BS: Bias on CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

John P.,

I had no problems with your opinion, only with your analogy whiyh I still consider wrong. And, BTW you may want to pay more attention to what you are saying:

Singling out mainstream Muslims for this type of scrutiny and not mainstream Christians is racist...

There is no Muslim race or Christian race, they are both faiths.

But this time again, I know what you mean and I agree, my only point is how you express what you mean.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 06:01 AM

Paece,

The study refers to the REPORTING, not the editorial content.

"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter."

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 04:09 PM

However, all the above said, if I owned a newspaper, I would expect the editorial policy of MY paper to follow my notions of right and wrong. My editor-in-chief would play ball or look for another game. That makes sense, IMO. To expect otherwise from folks is a bit unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 04:03 PM

Troll's link.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 03:11 PM

In my opinion, the terms "Left" and "Right" have no relevance whatever to the kinds of bias displayed by all of the mainstream media. In fact, I'd say framing the discussion in those terms only serves to distract people from the real "biases" and agendas of the mainstream media outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Troll
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM

Google "Media Bias Study" and select the third hit, or cut-and-paste the following. I never did learn how to make blue clickys.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Troll
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:43 PM

If you will check, I think that you will find that most of the big corporations and high rollers contributed to BOTH parties. It's calledsecuring your options. They really don't care who wins the race because the house doesn't lose.

As far as focusing on Muslims, who, besides McVeigh, has commited major acts of terror in this country besides Muslims? Who has threatened our country with disaster ala 9/11 but Islamic groups>

Doesn't it seem rather natural that Muslims would be targeted considering all that has gone before?

Read the FATWAS that were issued by Osama bin Laden and then tell me that Musilm extremists do not constitute a direct threat to our country.

As far as media bias goes, there was s turdy released last month ranking the various media outlets. I'll try to find it and post the link.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:21 PM

It's weird but the owner of CNN donated 1.6 million to the Bush campain but Fox (accused of being biased toward the Bush administration) donated only 2.9 million

Makes sense to me. They both have the same agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST,Various
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:24 PM

Ted Turner does not own CNN anymore and he is not maried to all un-american Jane Fonda any more but the biased culture remains at CNN.

It's weird but the owner of CNN donated 1.6 million to the Bush campain but Fox (accused of being biased toward the Bush administration) donated only 2.9 million

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:29 PM

Various Guests, keep in mind that Turner and Fonda have been divorced for a number of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 03:07 PM

If you don't like CNN content, a couple of S.A. programmers have written a demo script to help.

From the "GeekActivity" page of Technology Review August 2005:

If you use Netscape for your browser, a Plugin called Greasemonkey allows you to edit how web pages are displayed. As an example of a useful application, vision impaired persons could use it to display everything in black-on-white in 14 point characters regardless of the web page settings.

Simson Garfinkel and Peter Wayner have written a sample script that they call "Doubletake" that allows you to reverse the intent, insert comments, change specific words to "your own meaning" etc. An example given – using Netscape, with Greasemonkey installed, and with the Doubletake script activated, every occurance of the name of "a politician you thing is mentally challenged" would be displayed as "Village Idiot." Some here might want to replace any and all verbs by inserting "the mortal sin of " in front of them, and it appears to be fairly easily possible.

With proper use of the above program(s) and this script, you can have every page on the internet reflect your own chosen biases regardless of what "they" actually post.

Code and instructions are supposed to be posted at doubletake.ex.com , but the site doesn't answer at the moment. The sample script and brief description given by the authors was:

"Repeatedly calling the replace function for each word will rewrite the document. This approach is sluggish. The time required is proportional to the size of the document multiplied by the length of the list of words to be replaced.

To create a snappier version, we used JavaScript's built-in hash tables to store the list of words to be replaced. We preprocessed this list and built a table called matchTable, then broke the document apart and replaced every word appearing in the table.

if (typeof matchTable[word]!="undefined"){ ans=ans+matchTable[word];
  } else {
  ans=ans+word;
  }

if (typeof matchTable[word]!="undefined"){ ans=ans+matchTable[word];
} else {
ans=ans+word;
}

However long the list of words to be replaced, the matchTable function finds each match in a constant amount of time, so the time required is proportional only to the size of the document."

If the site doesn't come back, you'll have to search or figure it out for yourself....

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST,B
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:48 AM

What happened in Atlanta was that a very polite man in a chauffeur's uniform met us after our reading at A Capella Books in Little 5 Points and whisked us cross-state. A few hours later, we were on Ted Turner's yacht off the coast, near Savannah. I don't think Ted trusted us to show. His personal assistant had arranged the meeting with Marla, saying Ted wanted to give us "a look-see."

That was a long boat ride. William got seasick over the side rail. Ted and I talked about Bosnian war crimes. Jane Fonda still looks great. Ted married well. And I don't give a shit what you say about what she was doing during Vietnam. She's a looker and a real good actress with a mind that won't quit.

Frank, awkwardly, kept referring to Barbarella. Jane got flushed and embarrassed. Ted scooped her up in his arms tickled and joshed her. They're a real nice couple, always giggling like schoolkids.

Ted wanted to do a colorized version of the hypertext, which he would air on the USA Network. But he wanted us to take all the drug references out. We thought it over.

Jane picked up a phone and a butler appeared with a lid of grass.

Jane rolled a joint.

Ted said, "Better be Maui Wowie, son, or you're in the shitter."

The butler said, "But Dad, all I could get was Jamaican."

Jane, sitting cross-legged on the deck in her steel-blue bikini, took a deep hit, and said, "It's good shit, Ted, it's real good."

Ted unhanded the butler, saying, "Dammit, son, when I say Hawaiian, I mean Hawaiian. Jamaica is a whole other island. Am I wastin' my money on all those maps?" He took a big hit and passed the doobie to Dirk, and with a furrowed brow appeared to be weighing matters of substance, then said, "This is good shit, son, so you're lucky. But mark my words, sonny boy, the next time pull something like this, you go right over that rail."

He said all this in a relatively calm, even good-natured, way, so you could tell that he was kidding, but that he was also simultaneously dead serious.

The butler said, "Sorry Dad, it won't happen again."

Ted said, "It had better not. Now go do your homework. Geography and Procurement."

"Yes, Dad," the butler said, and went back below deck, submissively. The waitress then appeared and we had five of the biggest lobsters you've ever seen with drawn butter, and a real nice zucchini, garlic and tomato side dish. We had slushy fruit drinks with Malaysian names. They had mangos and kiwi and pineapple and strawberries in them.

Ted gave us a little talk on the importance of vitamins.

We talked about metaphysics with Jane.

Ted gave us some investment advice.

We didn't do the deal on colorizing the hypertext, but it was a real nice afternoon. The money would have been nice, but at that time we still felt that it was important for us to retain our artistic integrity.

Ted said he'd make sure the book got plugged on CNN.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:47 AM

Ted Turner married to Jane Fonda owns CNN, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Naw, no way CNN could be biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:29 AM

If it'll save you the angst, Doug, here ya go: "CNN ain't biased!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: DougR
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:28 AM

CNN biased? Horrors! Tell me it ain't so! Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh! Moan, groan, anguish!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:55 PM

A corner store?

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM

Whay kind of a store Peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:32 PM

well, Carol, strenuous disagreements are what makes us think, huh? I was careful to say 'can' and 'most'....The problem is, in most important issues there are SO many facts to be had, that absolutely no source will have them all, and the effort to sort thru hundreds of sources and screen them to be sure you are getting REAL facts, and not just reinforcing one's own biases is more than most folks have time for and can cope with.

The sources I note have a vested interest in doing a reasonable job of laying out 'most' of the issues...with standard disclaimers. I do NOT rely on them for ultimate precision and/or absolute completeness....but my major point was the word usage between **bias** and **emphasis**. I think of bias as a conscious effort to be one-sided no matter what liberties are taken with truth and accuracy....and we know that MANY sources are guilty of that (even the ones who have the truth...*wry grin*)




"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.   - Daniel Dennett "

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:18 PM

Yep to that, Buzz. The procedure is generally that you can break a law if Congress says you can break a law. Bush kinda got things bass-ackwards. The 'kinda got' he kinda got muddled up just may get him impeached. Watch for headlines in a store near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:11 PM

I would be pissed of the NSA was not monitoring communications between suspected terrorists or terrorist supporters, American or otherwise. It is their job.

I heard, way back in the pre terrorist days, that NSA had computers constantly scanning all communications possible for keywords such as bomb, explosives etc and when one was detected the conversation was recorded for review. The top of that NSA building has more antennas than a Star Wars nothership.

And like the majority of American, I think it is not only consitutional but the costitution requires the President to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM

The difference being that you 'can' get most of the facts from CNN or NPR, no matter what the headline or emphasis is

I really have to disagree with this. Strenuously.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:26 PM

sometimes it is bias, sometimes just bad editing and headline composition....but sure, CNN, like almost all media, had their slant on things...(If I were to express my opinion in print, I would say "CNN, The Washington Post and NPR emphasize some aspects of the news more than others...Fox News and most MSN news is **BIASED**"

The difference being that you 'can' get most of the facts from CNN or NPR, no matter what the headline or emphasis is...but on Fox or in papers like The Washington Times, many of the facts just are not there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: John P
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:55 AM

Wolfgang,
You may want to pay more attention to what you are saying. You seem to be saying that all Christian churches should be searched for evidence of flammable material and weapons because a very few Christian zealots shoot abortion doctors and burn clinics.

There has been way more Christian terrorism in this country than Muslim terrorism.

Singling out mainstream Muslims for this type of scrutiny and not mainstream Christians is racist and unethical. That's what people are so upset about.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM

nor was it coincidental that a Christian shot a local doctor here, because the doctor worked at an abortion clinic.....right? Christians? Muslims? there all nuts...... right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 05:22 PM

John P., your analogy is wrong in two points:
(1) No one is targeted at a personal level (and believe me I know from personal experience targeting of bearded people). You would neither be stopped nor likely would ever know that you have passed a control pouint for excess radiation.
(2) In your example the property of being bearded is obviously coincidental with the crime, whereas being Muslim was not coincidental with the crime of flying planes into buildings.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: John P
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:13 AM

The story about the FBI monitoring Muslim sites for radiation was widely reported before the FBI spokesperson said anything about other sites being monitored as well. The only thing I know for sure about the situation is that it's pretty much impossible to get at the truth, given the facts that most of the news media is biased one way or another and that government officials and spokespersons lie as a matter course.

I have to admit that Carol C's scenario of the government manipulating the news is very plausible, considering their track record at that sort of thing.

Of course they are monitoring other sites. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't keeping tabs on that sort of thing. My questions are: have they started monitoring Muslim sites in particular recently, only because they are Muslim? Is there any reason, other than the fact that they are Muslim sites, to suspect that these Muslim sites are concealing atomic bombs?

I suspect that the answers to these questions are "yes" and "no". That's why people are so upset. Beardedbruce, your analogy could be phrased a little differently: the police have always stopped people for speeding. After a crime involving a couple of guys with beards, the police start stopping bearded guys a lot, just in case they are speeding, or just because the police think they might be intending to speed at some point in the future. Suddenly the fact that I have a beard means that I am being targeted by secret government investigtions. That's why people are so upset.

John P

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 12:20 AM

"Bush Dead"

Picture of corpse here. News at 11:00.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:41 PM

Dave, I seriously doubt there was no emphasis on interest or "hook". Even the most staid of papers tries for headlines which encapsulate with interest.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:34 PM

An old friend of mine, who was a journalist (reporter, columnist, editor) when he was younger, said something to me that has a bearing here:

"What do you think a headline is? What is the headline writer doing? Is it to summarize the story? Is it to comment on the story? (and more)."

"No. When I was a young cub I was set to writing headlines, and I was told to write 'Something that has to do with the story' that fit the srather arbitrary) space assigned. Period, end of report."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

In most newspapers, there are caption writers, almost totally separate from the reporters and columnists who write the stories and articles. This may also be true of magazines and on television. I have read of reporters who were not at all happy with the captioning. Good caption writing is a skill not everyone has.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 09:40 AM

I can see how you might feel that way, beardedbruce. Personally, I still think the headline and the lead paragraph were a hook to get people to read the rest of the article, which is what the government wanted them to do.

And I still agree with you that CNN is biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 06:37 AM

"a very nice woman with whom you disagree"

I can agree with this statement about CarolC. We don't often agree, but I think I have some idea of her viewpoint. I just do not agree that her world-view at times has much to do with the world I happen to live in.
.........



OK, CarolC, how about this: If al the people who are caught speeding and given tickets include a number, say 30%, who are black, does this mean that the headline "Officials: Blacks subject to penalties for speeding" is a fair representation of the real situation?

And if there were 60% who were white, would the statement "Officials: Whites subject to penalties for speeding" be any better? The IMPLICATION is that others are NOT included.

If the mere mention of a date and a country in the same wentance provides so many here with such definite PROOF of a vast conspiracy, why should I let this statement by the media go by unremarked?








Were ALL Moslems monitored? NO

Were ONLY Moslems monitored? NO

Can you imply that those who were monitored were Moslem? NO


The FACTS are that SOME Moslems, and some others, were monitored. Should we now exempt Moslems ( or Jews, or blacks, or whites) from investigation, regardless of any other evidence, if they ARE Moslem ( or Jews, or blacks, or whites)?

Thus I feel the headline and lead paragraph are biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM

Of course I'm unbiased. If you were perfect like me, you would be unbiased too.

(thnx, Peace)

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:32 PM

"Don't go putting words in my mouth."

I thought I was paraphrasing. If you meant to say that she's a very nice woman with whom you disagree, then I do take back what I said I'd thought you'd said. Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:19 PM

Don't go putting words in my mouth. I didn't say CarolC was the wicked witch of anywhere. My observation was on the silliness of her pronouncing on bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:49 PM

I am saying that Carol states her opinions and fights for them tenaciously. That doesn't make her the wicked witch of the west. As to biased? Probably she is--as are all the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:41 PM

Are you suggesting that CarolC is unbiased? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:40 PM

"And, of course, CarolC herself."

You may not care for Carol's politics, but that is no reason to take your shots from behind the GUEST moniker.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:38 PM

CNN is biased generally, as are all other mainstream media sources in the US and elsewhere.

Indeed, the only unbiased sources are the obscure websites that CarolC quotes ad nauseum. And, of course, CarolC herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:49 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:49 PM

But "thank your blessings," Peace. "Thank your blessings" It isn't easy to put food on your family.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:18 PM

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

My, that man has a way with words, doesn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:16 PM

I don't think that's a very effective analogy, beardedbruce, because I can't imagine a context like the one you describe.

The headline and opening paragraph they used serve as a hook to grab people's attention and get them to open and read the whole article, in particular the part the government wants you to see... the part in which the government makes its case that it is not specifically targeting Muslims for this kind of testing.

I've seen this story pop up in other contexts, so I know it was around before the story you posted the link to. The government had to find a way to get people to read its version of events, and your article is probably the most effective way for them to do it... fool people into thinking they're about to read an article slamming the govt, only to find themselves reading the government's official version of events instead. I'd say it's a pretty effective strategy. They even fooled you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: GUEST,Buzz
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 02:58 PM

How dare them to search for and seize radiation?

Radiation is private property and even though it travels through public air space for an indefinite time, for an indefinite distance and is eventually lost, never to return to the owner, (like stink on crap), it should not be sought or detected by the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 01:34 PM

CarolC,

So, if you were being investigated with 50% of the population of your state for having voted Democrat, you would approve of headlines that said "Officials: CarolC subject to investigation for voting Democrat"

Not that I am implying ( or not implying) that you voted Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:05 PM

How can you call that article biased, beardedbruce? It represents both sides of the issue. In fact, most of the article is devoted to what the government has to say on the matter rather than what the Muslim groups have to say about it, so if there is any bias there, it is in favor of the government.

Or do you consider "bias" to be any mention at all about the side with which you disagree? If that's your definition, I guess the only way you would consider the article to be not biased is if CNN only presented the government's perspective and no one else's.

Having said all of that, I agree that CNN is biased generally, as are all other mainstream media sources in the US and elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 11:13 AM

Police and security tend to be prejudiced. If a little girl is killed in Germany they look for males between 18 and 40 and among those males they look for former offenders and if the girl has a stepfather they grill him. They are making guesses from past experience. That can lead them astray but usually this method of searching is better than a random search from telephone book entries.

I wonder what they should do: Make the radiation monitoring openly? ("Slow down. DC radiation monitoring checkpoint") Not do any radiation monitoring? Make the radiation monitoring on repesentative samples only? ("Excuse us but your home has been drawn this morning by a random number procedure for today's radiation check in Oklahoma").

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:10 PM

I agree with both sides!

1) Yes. The mainstream media have learned well from The National Enquirer, Globe, Star, ad nauseam, that the public responds to inflammatory and ridiculous and misleading and unfair and false headlines. The tabloids make lots of money and I'm sure that many a managing editor watches those figures with lust in his/her heart.

2) Yes. We have no way of knowing if the disclaimers are true. Only time - and not always then - clarifies the news.

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 10:56 AM

And then, of course, there's this.

No anti-Muslim bias in the good old [christian] god-fearing freedom-loving US of A!

Let's see 'em detain participants in a christian[sic] religious conference on the theory that they're probably involved in the bombing of abortion clinics and/or the murder of doctors that perform abortions.


Judge won't limit border inspections of Muslim conference-goers

By CAROLYN THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer
December 22, 2005, 4:31 PM EST

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A judge Thursday refused to prohibit U.S. border officers from conducting potentially lengthy security checks on Muslim-Americans on their way home from a religious conference in Canada that begins Friday...

ARTICLE HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Bias on CNN
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 10:15 AM

All part of that vast left-wing media bias we hear so much about.

And of course you can believe an official FBI 'spokesperson' without question.

I believe, I do
I believe its true
I believe exactly what they tell me to....