multiple forms of media bias (4.00 / 2)

   A favorite right-wing myth is the myth of "liberal media bias", particularly as described in Bernie Goldberg's book, "Bias". This myth is not 100% false, but it is misleading. There are actually several forms of media bias.
  Many people, even moderates or biconceptuals, will hear the phrase "(blank) media bias" and will fill in "liberal" at the blank. My own favorite media bias phrase is "corporate media bias". Big Media does not hate Big Business, because Big Media IS Big Business.
  But aside from the conservative, pro-business bias of the mainstream media, there are other forms of bias. There is the pro-sound-bite, coddle-the-ADHD-viewers bias. There is the tabloid "OJ Simpson / Scott and Laci Peterson / Natalee Holloway" bias, (aka "if it bleeds, it leads"). There is also the "Paris Hilton / Sarah Palin / style-over-substance" celebrity worship bias.
  Ultimately, the source of a lot of media bias is the "keep our customers happy" bias. It sometimes seems that while Rome burns, a fair number of Romans would rather listen to the latest Nero album than hear reports about the fire.
  The only helpful suggestions I can offer are these:
1) If you do not like tabloid reporting, do not read tabloid reporting. If no one buys it, no one will sell it.
2) As Jello Biafra said, "Do not hate the media, become the media".

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

---

by: Christian_Dem_NY @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 07:45:31 AM CST

Yeah but, remember when Anna Nicole Smith died? (0.00 / 0)

And the corporate media (even the "respectable" ones) talked of nothing else for a week or more?

Someone did a survey at the time, asking how many people wanted to know more about Anna Nicole, and the results showed that only about 10% did.

This makes no sense if the reason for that kind of coverage is to "keep the customers happy." Why devote 90% of the coverage to something only 10% of  the people are interested in?

I think the point of the Republican-owned corporate media is to confuse, distract and when all else fails, bore us out of trying to pay attention to the world. They run drivel like the Anna Nicole Smith stuff to avoid talking about the war, then blame us for it by saying we're the ones who ask for it. But we aren't.

Their declining sales tell the whole story.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:26:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

poor sales strategy vs. Republican media bias (0.00 / 0)

Sadie,
  I usually agree with you. But not this time.
  I did not see that study about only 10% of viewers wanting to see more about Anna Nicole Smith, so I cannot comment on it in detail.
  But I really cannot fathom why most corporate media, which live and die by profits, which are based on ad revenue and numbers of viewers, would deliberately run stories on unpopular topics, just to avoid discussing important political topics.
  We all know that Fox is a propaganda organ of the far right. They pursue the two goals of pushing right-wing spin, and of making money. Occasionally they back down when confronted (like the Obama "terrorist fist jab" claim), because they do not want to lose viewers and profits.
  I think that it is more likely that the corporate media simply miscalculated in the case of Anna Nicole Smith stories. But if you can give me a link to more information on that study, I will be glad to look at it, and comment in more detail.

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

---

by: Christian_Dem_NY @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 08:03:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The establishment media will fall (4.00 / 2)

Not so much because it's dishonest, propagandistic, obsequious and trivia-obsessed--which of course it is--as because it's simply not interesting or relevant to most people, regardless of their level of political sophistication. Political sophisticates and unsophisticates alike get their news and opinion elsewhere. That the former tend to be blogs and smaller outlets like The Nation, American Prospect and Guardian, and the latter tend to be Inside Edition, People and Us, is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether today's establishment media offers a "product" that is relevant to enough people these days, and thus economically viable. It does not, which, in time, will prove to either destroy it, or force it to drastically transform itself.

If anyone disagrees, and finds such predictions to be overly hyperbolic, given how old, large and established many of these outlets are, I need only refer one to similar institutions in other fields, such as, oh, investment banking, technology or airlines. Lehman Brothers was as old and permanent-seeming as the NY Times when it went under. And while not as old, the idea of major companies such as TWA, Pan Am or DEC--or the Herald Tribune for an older generation--going under was similarly unthinkable, until it happened.

I don't expect the NYT or WaPo to disappear tomorrow, but the signs are all there that if they don't make themselves more relevant to today's public--by either cleaning up their act and ending the hackery, or going full-blown yellow and gossip--they will eventually go under. And deserve to. And since the thought of their going 100% lowbrow is absurd, given their histories, and going fully highbrow would require massive scaling back, their only viable path is, I think, to return to their former high middlebrow roots, and stop the low middlebrow idiocy.

Fire all the hacks like Mazzetti, Nagourney and Gordon--or make them write for the Style section--and hire more real reporters like Risen, Lichtblau and Sanger. And stop lying. Please. It's embarrassing. There is real public need for a quality news product. Provide it, or go under, and be replaced by new outlets that will provide it. It's as simple as that.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 09:07:30 AM CST

Not fall (0.00 / 0)

They won't fall completely... Papers will be there long past you and I dying as will TV News...

However, they will lose influence... eventually being less influential than the Internet was 4 years ago.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Never Fear! (0.00 / 0)

Although they couldn't possibly be bothered to follow up on the Downing Street Memo, the Post and other corporate media behemoths have reported at length about Bush's exercise regime, as well as his many Texas vacations.

It will surely only be a matter of time before some brilliant WaPo editor stumbles across one of those old stories, and Voila! the answer to Obama's current dilemma will be solved!

Though not, of course, before every cliche-slinging presidential historian in the Versailles rolodex is trotted out to opine on the matter.  And, heck--who knows?--maybe even half a dozen sports medicine experts as well.  Are the health benefits of that extra exercise worth the risk of shin splints?  Inquiring minds want to know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM CST

Just Who is Barack Obama? (0.00 / 0)

Bush was such a simpleton that he was easy to understand, but Barack is supposedly a complex human being so I guess people are curious about what makes him tick.  I wouldn't blame WaPo for the celebrification though.  The Obama campaign did plenty to play that up.  It's just ridiculous that WaPo thinks this is front page news rather than feature fluff for the culture section.

---

by: md @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM CST

That its ON the front Page is Dave's Point... (0.00 / 0)

Not the fluff piece... I don't think any of us mind a fluff piece, just not in lieu or prominence of REAL news.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

He's clearly making a point about the content of the article as well:

"Yes, we're really supposed to think it sucks that Obama faces the hardship of being world famous and having to move into a fully staffed mansion. Anything for a manufactured media narrative, right?"  

---

by: md @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ugh... (0.00 / 0)

Not only is that article pointless Drivel, it gives the RW ammunition for a baseless attack.   THANKS WASHINGTON POST!

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM CST

Not sure I get your point (4.00 / 1)

Obviously it's dumb that this gets frontpaged in the NYT.

But it's very important. Working for campaigns the last three years, I have written to friends and family how antithetical it is that as movement progressives, we who loathe the pernicious effects of power and status must spend our days working tirelessly to acquire them. Anyone who is in it for something other than the power and the celebrity needs to have an almost super-human sense of self, and constant reminders of where they came from, not to turn into the things they ran against.

This makes sense as an appealing narrative, but it also makes sense in simple psychological terms--when you are thrown into a new environment, with almost complete emotional-contextual shock, you will develop new brain patterns, emotional responses, ways of thinking, new habits, new ways of fearing and trusting. It is only by experiencing the complex emotional context of your previous world that you can be sure to reconcile your new surroundings with your old mental and moral framework.

This article, or at least this topic of conversation, should be more significant to progressives who dislike the DC-club-culture than to the broader public, not less.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee

---

by: msnook @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM CST

Trickle Down (4.00 / 3)

The Braindead Megaphone meets Presidentialism meets Celebrification meets Faux Outrage meets Perplexed Blog Reader...

With millions of Americans are on the brink of economic ruin, there's a health care crisis, two wars rage overseas, and this is what the prominent progressive website OpenLeft opts to put on its front page.

---

by: Kane @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM CST

LOL (0.00 / 0)

   LOL!
  Ok Kane, point taken.
  But then, if the media was wrong to run the "Obama's psychological adjustment" story (because it is an unworthy topic)... and then David Sirota was wrong to post an article that criticizes that story (because his post was a waste of time)... then isn't your post that argues with Sirota's post also a waste of time?
  And then... my time-wasting comment on your time-wasting comment on Sirota's time-wasting comment on the media's time-wasting story is also... a waste of time? Oops. Maybe I better stop all this time-wasting right now...

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

---

by: Christian_Dem_NY @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah, its vapid; but it was the most widely read online for awhile... (0.00 / 0)

they put it there because people read it.

frankly, there are bigger things to be upset about.

---

by: seabrook @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 14:07:35 PM CST