Even this year I've heard Chris Mathews chuckling talking about Al Gore inventing the internet. The fact that it isn't true doesn't stop members of the media. The Rolling Stone article goes into only partial detail about a lot of stuff that was credited to Al Gore to give him the persona of someone who flagrantly and frequently embellished the truth. What was being embellished was the reporting. There were back page corrections made of course, but the image was there and reporters and media commentators continued to push that image as if that was actually what happened. It became so much a media fixture that despite the fact that the 'invented the internet claim' has been debunked and is even listed as a false urban legend on Snopes site, the media are still running with it. Al Gore was accused of embellishing the internet claim, his role in Love Story was, and the whole Love Canal thing, which as also erroneously reported and another correction had to be issued. The fact is that the media was wrong about 'inventing the internet' they were wrong about Love Canal, and both of those had to have retractions made, but the media didn't abandon their pack mentality, and continued to portray him as someone who would say anything to be elected. He got reemed by a medai that had a bias. I don't believe it was a bias toward W Bush, or against Al Gore, but it was a bias to follow the pack, and when the legend became more interesting than the truth, they went with the legend, much to the damage of Al Gore's reputation.
So it's OK for the media to make fun of Bush (strategery) and not Gore? I think that some people just can't take a joke. EDIT: As for the "Say anything to get elected," what about his recent 'overstating the truth is necessary' comment regarding his new movie?
It wasn't a joke. It was erroneous, bad, biased(towards pack mentality) reporting, that continues to this day even though it is known that it isn't the truth to anyone willing to spend five minutes reading the retractions. Any journalist who considers himself a professional ought to spend that long and stop repeating the crap that was put out by GOP spinmeisters as if it were real and legit. The stuff about Gore being robotic, or wooden, etc. That is a joke, and is just fine, and doesn't refelct a media bias at all. Saying anything to get elected adn his new movie don't really seem related. He isn't running for office, so I can't imagine it has to do with him getting elected.
Today, we see a media that looks at the ratings success of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and broadcast news, certainly, has been falling over their own feet in an attempt to copy that ratings success. Thus, you have KLBJ AM, in Austin, switching from ABC News to Fox News as their hour and half-hour news source, as well as the source they go to for breaking world and national news. This is the station owned for decades by the Johnson family. It's purely for ratings. I called the station a few times to complain and, as I told them I would, quit listening. I give that as an example of what we've been seeing since Bush's election in 2000. The worm will turn, and is turning now, in my opinion. We'll see a trend away from conservative talk shows and conservative news networks and programs, as Americans move further away from buying into the bankrupt Bush/GOP/Fox etc. influence, and towards a more progressive one. Heck, even Fox News, if they see a ratings boost from doing so, will switch much of their programming to a more progressive bent. Print media is far more progressive, in the main, compared to broadcast media. The problem for progressive Democrats, Republicans, (there are some out there) and Independents is the declining influence of print media, as more and more people get their news from cable and internet sources, from a far more diverse number of sources. In the long run, I see this as both good and bad. Good, because I hope Americans will become more informed from the cornucopia of sources they now have, and bad, from my Democratic view, due to the more progressive print media having less influence. They are adapting to the internet, however, which is a hopeful sign. Keep D&D Civil.
An excellent point and I totally agree. Conservatives always complain of a liberal bias that reporters report bad things happening in Iraq while Liberals complain of a conservative bias that reporters don't report enough bad things. The bias often seems to be what the news consumer brings rather than the major media's. Agree with you here too. I think its impossible to not have bias as editorial decisions are always made to explain the news and even at the most basic level of where to point the camera or who to interview. The question is though is how much does that bias affect how factual / informative the news is? In regard to political biases people will dismiss news stories based on the media that provides them. For instance if Fox reports something liberals will attack the veracity of it since it was from Fox or if it came from CBS conservatives will. I think this is a big problem and why we have so much political polarization because people don't even agree on what basic "facts" are since depending on where you heard that fact you might not believe its true. For instance if CBS reported that 10 US troops died in Iraq a conservative might say CBS is deliberately exagerating the number of troops that died. While if Fox reported it a liberal might say that Fox is downplaying the number.
Yes, I think the media is biased but not conservative or liberal. The bias is business/government. Robert Pappas did a well researched documentary called- "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" that attempts to expose who and how media is controlled. It includes the work of Charles Lewis former director of 60 minutes to expose that the media is controlled, explaining how all the networks and outlets are owned and the news is managed by a small group of elite corporations. This documentary will provide insight into why the media spins to the tune of the conservative/liberal mindset, which is just a method of furthering government and corporate agendas. As in most cases there is so much to research and understand and the average citizen usually has neither time nor access to do that it helps to get as much information as possible on these issues. While there may not be total truth in such documentaries there is enough information that is needed to better understand how our world works. If you get a chance to see the film I think you will understand Fox, CNN, ABC, Ruppert Murdock, NBC, General Electric, Turner, CBS, Newspapers, Cable- the whole media cabal clearer than before. Link
I can see that rhester. Media corporations are mostly family owned and retain control by having majority holding in class B stocks. Viacom, Fox, ABC Disney, Cablevision, and Cox are all family owned.
But sometimes facts are facts. They can not be interpreted more than one way. Take the case of African aid that I posted the link to earlier. Bush claimed he tripled the aid to Africa. There are numbers involved that can be checked. He either did or he didn't. The media took Bush at his word and did not do any checking at all. Finally someone crunched the numbers and showed that aid only increased about 60%. It hadn't even doubled. When some people brought out the fact that Bush lied about having tripled the aid to Africa the media largely continued to report that he had tripled aid to Africa, or they presented as a case of one person's word against another persons word. They bent over backwards to accomodate an incorrect assertion in order to appear to be fair and balanced. The media screwed up. It isn't one person's word against another. There are numbers and math involved. The numbers added up quite differently than what Bush claimed, and despite these facts having been discovered the media just didn't report accurately. I don't believe the media was biased towards Bush. They were just lazy, guilty of pack mentality(everyone else didn't do their job and check) so they continued to just to parrot the figures that the whitehouse put out, rather than actually investigate themselves. It wasn't a case of one side seeing a story as fair, and another side disagreeing because the story wasn't favorable to their point of view. The media didn't report the facts, but rather made up figures, and then reported that the side that eventually did present the facts was just presenting their side to the story which wasn't any more correct than the other side. In reality it was more correct. It was the only correct side. Another example of the media not doing its job was when the Bush administration came in and claimed that the Clinton staff trashed the whitehouse when they left. The media didn't bother to check, but just ran with the story. It was only later when the CBO did their investigation and found that it wasn't true. Again, that wasn't because the media was biased toward Bush and against Clinton. It was because they were biased to not be left out of the gaggle of media outlets that were also reporting the same false story.
FB your points are spot on. You've pointed out a few Bush examples but in fairness the media in all parts of the world have been guilty of reporting by press release and sound bite rather than in depth analysis. As you stated, it's not a Bush, notBush issue. It is one of my biggest frustrations with reading about something that should be verifiable. I can think of many examples that are completely unrelated to Conservative or Liberal bias. And I couldn't agree more on the formulatic approach of providing 'both' sides of an issue. Sometimes one side is simply wrong. (and the quoting of defense attorneys without serious qualifiers always frustrates me. Could there be a more biased source?). Part of it is the speed at which we expect our news. Part of it is constraints on time and/or resources. I do think that most journalists have a more liberal bias. Professions tend to attract people that have a similar way of thinking. I expect most investment bankers have a conservative bias. The odd exception, it seems, is the US, where fox news has taken a deliberate bias to counteract a perceived bias. It's interesting that they've done so well. And not it's not just the hicks and uneducated that watch. So maybe many people were frustrated by their perception of a left bias in the existing news, and Fox addressed that need.
You are right. The media has done similar things to Bush and the GOP. I remember Kerry got away with using outdated employment numbers in the previous presidential election. I mentioned the ones that happened in favor of Bush in a two pronged effort to rouse more debate and combat the perceived liberal bias in the media. It does happen to both sides. I would rather the media just gave me the truth, checked facts, and was willing to print them even when they favor one side over another. I think you are correct in saying that a lot of it has to do with the speed the media feels it needs to get a story out there to avoide being left behind by other media. It is sad when a story that is incorrect garners a reaction, and feeds the media to keep going in that direction. It is very annoying, and it really makes me feel that the media is negligent in the jobs many times.
Don't you think the media is more Republican- Democrat alligned politically than conservative- liberal? Seems conservative and liberal are ideals that are changing and different today than they were say 40 years ago. Republicans were thought to represent conservative and Democrats liberal or progressive. Moderate meant a little of both. Things are much more issue driven and politically driven. Conservative means to keep the old way. Status quo, but what is that anymore? Liberal means to change or be open to new ways, but how is that different in politics anymore? Conservatives used to point back to value systems built around original intentions. Liberals used to point to new ideas with progressive intentions. Both parties seem to wander around political issues, alliances and dogmas; with little regard for basic principle. I would like to see the value system behind each political party starting with honesty, responsibility and liberty.
I’ll See Your Price and Raise You a Quarter Networks fret over high gas costs, yet still depict prices higher than they are. http://www.businessandmedia.org/news/2006/news20060525b.asp
This is a case of sensationalism. They are trying to sell the story. It is getting annoying that they feel they have to do this. I will say that sensationalism isn't as bad as plain false reporting, but it isn't helpful at all.
Do you understand the concept of an average? There are going to be prices higher than the average and there are going to be prices lower than the average. So showing prices that are higher may very well be accurate for that day in certain places. If a story is about HIGH gas prices, don't you think that it only makes sense to show the HIGH gas prices? I don't know, maybe it's just me.
Al Gore said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet. That is not true. The Internet first came into being as ARPANET in 1969 which is 8 years before Gore started serving in Congress, so Gore had no connection with the creation of the Internet. Gore helped with legislation to improve the internet and to make it more available to the public and commercial entities, but his claim to have taken the initiative in creating the Internet makes it seem like he was instrumental in the Internet coming into being, and depending our one's reading is a claim that he created the Internet. The argument against people saying he claimed to have invented the internet is quibbling over wording. Al Gore in fact embellished his role in the creation of the Internet.
Gore was referring to his role which you mentioned here. At the time Gore did that it is questionable if it really was the internet as we know it, or an APRANET, Or an INTRANET used by the govt. There is a huge difference between what Gore said, and what the GOP and media claimed he said.. Gore was a tireless worker in making the internet what it is today. This explains that even Newt Gingrich and the so called "Father of the internet" recognize this. Gore was accurate in what he said. It may have been clumsily worded, but he did help with making the internet as widely used as it is today. This is from the quote mentioned earlier. If these people admit Gore helped shepherd the internet to life, then I don't think his quote was inaccurate.
I've thought that defense was too nuanced for a Presidential candidate, FB. IIRC, it was one of several strings of miscues leading up to the elections. Gore failed from his lack of charisma and reliability, which magnified these incidents. The man wouldn't even support his pet cause for crying out loud.
