[lit-ideas] Re: The nature of Media Bias

As I understand it, complaints of media bias fall into
two categories:

1.) The he said, she said game, or what Paul Krugman
gripes about. Basicly, reporters tend to just quote
opposing positions instead of doing even basic fact
checking, as in budget deficit projections, which
would show the other side to be wrong. This falls
under general distaste of academics for blatant
nonsense being published and is an entirely justified
rant in my opinion. This favours those passing
disinformation, which often is the party in power.
(For another example, I've yet to hear a single
journalist ask the basic and painfully obvious
question about Patriot Act, how exactly will this help
make us safer?)

2.) They are not covering my issues rant. Talk to any
activist for allmost any cause and you'll hear this. I
think is really about news selection criteria, either
touching human interest stories or big topical issues.
 The thing is that right-wing hot button issues don't
really make very good news, a biology class about
evolution just isn't very exiciting. But take a
left-wing issue like poverty and you get heart
breaking footage. But then again, for example tax cuts
aren't high drama, but they are Important News and
neither side has no trouble getting their voices heard
on it.


Counting references is both easy and plain silly.



Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland


                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: