What is "MSM" bias? Here is a simple example.

[healthmyths]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If you have HBO, I suggest watching VICE News. Comes on weekdays at 6:30pm CST. They have good coverage, and the best part is, they try to stay out of politics as much as they can, and when they DO report, they simply tell you what happened and let you make up your own mind.

I think they are becoming my favorite news source.

 

[BluesLegend]

Now MSM bias that's settled science. On the bright side their faces looked so grim when Trump won you would have thought their house burned to the ground the day after their insurance lapsed.

 

[MaryL]

I used to listen to NPR all the time. With bright eyes and a open mind. Now, just with clenched teeth and a grain of salt. I now hold NPR (and all other popular media) at arms length. Now they are not much better than National Inquirer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

 

[The Great Goose]

it's of grave concern.

 

[MaryL]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Bias is bias, and facts are FACTS. Liberals (I used to be one), they think they have a lock on Facts. They of late, only seem to have a lock on the media and propaganda groupthink. Not the same thing.

 

[Norman]

We are far past the point of "bias". No, this is not bias, what we are witnessing is outright propaganda.

Or if you will #FakeNews.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Bias is bias, and facts are FACTS. Liberals (I used to be one), they think they have a lock on Facts. They of late, only seem to have a lock on the media and propaganda groupthink. Not the same thing.

Glad you're not anymore. Hope the door left a bruise on your way out.

 

[owebo]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Bias is bias, and facts are FACTS. Liberals (I used to be one), they think they have a lock on Facts. They of late, only seem to have a lock on the media and propaganda groupthink. Not the same thing.

Congratulations on your enlightenment.....keep,walking right, you'll see us there next to Liberty.....

 

[MaryL]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Bias is bias, and facts are FACTS. Liberals (I used to be one), they think they have a lock on Facts. They of late, only seem to have a lock on the media and propaganda groupthink. Not the same thing.

Glad you're not anymore. Hope the door left a bruise on your way out.

It left a major bruise. I was so disappointed and disillusioned with liberalism. It hurts. I am left speechless, no words to express my sense of betrayal. Yes, total betrayal of liberalism. Everything it ever meant, for fleeting nothingness to do empty things for vapid reasons. Liberalism wasn't about that. It was a real thing about reality and alternatives and for the right reasons, not bullying smugg self righteousness elitism.

 

[jillian]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

you mean mainstream is anything that isn't rightwingnut propaganda.....

by definition, mainstream means NORMAL.... we know you haven't a clue as to what normal is.

 

[owebo]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

you mean mainstream is anything that isn't rightwingnut propaganda.....

by definition, mainstream means NORMAL.... we know you haven't a clue as to what normal is.

Your democrat plantation in not normal....

 

[Pogo]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

"Why" doesn't belong on this list. That's analysis, not news. News is simply who/what/where/when.

It's really very simple. News is a fact. "X" happened. Details -- "X" happened in place A, at time B, involving people C, D and E.

Editorial is opinion on why "X" happened, what it means that "X" happened, why it's a good or bad thing that "X" happened.

As far as your list CNN, NPR and Fox all have at least segments where they report straight news, as in real news. They're not necessarily always clear about which is which though. Particular example is when FNC is broadcasting Sean Hannity -- a commentator not a journalist -- while the logo "Fox News" sits in the corner. That's deliberately muddying the waters.

I don't know that NPR does editorials at all, though they will have talking heads on to analyze, as will pretty much everybody.

What you didn't mention here is another distinction that's rather critical, and that is: commercial vs noncommercial.

A commercial entity has as its incentive gathering listeners/viewers/readers. That biases it toward the sensational, because that's what sells those listeners/viewers/readers. That's why you'll see a thousand stories and shows on how Michael Jackson died and the OJ Simpson trial and nary a word about the government giving away vast tracts of broadcast real estate to giant corporations in TelComm 96.

That's got all kinds of implications. When a single entity whether it's NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Inc, whoever --- controls a vast network of television, radio, book publishing, newspaper publishing, movie productions, even sports teams and venues --- it very much gets to dictate what "the news" is, and what "the news" isn't . Especially if a sponsor doesn't like the way some program is going, e.g. Monsanto pressuring Fox to the point where Fox is telling its employees "we just paid umpteen million dollars for this station -- we'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is". And then there's the conflict of interest problem --- if you're GE and you're neck deep in military contracts and nuclear power, then your TV network NBC is not going to get a whole lot of leeway to cover Defense Department spending or nuclear power issues.

To name a couple.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, with all the talking heads theorizing about why someone said something, or why they did some action or other is pretty boring to me. That's kinda why the only "real" news that I watch anymore is the NBC Nightly news, BBC World News, and HBO's new show VICE News. BTW............if you have HBO, you should really give VICE News a viewing or two. Pretty much just the who, what, where and when, they don't go into the why during reporting.

 

[healthmyths]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

"Why" doesn't belong on this list. That's analysis, not news. News is simply who/what/where/when.

It's really very simple. News is a fact. "X" happened. Details -- "X" happened in place A, at time B, involving people C, D and E.

Editorial is opinion on why "X" happened, what it means that "X" happened, why it's a good or bad thing that "X" happened.

As far as your list CNN, NPR and Fox all have at least segments where they report straight news, as in real news. They're not necessarily always clear about which is which though. Particular example is when FNC is broadcasting Sean Hannity -- a commentator not a journalist -- while the logo "Fox News" sits in the corner. That's deliberately muddying the waters.

I don't know that NPR does editorials at all, though they will have talking heads on to analyze, as will pretty much everybody.

What you didn't mention here is another distinction that's rather critical, and that is: commercial vs noncommercial.

A commercial entity has as its incentive gathering listeners/viewers/readers. That biases it toward the sensational, because that's what sells those listeners/viewers/readers. That's why you'll see a thousand stories and shows on how Michael Jackson died and the OJ Simpson trial and nary a word about the government giving away vast tracts of broadcast real estate to giant corporations in TelComm 96.

That's got all kinds of implications. When a single entity whether it's NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Inc, whoever --- controls a vast network of television, radio, book publishing, newspaper publishing, movie productions, even sports teams and venues --- it very much gets to dictate what "the news" is, and what "the news" isn't . Especially if a sponsor doesn't like the way some program is going, e.g. Monsanto pressuring Fox to the point where Fox is telling its employees "we just paid umpteen million dollars for this station -- we'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is". And then there's the conflict of interest problem --- if you're GE and you're neck deep in military contracts and nuclear power, then your TV network NBC is not going to get a whole lot of leeway to cover Defense Department spending or nuclear power issues.

To name a couple.

Did you ever take ANY journalism classes in college?
I did and that is what they taught back in the 60s BEFORE journalism became biased. The 5 Ws included WHY.

I didn't include the examples in my original post.
Here are specific examples of how the MSM, i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC,NYT,WashingtonPost,NewsWeek,Time presents "news" in a biased fashion.
First REMEMBER the distinction between editorial and NEWS.
Examples of editorializing.. Rush,Hannity, almost any radio or newspaper editorial i.e. opinion pieces. These are biased but they let you know.
Now for examples of BIASED reporting starting with the very earliest example of a "NEWS" cast biasing viewers.

Read what Walter Cronkite did to 56,000 DEAD americans when he said this on his evening news.
Cronkite’s report, writes Brinkley, was "immediately seen as a catalyst by pundits in the Monday newspapers. . . . Cronkite turned dove, and the hawk Johnson lost his talons." This tracks with what Halberstam wrote in his 1979 book, The Powers That Be:
"It was the first time in American history that a war has been declared over by an anchorman." Lyndon Johnson was said to have watched the broadcast and exclaimed to his press secretary, George Christian, "If I have lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America."

And here is what Cronkite said on closing his CBS News broadcast Feb. 27, 1968.
Then, with as much restraint as I could, I turned to our own leaders whose idea of negotiation seemed frozen in memories of General McArthur's encounter with the Japanese aboard the Battleship Missouri.

We've been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders...
Both in Vietnam and Washington to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. For it seems now more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, if unsatisfactory conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.
Final Words: Cronkite's Vietnam Commentary

BUT CRONKITE WAS SO SO VERY WRONG!!!
And because of him the TET OFFENSIVE which WAS a victory was pronounced by Cronkite as a DEFEAT worthy of the USA withdrawing.
Which we DID!

In the late-January calm of a Lunar New Year cease-fire, seventy thousand communist troops shattered the celebration, attacking more than a hundred South Vietnamese cities and towns. They struck along the coast, then presumed secure. They shelled the big U.S. complex at Cam Ranh Bay and stormed numerous towns in the central highlands. They attacked the mountain resort of Dalat and invaded thirteen of sixteen provincial capitals in the Mekong Delta. They captured the ancient northern capital of Hue and carried the war into the heart of Saigon—even into the U.S. embassy compound.
But Tet had been a desperation move by North Vietnam, beset by a relentless American killing machine. And the Allied response was awesome. The communists lost ten thousand men in the first few days of the offensive, compared to 249 Americans dead and five hundred South Vietnamese. Overall, throughout the months-long battle, the communists lost nearly forty-eight thousand men. The North Vietnamese had sought to deliver the decisive military blow that would knock the Americans out of the region. They failed.
They failed so miserably that they lost their ability to wage war in the South. Even a year later, as Richard Nixon assumed the presidency, CIA director Richard Helms told Newsweek columnist Stewart Alsop that the communist main force in Vietnam had been decimated in the 1968 fighting so thoroughly that it would take considerable time for Hanoi to rebuild its forces.
Into this military drama, in the first weeks of Tet, comes Walter Cronkite of CBS News. He travels around, talks to people like a real reporter, presumably takes notes. And then he goes home and delivers a report to the American people that totally misses the story. At this pregnant moment of the war, when prospects of victory never looked brighter, he concludes that the war is a stalemate and probably unwindable.
Cronkite's Vietnam Blunder

Now I know that the above is a lot of reading for attention deficit people like most on this forum...BUT READ carefully this first example of how
a major American policy was ALTERED by the biased and personal subjective observation of the "most trusted newsman in America"!!!

And this is just one of thousands of examples of MSM bias... here is a teaser...

What MSM magazine editor gushed over Obama after he said this about Bush...
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.http://newsbusters.org/node/10631

this hard core objective editor of NewsWeek said of Obama!!!
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god

I've collected dozens of examples of the thousands of news pieces from the MSM, i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC,NYT,WashingtonPost,NewsWeek,Time and
will continue to share in this OP until most of you objective intelligent forum readers concur as
Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

 

[healthmyths]

Here is another example of MSM BIAS!!!

I just in last 4 minutes did a google search on "Trump anti-immigrant"...About 39,100 results
including this MSM Time magazine article... See any adjective missing here?
ILLEGAL!!!

Poll Shows Limits Of Donald Trump's Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric | TIME
time.com/4464831/donald-trump-mexico-wall-election-poll/
Aug 25, 2016 - Donald Trump has built a campaign built on stoking anti-immigrant sentiment, but a new poll shows most Americans don't agree with him.

Donald Trump's Anti-Immigration Strategy - The Atlantic
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/trumps-unspeakable...to.../458748/

Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric could lose Republicans the 2016 ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../donald-trump-anti-immigrant-2016-election-republican...

Now I'm going to put in big bold letters this gross distinction.

Trump is married to a "legal immigrant"! My daughter-in-law is a "legal immigrant"...

45.3 million legally reside in the United States. ....
Study: 61 Million Immigrants Living in the US - Newsmax.com

So how in the hell would Trump be "anti-immigrant" with a "immigrant" wife? Or me be anti-immigrant? Or 45.3 million LEGAL immigrants???

But this is a truly classic illustration of the MSM continuing the biased reporting as "NEWS"!

 

[usmbguest5318]

this MSM Time magazine article... See any adjective missing here? ILLEGAL!!!

Re: the Time article:

What? The first sentence of that article sets the context that the immigrants being discussed are illegal. "Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans." What is an undocumented immigrant but illegal? Do you need to be hit in the head to realize that?

A bit later in the article, Trump is quoted as saying, "“People are being decimated by illegal immigrants. The crime is unbelievable.”

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/trumps-unspeakable...to.../458748/

]This article isn't even a news article and it isn't about public policy. It's a very high level analysis of political strategy that speculates upon the political expedience and potential effectiveness (given the date of publication) of Trump's stand on immigration. As as article that's about political strategy, the illegal versus legal aspect of illegal immigrants' status doesn't matter. The article doesn't attempt to make a case of any sort about the policy making or factual legitimacy of Trump's position on immigrants. It's about the how his rhetoric pertaining to immigrants lets him distinguish himself from mainstream Republicans and any Democrats while at the same time allowing him to with on broad brushstroke lump all of his opponents together so he can oppose them collectively rather than having to use one tactic for one opponent or class of them and another for others.
​

You say you took journalism classes, but I don't know why anyone let you do that given your poor ability, or unwillingness - I don't know which it is, to comprehend or completely read the material that comes your way. I presume you failed them because your diatribe suggests you don't understand the difference between a story and a headline. You're carping about the headline, but the substantive content of the two articles you noted doesn't contextually misrepresent Trump, and neither supports your claim that the MSM is biased.​

 

[healthmyths]

this MSM Time magazine article... See any adjective missing here? ILLEGAL!!!

Re: the Time article:

What? The first sentence of that article sets the context that the immigrants being discussed are illegal. "Donald Trump has characterized many undocumented immigrants as criminals or as people who take jobs away from struggling Americans." What is an undocumented immigrant but illegal? Do you need to be hit in the head to realize that?

A bit later in the article, Trump is quoted as saying, "“People are being decimated by illegal immigrants. The crime is unbelievable.”

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/trumps-unspeakable...to.../458748/

]This article isn't even a news article and it isn't about public policy. It's a very high level analysis of political strategy that speculates upon the political expedience and potential effectiveness (given the date of publication) of Trump's stand on immigration. As as article that's about political strategy, the illegal versus legal aspect of illegal immigrants' status doesn't matter. The article doesn't attempt to make a case of any sort about the policy making or factual legitimacy of Trump's position on immigrants. It's about the how his rhetoric pertaining to immigrants lets him distinguish himself from mainstream Republicans and any Democrats while at the same time allowing him to with on broad brushstroke lump all of his opponents together so he can oppose them collectively rather than having to use one tactic for one opponent or class of them and another for others.
​

You say you took journalism classes, but I don't know why anyone let you do that given your poor ability, or unwillingness - I don't know which it is, to comprehend or completely read the material that comes your way. I presume you failed them because your diatribe suggests you don't understand the difference between a story and a headline. You're carping about the headline, but the substantive content of the two articles you noted doesn't contextually misrepresent Trump, and neither supports your claim that the MSM is biased.​

Who reads the articles????? Most non-thinking people read headlines/or "breaking news' by TV talking heads!
MOST non-intelligent people don't pay attention to the details. Hence the headlines for example "Trump Anti-Immigrant" is what is remembered!
Again... the FACTS are most intelligent people don't want headlines/news interpreting for them!
As the below chart shows, most of us totally discount the MSM as being one-sided and presenting a very negative picture of
people like us that question their "objectivity"!

Majority of U.S. adults say news media should not add interpretation

Finally you tell me if these two studies don't confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals/democrats/Obama/Hillary...


Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

 

[Pogo]

Did you ever take ANY journalism classes in college?
I did and that is what they taught back in the 60s BEFORE journalism became biased. The 5 Ws included WHY.

Uh really Sparkles?

Is that "why" you created a thread on the topic of which hand O'bama wipes his ass with on the toilet?