely ship them anymore. Now they have to be in specially built containers designed to hold up to an impact, and have a DOT exemption.

 

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by Andykev
...Inaccuracy on the other hand is sometimes unintentional. The ValueJet example, while technically true, means nothing to the average person who knows very little about science or aviation.

Just because it means nothing to the average person doesn't mean it means nothing at all. Wrong is wrong in the world of facts. And learning about these things would educate them..

My point is that inaccuracies are the rule, not the exception. ALMOST EVERY TIME American television news agencies report on anything I have personal knowledge of, experience with, or expertise in, they get it wrong. I realize that there are deadlines, especially with TV news, but they I believe they need to get their facts straight before misinforming the public.

 

[Andykev]

I am not disagreeing

Quote: "Just because it means nothing to the average person doesn't mean it means nothing at all. Wrong is wrong in the world of facts. And learning about these things would educate them.."


And you can take that argument to countless other agencies, companies, and the like.

You obviously are referring to the "Networks" who "dumb down" to the masses.

Just like the crap programming, the mindless sit coms, and the vulgarity.

No argument from me.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

What cheeses me off, Andy is how "Acceptible" it's all become.

 

[farnham54]

Glad too see the discussion going on here. Very interesting indeed to hear different people's take on the news media.

STHill, your comments interested me in particular. I agree, many people cry "Bias" when the bias is from the opposite poll, but claim "Fair and Balanced" when the bias is towards something they agree with.

Personally, I hate ANY kind of bias, be it liberal OR conservative--that is largely what this book is about. I highly suggest picking up a copy, because its far to intricate to explain here without rewriting the whole thing--not a word is wasted in this book.

It is a good book for Conservatives and Liberals (both are completley legititmate points of view, you must admit) to read as it opens our eyes to the dangers of bias--that is to say, when Bias is something that we do not even notice anymore.

It's cheap, about 20 bucks, and informative. Definatley a good buy.

Regards,

Craig

 

[STHill]

Originally posted by farnham54
It is a good book for Conservatives and Liberals (both are completley legititmate points of view, you must admit)

Hey, what about us moderates?!!! Can we read it too? Are we legitimate? (sudden flashback to "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"--the little girl saying, "But Daddy, you ain't bona fide!")

It's great fun being a moderate--I get to disagree with both conservatives and liberals:fedora:

Seriously, Craig, I appreciate the heads up on "Bias." I will make a point to pick it up.

 

[farnham54]

lol, no we moderates are not simply in the middle...we are indecisive J/k, of course.

Regards,

Craig

 

[Fedora]

I have a hard time seeing the bias that so many have screamed about. To me, the most biased news network is Fox. Their "fair and balanced" motto cracks me up, and makes me mad. I am no liberal. I am no Democrat. I never noticed the bias until Fox came along. They need to rename the network. The Grand Old Party Network would be more descriptive. I have no doubts, Fox News is biased, overtly, from top to bottom. News, should be just that, news. The facts. You, take the facts, and using your own brain, determine what is going on. To try and cloud the issue should be a criminal offense, punishable by long prison terms. I have nothing against editorials. It just seems the news has become one neverending editorial. Information is just as valuable as money.(more so) Try passing some bogus money, and see how long you remain free to do it again. Twist the facts to suit your own party's view, and you get patted on the back by your peers. Something is wrong with this picture. We really think lying is admirable. Don't we? Fedora

 

[The_Edge]

So much for the theory, "with age comes wisdom." Maybe the ban on stem cell research should be lifted.

 

[Fedora]

So, if someone disagrees with you, you insult them. I vote Republican, but also have a set of eyes that sees the world with a bit more objectivity than folks that live and die by party lines. There are as many Republicans that make me sick, as there are Democrats. And as many in either party that should be ridden out of town on a rail, after the tar and feathering. The same goes for the news networks. Fox News by and large is overt in their political beliefs. It was as if, the big guns at Fox said, well, all of the other networks are run and staffed by bleeding heart liberals, so by George, we will show them. We will just rub it in their faces. They will know where we stand, and unlike them, we won't hide behind journalism. My problem is, I mistrust folks that are blinded by being either left or right politically, and it becomes dangerous when those folks are depended upon for fair and balanced news. It passes from being News, to being propaganda. Come in Tokyo. Fedora

 

[The_Edge]

Politicians on both sides of the aisle tick me off as well. I tend to vote primarily Republican but I'm a conservative first and foremost. I'm fed up with cowardly Republicans not holding to their convictions...if they ever had any. That's not really the issue at hand here though.

The subject of discussion is bias in the news media. And anyone who sees blatant conservative bias at FNC but doesn't see obvious liberal bias at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, NYT, LAT, WashPost, Boston Globe et al is, with all due respect, either blind or ignorant. Flip on your local evening news and it is right there in front of your face every night. Since I don't believe you are ignorant I suggest you get those "objective" eyes of yours checked.

How's the war in Iraq going? If all anyone did was watch the big three networks you'd think we were getting our asses kicked, that the world hates us, that we are in there alone, that President Bush is a theocratic war monger, that Iraqis want us out, that our troops are mass murderers, piling naked prisoners into a pyramid to humiliate and break down their will is a war crime worse than incinerated Americans, that the war on terror is failing, the U.N. should dictate U.S. interests, Donald Rumsfeld is mean, John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act are destroying freedom, etc, etc, etc!

Then low and behold a cable news network comes along that actually dares to report positive progress in the war on terror and fly an American flag in the corner of their screen or not make snide comments about our C-in-C and they are blasted for being hideous partisan shills. Right-wing bias or not, I think the journalistic integrity of Fox News reporters (not pundits) out shines all the competition. (That grand standing jack ass Geraldo Rivera being an exception.)

And let's say for arguments sake that someone did decide to consciously build a conservative news organization. Being that this is a free market and an investor(s) sees an audience hungry for such a thing wouldn't that be a smart business decision? Obviously it was since FNC is seen as that conservative news organization and it is pounding the crap out of their cable news competition. (Self-proclaimed liberals and democrats make up a large percentage of FNC viewers, by the way.) How would that be any different from the purposeful creation of, say, a liberal radio network to counter the dominance of conservative talk radio? Maybe they could call it "Air America..." I wonder how well that would do?

 

[Fedora]

How's the war in Iraq going? If all anyone did was watch the big three networks you'd think we were getting our asses kicked, that the world hates us, that we are in there alone, that President Bush is a theocratic war monger, that Iraqis want us out, that our troops are mass murderers, piling naked prisoners into a pyramid to humiliate and break down their will is a war crime worse than incinerated Americans, that the war on terror is failing, the U.N. should dictate U.S. interests, Donald Rumsfeld is mean, John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act are destroying freedom, etc, etc, etc!

I can answer this directly. How is the war going? I think it is common knowledge that it ain't going as well as we had thought prior to going in. I got this info from them.(all, including Fox and CNN) Does the world hate us? By and large, yes. I got that from them as well. That our President is a war monger? No. Did I hear that some idiots called him that? Yes. Do the Iraquis want us out. Do you really think that they want to be occupied? Do you want to be occupied? The prisioner ordeal has gotten too much air play, I agree, but is it your contention that we should have never been told? Just curious. I voted for our current administration. Do I think Ashcroft is dangerous to personal freedom? You bet your bippy that I do. I don't trust him. And he means well. I just think in his ardor to make us safer, he doesn't mind infrigements on our freedoms. A necessary evil, I am not inclined to agree with. He may be like the guy who went to kill the horsefly who was biting his horse, and used a sledge hammer to do so. Both horse and fly were killed. But, his intentions were good.


I am sorry, and perhaps need glasses, but I don't see the liberal bias that many do in the media. Bad news sells. I see too much of that. It is the nature of the beast, and of us. I am dismayed that so much of news is nothing more than editorials. I am tired of being told how to think, and what to think, and that is basically what this does. Like when the commentators come on after a Presidential address. They spend more time telling me what he said. I don't need that. I have ears, I have a brain. Albeit you think it is touched. So, I just don't see it. I do see the overt bias of Fox, and I am a O'Reilly fan as I can identify with his philosophy and much of it is dead on, to my way of thinking. If there was this great liberal bias, why did we hear too much on Clinton during the Lewisky scandal? And they were not saying it was an honorable thing to do. What I want, and will never get, is a news network that reports just what is happening. I want to know about the prisioner scandal, and I want to know about the positive things that take place in Iraq and other countries that we have troops in. What I don't want is anyone telling me how crummy such and such is, etc. I want to be able to have the facts so I can determine that myself. I don't want the news that sells, I want the news that informs so I can vote for the right guy. Local, State, and National.


What I don't want is what we have now. Political propanganda, from both sides of the political system. I see this in the various editorial programs. It is what they are about. Fedora

 

[farnham54]

I can't say I agree with you, Fedora, but I think that you and I are perhaps two sides to the same coin; ultimately I too want a news source that gives me facts so I can make up my mind for myself. I see SOME bias in Fox, but no more so then I see in CNN, ABC, et cetera. Problem is, Fox is alone with it's bias; it's the odd one out.

Conservatism, according to the media, is not mainstream. Forgive me for regurgitating an example from the book that started this thread, but it is a good one: When a story on Abortion pops up, the news media immediately consults all the more prominent Women's Rights groups, but when do they EVER consult women who are Pro-Life? Never. Because they do not see that group as being a valid point of view. That bothers me to no end.

What I plan to do next time a paycheck rolls around is pick up a little Shortwave Radio--I've often believed that the BBC World Service is about the best source of news out there, and you can pick that up anywhere in the world on Shortwave last I checked. I think that's about as close as we can get to straight facts though Steve, unfortunatley

Regards,

Craig

 

[Fedora]

When a story on Abortion pops up, the news media immediately consults all the more prominent Women's Rights groups, but when do they EVER consult women who are Pro-Life? Never. Because they do not see that group as being a valid point of view. That bothers me to no end.

Perhaps that is true, but I have seen numerous programs in the past that had both sides in the mix. I do agree with you though. If your are gonna cover an issue, present both sides. Good idea about the shortwave. I may very well do that myself. In my hometown, if you want to know what is going on, don't read the local paper. Instead, buy the Memphis paper and you will hear the things the local paper and news station will not tell you about. regards, Fedora