The REAL media bias

[Guest Cerebus]

So, especially while we had Mikey around, there were endless arguments about the bias in the media: whether or not its "liberal" or "conservative." Of course it can't be denied that some media outlettes are affected by their authors/broadcasters (CBS), their editorial board (every newspaper ever), or a target audience (OMGFAUX...you know the rest).

 

But the REAL media bias isn't "liberal" or "conservative." Here's the real media bias:

 

 

Don't believe me? I decided to do a little observation. I decided to take a peak at today's edition of the New York Times. I'm picking the Times because many see it as very "liberal" and it has a certain amount of prestige. So, I took today's front page section, no different than most other days, and see how many ads are in it. So let's begin (The size of these ads are an estimation on my part):

 

Page A1: One small ad in the bottom right hand corner for Emigrantdirect.com.

Page A2: 5 1/9th size ads for Chanel, Movado, Cartier, Graff, and Breguet.

Page A3: 4 1/9th size ads for Tiffany, Saks, Lord & Taylor, and Bloomingdales.

Page A4: 5 1/9th size ads for Harry Winston, Ripka, Longchamp, Bergdorf Goodman, and Tod's.

Page A5: A full page ad for the first season of Entoourage.

Page A6: A half page ad for Xerox.

Page A7: A 2/3rd page ad for Harrisdirect.

Page A8: A 4/9th page ad for Continental Airlines, 2 1/9th page ads for Frankstella and LaserPine Center.

Page A9: A 2/3rd page ad for Dell.

Page A10: A 1/4th ad for Wood Classics.

Page A11: A 1/4th ad for Marquis Jet.

Page A12: A 1/4th ad for New York Times ads (no, that's not a joke).

Page A13: A 1/3rd ad for Air France.

Page A14: No ads.

Page A15: No ads (obituaries).

Page A16 & A17: No ads (editorials).

Page A18: A full page ad for Sprint.

 

That's 27 ads in 18 pages (1.5 ads per page). A rough calculation had the ads taking up about 6.88 pages altogether (almost 40% of the entire front page section). Now, hopefully, you're hopefully beginning to see the real media bias.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Well, in addition to print ads, you could also argue that stories covered by television reports are geared towards ratings. Whatever generates the highest ratings is what is shown. More of the media Bia$.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah, newspapers have lots of ads.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

You better cool out w/ your controversial views there, Czech.

[Ripper 0]

Its almost as if they are selling ad space in their paper. That would be purely unethical.

 

 

Not that any newspaper would ever do anything like that.

[Guest Cerebus]

There is such a thing as excess. The more ads you sell, the more you're beholden to companies.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Cerebus is right on track with this. Of course TV, Newspapers, etc. are ALLOWED to sell ads. It's that they are GEARED entirely towards serving the advertisers rather than serving the public interest. So when they choose stories to put on the front page or at the beginning of a news broadcast they will always choose the story that will serve the interest of the people and companies who buy the advertising.

 

For example: The Lewinsky Scandal being reported really didn't serve any public interest that wasn't purient. But OH BOY did it catch ratings! Like Clinton or hate him people were INTO that story. So we all got ourselves a nice blowjob story to talk about at the dinner table with the kids. Isn't that nice? You can bet thought that the ad rates during that portion of the news broadcast was alot higher than say... later around the time of the weather report. This is of course how TV works. But it isn't always how the NEWS has worked. It's changed alot over the years and not always for the better. Corporations Uber Alles.

[CanadianChris 0]

What's the picture? It got red X'ed.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think local news is particularly guilty of this.

 

Local channel don't know what's going to happen, obviously, so they have to spike ratings by advertising big exposes on controversial topics and make every medical study sound like they've discovered the latest health episdemic, make every story on the economy sound like the next depression is just around the corner, and every allegation against a celebrity sound like the trial of the century.

 

Local news makes me sick.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Whoa. I don't know where this new attitude came from, but it's a lot more honest and I like it.

 

Another trend is that so much broadcasting media is owned by the same media tycoons. Viacom, Time-Warner, NBC/Universal, and my perennial favorite Disney all apply here.

 

If you think that doesn't have any effect on the news then you're nuts. The sad thing is that it doesn't take the form of a journalism bias so much as it does fluff stories appearing out of nowhere. I bet when The Sopranos ends late this year, that HBO parent company Time-Warner runs a big story about the series in their Time Magazine over more interesting news.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Don't forget Clearchannel. They're one of the worst offenders.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Well done, Cerebus. You can do this with just about any newspaper, no matter what they're perceived editorial bias is. It's really more dependent upon the companies that are purchasing advertisements in your paper. That's where the money is in the print business.

 

I mean, I still feel that you will find a political bias in the media, but at the same time, I feel that the real motivation is the bottomline.

 

--Ryan

...ah, fun times...fun times...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm reading a book called The Tipping Point and it talks about how little things like a news anchor's facial expressions when discussing a candidate might have a bigger impact on an election that outright political bias. There was a study done of this back in the 80s where Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw were all analyzed whenever they discussed one of the Presidential candidates.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I liked Jennings saying "Let's see how things are progressing in Florida, where hopefully they get it right this time" during election coverage.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The funniest part was that they did...

[Red Baron 0]

Of course its ads.

 

How else do you think papers turn profit? Subscription?

 

Its rediculous how much a single piece of page cost, plus the colour, plus the quantity of it.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I think local news is particularly guilty of this.

 

Local channel don't know what's going to happen, obviously, so they have to spike ratings by advertising big exposes on controversial topics and make every medical study sound like they've discovered the latest health episdemic, make every story on the economy sound like the next depression is just around the corner, and every allegation against a celebrity sound like the trial of the century.

 

Local news makes me sick.

That's just because you live in KC, like me, where the news is about KCTV5 hunting down pedophiles, WDAF4 exposing "Car stealing rings out to get you" and all that stuff.

 

But yeah, I've been saying it for years. The Media is biased towards money.

 

The New York Times makes more per ad they sell than per subscription. Who do you think has the bigger voice?

[NoCalMike 0]

I think local news is particularly guilty of this.

 

Local channel don't know what's going to happen, obviously, so they have to spike ratings by advertising big exposes on controversial topics and make every medical study sound like they've discovered the latest health episdemic, make every story on the economy sound like the next depression is just around the corner, and every allegation against a celebrity sound like the trial of the century.

 

Local news makes me sick.

Tell me about it, one of our local news channels has it's program produced by a company in Florida and then fed to them. I mean come on WTF.

[NoCalMike 0]

The mere fact that the Iraq War is barely even covered anymore should tell you all you need to know about the media. Even when it is covered it is covered like a sports scoreboard, "Today in Iraq 60 killed in Car Bombing, 12 wounded" and that is basically it for the story. Gone is any debate, any discussion of what exactly is taking place over there right now, or the fact that the opposition's violence is growing.

 

Of course it isn't just Iraq, it is many things.

 

Our media is so sensationalism-driven it is sickening, why the runaway bride and Michael Jackson should be covered side by side with the War and the Economy is a question no one can answer.

[SuperJerk 0]

Our media is so sensationalism-driven it is sickening, why the runaway bride and Michael Jackson should be covered side by side with the War and the Economy is a question no one can answer.

Bread and circuses.

[Guest Redhawk]

Companies buy ad space in newspapers so that readers will see their ads and buy their products.

 

Newspapers sell ads in order to pay their operating costs and turn a profit.

 

So after these two things are done, why else would the newspaper need to "cater" to what their advertisers want? They've already got the money from them, right? What exactly would these companies want from a newspaper anyway? And what exactly do you think you're missing in your news coverage because of this "bias"? Is there a big expose on Chanel or Saks that we're not being told because those businesses sells ads in the New York Times?

 

I'd like to hear some more depth on this theory of yours.

[SuperJerk 0]

Aw, shit...gotta pull a "Mike" for this one...

 

So after these two things are done, why else would the newspaper need to "cater" to what their advertisers want?

To keep them happy so they'll get their repeat business.

 

They've already got the money from them, right?

 

They want them to still advertise with them tomorrow, the next day, and all of the days after that one. Newspapers and various other news organizations won't survive long without a steady flow of cash.

 

What exactly would these companies want from a newspaper anyway?

 

Favorable coverage of people and things that will potentially help their business. For example, if Senator X wants to regulate such and such, the newspaper can run story showing the possible negative effects of the regulation. If there's big scandal involving company Y, then company Y's shareholder's might be better served if said scandal was kept on page 11B behind the story about the world's fattest baby.

 

And what exactly do you think you're missing in your news coverage because of this "bias"?

 

The public isn't kept as well informed about things like corporate givaways in Iraq, corporate coruption that might hurt a stock price, or the dangers of product z.

 

Is there a big expose on Chanel or Saks that we're not being told because those businesses sells ads in the New York Times?

I don't know about Chanel or Saks, but many advertised products are from conglomerate companies that have their hands in many pots. And lots of corporate hotshots sit on the boards of more than one company.

 

I'd like to hear some more depth on this theory of yours.

 

Its not MY theory. Economists and sociologists have been charting this behavior for decades.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I think local news is particularly guilty of this.

 

Local channel don't know what's going to happen, obviously, so they have to spike ratings by advertising big exposes on controversial topics and make every medical study sound like they've discovered the latest health episdemic, make every story on the economy sound like the next depression is just around the corner, and every allegation against a celebrity sound like the trial of the century.

 

Local news makes me sick.

Mark it down, RJ. I agree 100%.

[Guest gameplayer]

i think yr dead on about local news, but the largest commodity the media as a whole sells is fear. fear has a myriad of uses, your stomach -body-brain- is not going to work correctly unless you consume these pills, you should be getting more out of life and something is clearly wrong with you if you arent. you should be proud-satisfied -horrified- appalled at the goings on in iraq... all this appeals to basic knee jerk emotional response, even anger at the proliferation of ads in newspapers, and serves to keep our bodies in a constate state of activation or as is more commonly called fight or flight, its like a mass public drugging that takes years off of our lives, why they do this i do not know unless it has something to do with preventing us from becoming meta programmers in the truest sense of the word.

[BruiserKC 0]

Hi folks...long time listener first time poster.

 

To me, the idea of bias in the media is a two-fold issue. One, the media's jobs are not to make everyone happy. Someone's feathers are going to be ruffled on any issue. Whether it's which regional team is better or the school board misappropriating money set aside for the schools...someone's not going to be happy. But I have to wonder when it comes to the money...do some facts get left out on the editor's cutting room floor to make room for the ad for that big fur sale at the local department store?

 

Second, we've become so polarized politically, especially in the United States...that media bias can be interpreted as anything the media puts out that doesn't represent fully and unquestionably...your side of things. If a story mentions the good things that are happening in Iraq, the liberals think you are endorsing the actions of a war criminal. If the story talks about some things not going very well, the conservatives find you a traitor and an American-basher. You can't objectively look at both sides of the story and make everyone happy.