So the question is has the media coverage of events changed much from the civil war as cited by the presentation (yet again, I don't remember whose)? I think the answer is yes and no. I'll break that down.
The media from the civil war was clearly bias. The south said they won gettysburgh despite heavy losses, and the north said they won gettysburgh too. It was also evident based on the passages the presenters cited that the newspapers were bias for their side.
Now let's look at modern media. I think first, modern media is different from civil war media in a very substantial way. Now media tells the truth. You wouldn't have two media outlets saying opposite things. For example, CNN might say the south lost but came really close to winning and will bounce back, and FOX would say that the south lost and got crushed and will never recover. Now the news is true, but with a slant on it. So yes, I think it's still bias, but at least truthful.
I think the real bias comes from what stories are told from the respective sides. FOX is less likely to cover stories that make conservatives look like idiots, and CNN isn't as likely to cover stories that make democrats look like idiots. You won't see much Bush bashing on FOX, nor will you see Nancy Pelosi exposed as an idiot on CNN. In short, the coverage is bias, instead of the stories themselves.
So that's as good an answer as I can give. Yes, media is still bias, no it's not bias in the same way. What are everyone else's reactions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
i think you're absolutely right. As i wrote on another post, the things you DON'T say are just as important as the ones you do say. i think that is the main bias in media today, since newspapers and television are so unlikely to report blatantly wrong facts. They fear to lose credibility. By being slightly biased, however, they can actually gain a core group of devoted viewers.
I think you are right about media, in general, in that the stories media outlets share to the world are truthful and that media pick and choose what they wish to cover. I believe media present the public with information truthfully, but I don't believe the media always share true information. That seems obvious, but I think it is easy to get lost in believing that everything the media says is true because it may seem like they are sharing it truthfully-- if that makes sense. While the media may be telling the truth about what they KNOW, it may conflict with what is actually happening in any given situation. But, I think Ed is also right in that the bias comes from what stories are told from respective sides. The twisting of information comes through the wordplay of the reporters or broadcasting stations.
I think that you are right to an extent. While media today do not lie about the stories, I think that picking and choosing which stories to cover is not truthful media either. I think that not covering an important event because it may rub your supporters the wrong way is bad. While the media has a right to cover stories with a slight slant, which as you said they do, I do not think they can just ignore stories.
I agree with you that media was biased and will always be biased. Its inevitable. But the real point is that media doesn't tell the truth. At least for me, if you spin any part of a story, then you are lying. I also want to point out that I agree with your claim that obviously biased news channels will refrain from covering stories that make their party look bad. Overall, I think you did a pretty good job comparing media then and media now.
I believe that if a media story is being told there will always be some kind of bias in the coverage.
I agree with Tess on the fact that media outlets try to appeal to certain groups of people through their distinct bias in their coverage.
The media today is different than it was during the Civil War. While media coverage is biased, it is still for the most part factual and truthful. The bias with which news is covered is an important media tool to persuade viewers. I think the media does a fairly good job in identifying themselves according to their biases. I can turn on the TV and basically choose what type media coverage I want to watch. The facts may be the same, but the presentation and ideas may be conflicting.
Ed, I think we can all agree that the media has changed, simply because of technological advances. However, just a quick note on what you said about the networks. We can also agree that FOX has a conservative slant to it but as far as CNN's liberal bias is concerned, I must disagree. If biased, it is minimal, CNN does a fairly good job of staying in the middle. MSNBC, on the other hand, clearly has a liberal bias (Keith Olberman) that is just as bad as FOX's conservative bias.
I agree with your ascertion to an extent. I wouold argue that a "slant" in media terms is not the complete truth. Therefore today's media does not always tell the truth. The only reason that opposing "slants" today can both sound plausible and truthful is that statistics are very easy to manipulate, and if they can back something up with numbers, people will believe it.
Well Easy Ed I must agree with your take on the media. Media back during the civil war wasn't just bias, a lot of it was just down right wrong. I find newspapers today to be the most bias media. In my Grandma's small hometown in Naples, Texas there's a newspapaer called the Naples Monitor. The Wednesday morning, the morning after Obama won, there was not a SINGLE word about his victory. All of the issues later on that week still did not say anything. Media is still VERY biased today
Post a Comment