Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Media Bias

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,196

    Default Media Bias

    Did anyone catch the piece in the New Statesman discussing the media's influence on the far-right? I dunno how much truth there is to it, but it makes sense to me and certainly rings true from what I've seen since 2016. There's definitely been a ramping up of rhetoric across the usual suspects, The Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Express and so on have been foaming at the mouth to an absurd degree for a couple of years now.

    A partisan media is fuelling far-right extremism — we need to wake up | The press does not just reflect the attitudes of its readers, it creates and shapes them. - https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...m-we-need-wake

    A particularly interesting and powerful recent study by two economists looked at US cable channels, which remain the main source of news on political campaigns, even in the digital age. They isolate viewers who view these channels simply because of their place in the channel ranking, rather than because of their political preferences, in order to look at how influential the channel was.

    They found that the existence of Fox News boosted the Republican vote share in 2000 by about 0.5 per cent, which fits with another study that used a different method to isolate the influence of Fox. However, the growing viewership and increasingly right-wing stance of Fox swelled its impact on the Republican vote share in 2008 to a huge 6 per cent, a far greater influence than that of any other channel.

    An equally revealing finding is that the political stance of Fox is far to the right of where it should be to maximise viewers. In other words, Fox is broadcasting material that maximises its ability to shift its audience to the right, rather than to maximise its profits.
    ... this study found that when Murdoch’s Sun switched support to Labour, it increased the party’s vote in 1997 by 2 per cent. That was not enough to influence the result, but when the Sun switched back to the Conservatives in 2010, it had a similar impact in the opposite direction, which was enough to influence that result. Newspapers influence attitudes towards austerity, and the best predictor of attitudes on immigration is newspaper readership.

    Whether the rise of far-right parties and groups is an unintended consequence is less clear, particularly when the BBC chooses to broadcast an interview with a far-right leader straight after the murder of 50 people in New Zealand. There is academic evidence that media coverage of far-right groups such as Ukip increases support for them and, as I have already noted, this is partly why Trump became the Republican presidential candidate.

    But the main reason the partisan media now use such language is to “fire up the base”, who in turn will influence politicians in the way media owners want. This route of influence is well-established in the US, which is why David Frum, a former speechwriter to George W. Bush, says “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us. And now we’re discovering we work for Fox.” We are now seeing it happen over Brexit, as Conservative MPs who oppose a no-deal Brexit are targeted for deselection and would-be leaders play to a base which is heavily influenced by the partisan press it reads.
    Last edited by version; 21-12-2019 at 09:00 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    ... this study found that when Murdoch’s Sun switched support to Labour, it increased the party’s vote in 1997 by 2 per cent. That was not enough to influence the result, but when the Sun switched back to the Conservatives in 2010, it had a similar impact in the opposite direction, which was enough to influence that result.
    which leads one to believe that lots of people have no core convictions, otherwise how could they swing to a polar opposite position and voting record in short time? tribalism seems to be the order of the day, so whatever side the tribe (aka, Murdoch's media outlets) is on is good enough for readers/viewers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,196

    Default

    Yeah, the thing is "the tribe" seems to keep shifting to the right.

  4. #4

    Default

    Edit: wrong thread.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    which leads one to believe that lots of people have no core convictions, otherwise how could they swing to a polar opposite position and voting record in short time? tribalism seems to be the order of the day, so whatever side the tribe (aka, Murdoch's media outlets) is on is good enough for readers/viewers.
    A colleague of mine told me he's voted Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and UKIP. And this was an intelligent guy, well educated and qualified, doing a highly technical job.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    an intelligent guy
    ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    ?
    Well, seemingly, at any rate. Not very politically clued up, clearly.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,196

    Default

    Anyone else concerned about what's happening behind the scenes at the BBC?

    They seem happy to give people on the right carte blanche to say more or less whatever they want whilst insisting on 'balance' when it comes to things like climate change, they're regularly caught allowing Tory and UKIP plants into the Question Time audience, Kuenssberg was found to have broken impartiality and accuracy guidelines in her reporting on Corbyn and there are rumours that at least one editor is cosy with Farage and Murdoch.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32,175

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,313

    Default

    The Telegraph has gone full InfoWars:

    _20191221_103027.JPG

    This is a problem for someone like my dad, who started buying it decades ago when it was a 'quality paper' that had obviously right-wing talking points in its opinion columns but could generally be relied on to report facts on the front page, and who doesn't realise that's no longer the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32,175

    Default

    I was reading about the money pumped into climate change denialism today in that book 'dark money'. Mega zillions. And it worked really really well.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32,175

    Default

    I think we should kill them. They're out of control.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,196

    Default

    BBC could restrict journalists’ use of Twitter

    The BBC is considering restricting its journalists’ use of Twitter. If the plan is approved, top correspondents will be told to move away from using online platforms to break stories or offer instant analysis.

    The proposal follows criticism of online comments made by staff during the election campaign. Political editor Laura Kuenssberg was attacked by some Jeremy Corbyn supporters for repeating, along with other pundits, a false allegation that a Tory minister’s aide had been punched by a Labour activist. North America editor Jon Sopel has meanwhile been accused of tweets that reveal a critical stance on Donald Trump.

    Now Fran Unsworth, the director of news and current affairs, is believed to be keen to persuade journalists to end the practice of frequently posting on politics and current affairs.

    “She said that it was likely she would meet some resistance, but that she wants to start a debate and was now contemplating asking correspondents to come off Twitter,” said a BBC journalist. Unsworth is thought to have outlined her plans at a party held in the BBC Council Chamber in old Broadcasting House.

    This weekend, those close to Unsworth say she would only have joked about banning Twitter use altogether, but that she is believed to be serious about at least applying the BBC’s social media guidance more stringently. Speaking to the Guardian last weekend Unsworth acknowledged the journalistic effectiveness of Twitter and said: “We just need to reinforce our social media rules. But I don’t think it’s viable to say take a step back.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...alists-twitter

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    595

    Default



    Pitting them against eachother while Biden runs away with it. Sanders got fucked over by CNN last time around too, didn't he?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    worst debate this cycle. while our democracy crumbles at the hand of a corrupt wannabe-authoritarian, fucking CNN loading up on good-TV soundbite gotcha questions, asked in a way that always pits one candidate against another ("Senator Warren believes XYZ, why is she wrong?").

    I'd vote for the first candidate who tells the moderator "that's a stupid questions, no one cares about that bullshit".

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •