|
|
| Author |
Message |
kaplan
|
|
Is news coverage fair?
| 
Apr 19 16:43 UTC 1994 |
What kind of bias have you observed in the mainstream media? I don't
believe in conspiracies. I think that news coverage tends to be pretty
well balanced. If there's a slant, it's in favor of making more money for
the media outlet by covering too much sex, gossip, and other junk.
I have been introduced to an organization called CAMERA, Committee for
Accuracy in Mid-East Reporting in America. They publish a newsletter that
seems dedicated to the premise that the big media outlets (radio, TV,
magazines, newspapers) are anti-semitic. The media is too sympathetic to
the Arabs and too hard on the Israelis. Jews all over the country have
to support CAMERA. Read the CAMERA newsletter and it'll tell you which
media outlets are the worst offenders. They correct errors in regular
news coverage and help you write letters to the editors.
It feels to me like Pat Robertson's kind of thing. Lots of loaded and
inflammatory words in service of the agenda. I find it distasteful.
I know that as a computer person, reporters often don't seem to understand
the computer industry very well. I suppose if I had some reason to think
the world had something against computer people, I would feel that the
media was out to get us. But I've learned to accept the fact that most
general reporters know less about computers than I do. I try to laugh and
not let it bother me. People reading this must be experts on lots of
topics. Does the media have something against nerds and Jews, or is the
coverage of your field lacking as well?
Any Arabs out there? Is there an Arab or Palestinian publication which
mirrors CAMERA's? I find it hard to believe that reporters are as nice to
Arabs as CAMERA thinks they are. Where did I ever get this idea that
Hamas was a "terrorist" organization if not from the mainstream media.
|
| 96 responses total. |
jason242
|
|
response 1 of 96:
|
Apr 19 23:07 UTC 1994 |
I'm dissapointed, kaplan. Not believing in conspiracies. Of course the
major media is controlled fully. Why are computers given little coverage?
Because they allow us to bypass many gatekeepers (thank you Jon Katz).
If the masses were to suddenly envelop the Internet, think of the mass
confusion. Million suddenly being awakened into a world of truth! Ok,
so maybe I'm just a major conspiracy advocator, but in this world you
gotta be a little loony for trusting the media.
|
tnt
|
|
response 2 of 96:
|
Apr 20 02:52 UTC 1994 |
But I thought the Jews controlled the media! I guess maybe it is just the
'entertainment industry.'
|
jason242
|
|
response 3 of 96:
|
Apr 20 03:18 UTC 1994 |
Maybe the Jews do. By systematicaly sabatoging specific textiles, they
direct us toward specific media. The entertainment industry you refer to
is the front for the combined mafia-Kennedy organization. My sources
indicate that they do not currently control media, rather manipulate
responses to the media
|
carson
|
|
response 4 of 96:
|
Apr 20 03:22 UTC 1994 |
as someone who indulges in journalism as a hobby, I'm aware that those who
make the media are inclined to make it present a view that they agree
with. However, to say that there's only one view presented seems a bit of
an overgeneralization to me.
|
roz
|
|
response 5 of 96:
|
Apr 20 15:27 UTC 1994 |
Did anyone see the Nightline where a panel discussed whether the
media's coverage of Whitewater was appropriate or not? Interesting
show. Comments?
|
jdg
|
|
response 6 of 96:
|
Apr 20 18:55 UTC 1994 |
Well, "talk radio" is openly slanted.
I've seen lots and lots of misrepresentation in "news" reports, too. Balanced
and fair reporting is an ideal, not a reality.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 7 of 96:
|
Apr 22 06:50 UTC 1994 |
I've got some of this CAMERA stuff on line. I'll remove it in a few days,
but in the meantime, to see what I was talking about in #0:
!zmore /u/kaplan/camera
|
klg
|
|
response 8 of 96:
|
Apr 22 16:43 UTC 1994 |
What are you implyin, Kaplan?
a. That it doesn't matter whether TV, radio, newspapers, etc. report
the truth or feed us a pack of lies.
b. That people shouldn't have the right to challenge media reports and
have "errors" corrected (or at least make the public aware).
or
c. That my right to challenge the media depends on whether or not other
people are doing it, too.
If you answered yes to a, b, or c, please take youself in to have you
Democratic values and principles readjusted.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 9 of 96:
|
Apr 22 19:09 UTC 1994 |
No, I do not agree with statements a, b, or c.
I am simply wondering if anyone on grex agrees with CAMERA that there
is an anti-semitic slant in the mainstream media. I am also wondering if
a publication with the opposite view point exists which I could take a
look at. I don't feel I have to tools to evaluate the CAMERA material,
but I would like to believe that the mainstream media is pretty objective.
|
jason242
|
|
response 10 of 96:
|
Apr 22 19:27 UTC 1994 |
Mein Kampf (sorry bout misspelling) :)
|
klg
|
|
response 11 of 96:
|
Apr 22 20:03 UTC 1994 |
If you read CAMERA you should have noticed that it is concerned with
fairness in reporting about Israel, not with reporting about anti-semitism.
|
aaron
|
|
response 12 of 96:
|
Apr 22 23:48 UTC 1994 |
Most people have at least one issue on which they simply cannot see
straight -- where any commentary against the person's opinion makes
you "the enemy." Such people tend to revel in "honest" reports that
"reveal" the bias of their opposition.
|
lk
|
|
response 13 of 96:
|
Apr 27 05:28 UTC 1994 |
That conference in Boston certainly sounds appealing! And if this is
sponsored by CAMERA, they certainly have pulled together an outstanding
panel.
It would come as no surprise for many that I agree with CAMERA's point of
view. Not having seen any specifics, I can't say to what extent I agree.
For another opinion on the media's treatment of Israel, read "The Media's
War Against Israel" (I don't recall the authors).
Off the top of my head, here are a couple instances:
The media's universal usage of "West Bank" to describe the territories of
Judea and Samaria. For thousands of years, the area was known as the
latter (even if it was included in a [non-Arab] Palestine). From 1949
to 1967 this area was illegally occupied by Jordan, and which point it
became known as the "West Bank *of Jordan*". While Israel's administration
of the area is legal, news reports always indicate "Israeli occupied West
Bank" -- which they never did when it was under Jordanian control.
About the same time that about 1,000 Palestinians were killed in Sabra
and Shatila (an act that Israel didn't cause but should have prevented),
other massacres received little or no press. In context, S&S was "just
another" massacre in the Lebanese civil war. When 5,000 Christians were
massacred in Damour, the western media was silent. When the Syrian army
destroyed 2 entire villages, killing 20,000-60,000 civilians, the NY Times
reported the story in something like a 1-column inch article on page 63.
Yet S&S was beamed into our living rooms for weeks, with implications of
a unique event that was Israel's fault.
|
aaron
|
|
response 14 of 96:
|
Apr 30 14:16 UTC 1994 |
re #13: The fact of Israel's administration of the territories is legal.
The manner of that administration, and ideas of annexation, are
not.
Is your latter assertion an argument that Israel should not be
held to a higher standard than its neighbors? Is it not an
industrialized, democratic, first world nation? Does it not
speak of itself as better than its neighbors?
Our society has this problem with prejudice. You see, we "expect"
those nasty minorities to kill each other off. Who even knows
about the genocide in Uganda, that nearly obliterated a minority
population that had exceeded one million people a few years before?
We focus on the "genocide" of "civilized" people, by "civilized"
people -- we care more if the people "look like us." And, yes, we
pay attention to the slaughter of "uncivilized" people where
"civilize" people are somehow responsible -- ignoring, probably
unintentionally, our own nation's history.
|
lk
|
|
response 15 of 96:
|
May 2 15:45 UTC 1994 |
I think that Israel, by and large, adheres to much higher standards than
its neighboring Arab countries. But given the media's focus on Israel (at
one point the number of journalists, or rather the density, was 2nd in the
world only to Washington D.C.), a non-representative (untruthful) picture
of events is created in the mind of the reader/viewer.
You may well be correct that this bias exists for reasons other than
anti-Israel or anti-Semitic feelings (which I wouldn't say about various
European media). But the reason isn't so important as the bottom line:
there is an anti-Israel bias in the American media.
|
tnt
|
|
response 16 of 96:
|
May 3 05:13 UTC 1994 |
There's also an anti-membersofthelactoovovegetariancommunity bias in the
American media.
|
lk
|
|
response 17 of 96:
|
May 4 01:28 UTC 1994 |
Obviously, otherwise they'd call it the ovo-lacto vegetarian community.
But it's a different cup of tea, and a different type of bias.
|
tnt
|
|
response 18 of 96:
|
May 4 04:02 UTC 1994 |
What does tea have to do with it (other than being somewhat inciteful to
our British friends...), and so what if it is a different type of bias?
Are you saying that the bias against you is worse than the bias against
me?
|
jdg
|
|
response 19 of 96:
|
May 4 19:18 UTC 1994 |
I was certainly suprised yesterday when Cokie Roberts converted a 3%
decline in U.S. violent crime rates into a 3% *increase* in order to
give impetus to the Fienstien/Schumer "Recreational Firearms Use Act".
|
roz
|
|
response 20 of 96:
|
May 5 02:23 UTC 1994 |
Nothing Cokie Roberts (or Eleanor clift, for that matter) does can
surprise me anymore. I wish the media would admit their various biases
and have done with it instead of pretending to be neutral.
|
aaron
|
|
response 21 of 96:
|
May 6 22:50 UTC 1994 |
re #15: I don't see the media depicting Hussein's actions toward the Kurds
as beneficient, or lauding the human rights record of Assad, for
example.... I think the bias, in this case, lies with the reader.
|
lk
|
|
response 22 of 96:
|
May 10 08:30 UTC 1994 |
Oh, puleeze. The only time the U.S. media focused on the plight of the
Kurds (or their ill treatment by Iraq and other neighboring countries)
was during our fixation with the Gulf War. Of course we don't hear of
the plight of the Bahaiis in Iran on a daily basis, too. Or the Copts
in Egypt (which in real terms receives more US aid than Israel).
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 96:
|
May 11 05:53 UTC 1994 |
Let us not forget the China/Tibet situation which has recieved universal
noncoverage for as long as I can remember.
The issue of media bias is multifaceted. First, there is the
consideration that the commercial news media are businesses, and they must
produce and sell a product in order to survive. This also applies to public
broadcasting, but the market and the methodology are different. This
constriction affects which issues are covered, and how. If there is interest
(saleability) in an issue, it will receive more coverage than an issue in
which interest is weak. The most significant factor is that the marketing of
newsmedia is toward an increasingly poorly educated public, and the complexity
of the issues is increasing. Here then is a dilemma. Go tabloid, or bore your
audience with arcane technicalities?
What we have is not so much a bias against or for any particular group,
but rather a logistical marketing and economic survival issue.
For the most part, folks who claim that the media is biased against
them or their group are simply finding the simplest explanation which seems
to fit the facts they have available. Occam's razor, applied in ignorance,
tends to remove a lot of Occam's face.....
|
aaron
|
|
response 24 of 96:
|
May 14 23:53 UTC 1994 |
re #22: So coverage of human rights abuses is okay, as long as Israel is
covered last.... Sounds like Leeron, alright.
|
