This contention has been made before: please explain how exactly it is valid?

Question

I have never claimed, nor would I, that the media is liberal or conservative. In some cases there might be a bias presented, perhaps often, but I shall not paint a broad stroke over it. With that disclaimer out of the way, why exactly do people think ownership proves bias? Do people really believe it is impossible for the product to not reflect its owners ideology? The ownership argument makes no sense to me. It looks like people are using associations as proof, and exaggerating their quality as evidence.

Am I the only one that thinks the ownership argument is weak and highly flawed?

That's it. You cite Murdoch? I don't even know what his actual politics are. I doubt you do either. I suppose you have more than anecdotal evidence to back up your assertion?

Answer 1

the ownership argument is relavant but not the only factor.
Many old news media owners would make the news dept independnat and not a profit center out of integrity. but they are dying out and profit news companies are buying them up or forcing them out in ratings wars. so be suspicious and consider the source.
Also, do not confuse the media with the opinion shows that have no ethical history or requirement to be unbiased and objective.
this includes bill riley, scarboro, mathews, rush limbaugh, olberman, hannity and colmes, nancy grace, etc etc. those are simply news commentators, not as funny as jon stewart, but just as biased in their own way and thats OK. it is "infotainment'
the mainstream news media has a better track record for objectivity, if not accuracy. few bother to dig up stories or confrm but take what they are handed out by the authorities.
being of a certain opinion may not be actual bias, as with that anderson guy on 360, but it comes across as slanted so may as well be. but it is hard to be a robot when reporting the facts as so many facts are grim .
you, as educated info consumer must cross check facts and take everything with a grain of salt and do not believe everything you hear as if gospel.

Answer 2

You make a fine point; very often, ownership indicates only the owner's understanding of a business venture's potential rather then any personal beliefs outside that venture. An excellent example of this might be Mr.Ted Haggard, who made a great deal of money marketing a belief system he himself was clearly uninterested in following!

It has always baffled me a little that people are surprised if the media shows a slight bent towards people who think they might have less than others (and consequently adopt political positions that might do them the most good), there are more of them!

Answer 3

given the fact media outlets are not only sources of info but actually business enterprises, ownership is relevant question. even though many outlets try to minimize biases any business will reflect biases through the selection or presentation of info. media is 'selling info' to the public. the public uses this to regulate the industry (e.g. oj simpson and fox interview...hey, some people may call it censorship or 1st amendment infringement, though)...but i digress,

it's what capitialism is all about...free marketplace whether the product is goods, services, ideas, or information.

Answer 4

I give you Rupert Murdoch.