Is saying that media is biased an all too easy way to dismiss reports that question authority?

Question

No President in recent memory liked the press. Not the Democrats, not, the Republicans. Media's failures are many, and most recently, the failure to question the white house's assertions about ties to al qaeda and wmd in Iraq, which, of course, proved false.

But isn't it essential, in a democracy, to have a strong press that reports and investigates, what Presidents do in policy?

Answer 1

Exactly! I also don't need a commentator to explain to me what was said.

Answer 2

Yes, it is. I will grant that much reporting has a decided slant depending on the bias of the reporter, publication, or media outlet. With that being said however, it is important to get the story from the news then go about finding the truth for oneself. With the Internet, there is no reason for people to take things at face value anymore. A lot of questions and seeking unbiased answers go a long way to ferreting out the truth.
No government likes having everything it does scrutinized. (This is why fascist states usually shut down the press first.)But, being subject to scrutiny is a hazard of the job. Any governmental authority that tries to obfuscate, lie, mislead and justify illegal or immoral actions need to be scrutinized all the more. Hence the absolute necessity for the press, and the absolute necessity for it to do its job, no matter how much flak it takes in doing so.

Answer 3

It is, HOWEVER, the media is largely responsible for their ability to be summarily discounted.
The media is SUPPOSED to be a reporter of FACT, not supposition, or guesswork. The media is rightly accused of being way too sensationalistic, scandal mongering, and biased.
The fact that media survives on capturing the attention of the public means that "Market Share", "Selling Newspapers", or "Capturing the public attention" has meant that their work is "Sound Bites", "Headline Oriented", and way too often very superficial and willing to accept "Reliable Sources" as fact.
Add to that the following two (2) factors:
1. The fact that most "Mass Media" is closely controlled by very large corporations (who are very attentive to "Political Correctness", "Not making Waves", and "Bottom Line"--What is your profit?"--"What is your market share?"--"how many newspapers did you sell?", and not "Offending the Powers that Be!")
2. The fact that if the particular "Mass Media" is NOT owned by a very large corporation, it IS owned by a few very rich and powerful individuals who seem to have a particular axe to grind, or a particular political agenda to sell.
These two factors plus the superficial nature has resulted in misstatements of fact--supposition reported as fact--and/or particular bias (be it "Political Correctness" or the "Owner's agenda") minimizes the integrity of the press.

Answer 4

Yes, its an unformed opinion.

Governments control the media directly, and through corporate proxies masquerading as agents of free media. When corporations become the government, or vice versa, the free media becomes the state-controlled media. It matters not whether it's Pravda, The New York Times, Granma, or FOX, the modus operandi is the same, i.e., to protect, defend, and advance the status quo and the dominant economic and political paradigm. The message and the media become one and the same, the message being the preservation of the minority ruling class' power over the majority masses. Being a good member of society means going along with these messages. The masses believe what the ruling elite of the society want them to believe.

The American media/propaganda machine (which the Empire's power moguls have brilliantly portrayed as "liberal" to obfuscate the fact that six corporate conglomerates own 90% of the mainstream media market) has sharply defined the "treasonous", "ineffectual" nature of "liberals", portraying them as soft on crime, sympathetic to those demonic terrorists, Socialists and Communists, immoral, and militarily weak.

Answer 5

Interesting how your list is exclusive to conservative news sources. Back, Limbaugh, Savage and the rest never claimed to be unbiased. Limbaugh has pointed out from the very beginning of his show that he represents conservatives. And if you knew your history he began his show when all of the news shows were heavily liberal biased. How come you don't list CNN, ABC and CBS? Why is their ratings dropping like stones? What ever happened to the Air America talk network? How come they had to pay radio stations to air their shows, while stations have to pay big bucks to get Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity?

Answer 6

Sometimes people in authority that gets media attention usually have some controversial issues that needs to cleared out in public. For an official who finds himself in hot water usually blame media for the biased publicity they receive. But then the issue of bias against media cannot be blamed to people in authority because bias came about from media itself. Past events have shown media bias ... but not all media people resort to this. I believe not all media men is above honesty and integrity when it comes to reporting the truth.

Answer 7

Claiming that every major news network other than Fox is biased is a great way to dismiss anything other than right wing propaganda. Hence all the wacko's who still support Bush.

Answer 8

Yes, saying the media is biased is always a good way to try to gloss over misdeads by your party.
Hitler was very good at it.

Answer 9

Sometimes the media is biased. But that's when it is up to us to figure it out..... Think for yourself..

Answer 10

if you want to place blame, when Bush took office he was warned by Bill Clinton himself that he believed Iraq had womds. that is an "inconvenient truth."