new media bias

[foxpaws]

I listen to a lot of AM radio, both the left & right. After listening to both views for years I came to one conclusion. Most democrats are wacky in their thinking. Not all but most. As far as Obama is concerned, He is just flat out sucks! He is a total joke as far as I am concerned. Wake up America!

So, a good example of immersion in a particular form of media could change your thinking. This isn't a about whether or not mr rich finally realized that the right was "right" it is about the media that shapes us.

AM radio is basically right biased.

Main stream broadcast media is far and away biased to the left.

Newspapers are also left biased, but not to the extent of broadcast.

After my rather short experience here on the internet (new media) I would certainly place the internet media as right biased.

Set aside the fact that you think right is right.

When I google a subject that has left/right viewpoints I slog through the results to find something that perhaps isn't biased, either way. While I find that there certainly are plenty of radical left loonies, I find that for sheer numbers the right leads the search engine results.

I believe that the 'right' is leading the internet media wars - I would think that the 'left' would be more concerned. The media of the future could be the internet, and the right obviously has a number advantage out here.

I was wondering if anyone else had run into the same phenomenon?

Even when doing a little background checking on the religion thread or the constitution thread, the conservative sites had a huge numbers advantage.

I don't say that it is right or wrong - but just that it is a fact, most media, and the internet certainly is media, ends up with bias.

I personally think that it has to do with all those right wing wackys living in mobile homes in remote areas of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho having way tooo much time on their hands, and a satellite uplink at their disposal.

 

[fossten]

Rather than generalizing with such a broad brush, which is a flawed argument, why don't you give some examples that back up your claim.

 

[foxpaws]

Foss, it is meant to be a 'broad brush' description. I have just noticed the rather large number of conservative or 'right' sites when I look for source. Just as a general overview.

I don't think there is anything wrong with it - I was just stating that I think the internet as a media has a somewhat right bias, if you just go by amount of information posted. You can find plenty of left bias, and if you dig, non bias source, but sheer numbers look to be heading towards right bias.

When I was looking for information for instance on the CAC - it was probably 3 to 1 leaning right, and to actually find the CAC website took forever.

It is just an observation, and I was wondering if anyone else had come across the same findings.

Once again - no right or wrong here - more for my edification.

 

[fossten]

Well, you're wrong. Admitting its bias, the new media doesn't purport to be objective journalists, and as such, has more integrity than the Mainstream media, which pretends to be objective while supporting liberal viewpoints and suppressing conservative viewpoints.

So I don't see what you're trying to prove by this thread.

 

[foxpaws]

I am not trying to 'prove' anything Foss - sometimes I am just curious. Not always confrontational Just trying to see if anyone else notices the same thing when they google something.

I am not comparing right or wrong here. I just find it interesting that the internet which is quickly becoming a major main stream media player, has in its rather short life started to show bias. Integrity wasn't in question, just an observation on my part.

I have started to wonder if it is because people who don't feel they have a 'voice' in mainstream (broadcast) media use the internet as a method to express their viewpoints. Anyone can have a website or blog to espouse their ideals.

Do you think if it gets to be too much of a outlet for extremist points of view, that it will also start to be discounted as well? I discount both extremes right away when I come across them - Kos and NRO mostly get shoved into the same 'blick' bin, just as Huffington and Malkin do. I read both sides - but, on those type of sites - wow, it is hard to get beyond the garbage.

 

[fossten]

If the MSM would do its job, there wouldn't be such a perceived need for more voices.

 

[Calabrio]

Bias in the media is not necessarily a bad thing. It's very natural.
The negative is when institutions have historically presented themselves as being neutral and fair voices, when in fact they have been advancing a political agenda for the most of the century.

It's a modern myth that news people are always neutral and objective. One perpetuated by.... other news people usually with left wing motivations.

The New York Times should say on the cover, "all the news fit to print, with a leftist perspective" right on it. The casual consumers should simply be told what the agenda is and then given the choice.

The conservative dominance of talk radio is due to two primary things:
1- the obvious lack of conservative outlets in the media. this was even more true back in the 80s and 90s.

2- the fact that the conservative message simply works better on the radio. Liberal radio tends to be non-stop victimhood and anger. The core principle behind conservative philosophy is self-sufficiency.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Political LIEs Scorecard

"Pants on Fire" Lies about Canditates

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

Since May '08:

Against Dems:
Chain Mail LIEs about Obama: 2
GOP LIE about Obama: 1
McCain LIEs about Obama: 5
Book Author LIE about Obama: 1
NRA LIE about Obama: 1
Politician LIE about Bidin: 1
TOTAL: 11

Against GOP:
Politician LIE about McCain: 1
Chain Mail LIE about Palin: 1
Obama LIE about McCain: 1
Planned Parenthood LIE about McCain: 1
TOTAL: 4

 

[97stscaddy]

AM radio is basically right biased.

Of course it is. Have you ever tried to listen to Air America? There's a reason it went bust. Don't get me wrong there are some good progressive talkers out there, (there's at least two local to my area that are decent) but when you put nothing but radicals on the radio people don't want to listen to it.

Besides that, the liberal left population of this country is made up mostly of people who have no idea AM radio even exists.

 

[fossten]

"Pants on Fire" Lies about Canditates

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

Since May '08:

Against Dems:
Chain Mail LIEs about Obama: 2
GOP LIE about Obama: 1
McCain LIEs about Obama: 5
Book Author LIE about Obama: 1
NRA LIE about Obama: 1
Politician LIE about Bidin: 1
TOTAL: 11

Against GOP:
Politician LIE about McCain: 1
Chain Mail LIE about Palin: 1
Obama LIE about McCain: 1
Planned Parenthood LIE about McCain: 1
TOTAL: 4

Not only is your site full of crap, as several of the items are jokes, but your cherry picking of the results is false as well. You left out several.

You've been back and posted several times, and so far not one post has been substantive, nor have any of your posts had any integrity.

You should be ignored.

Aren't there enough Christians out there for you to persecute?

 

[shagdrum]

So, a good example of immersion in a particular form of media could change your thinking. This isn't a about whether or not mr rich finally realized that the right was "right" it is about the media that shapes us.

Actually the exact opposite is most likely the case here. It is next to impossible to be completely immersed in right wing media in this country. Yet to avoid being immersed entirely in left wing media, you have to actively go out and seek right wing media. The casual news-goer is immersed in left wing media.

It would seem that what most likely happened is that being exposed to both sides allowed a reasonable individual to see which side was making the more reasonable argument and which was not.