You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Media Bias’ tag.
How many people are well-read enough to see what is happening? The assault on journalism and journalistic values in the name of bloody acquiescence to power grinds onward. A excerpt from Robert Fisk’s article “We Do Not Live in a “Post Truth” World, We Live in a World of Lies and We Always Have.”
“Today, you can not only deny history – the Armenian and Jewish Holocausts, Anne Frank’s diary, the gas chambers of Auschwitz – you can also tell fibs, big or small, about almost anything which annoys you. The Middle East, with our journalistic help, is deep in the same false world. Every dictator is now fighting “terrorism” – along with the US, Nato, the EU, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran, the entire Arab Gulf (minus Yemen, for rather embarrassing reasons), China, Japan, Australia and – who knows? – Greenland as well.
But justice is not on the menu. This is a word which few politicians, statesmen, even journalists, any longer use. Neither Trump nor Clinton, nor the Brexiteers, have talked about justice. I’m not talking about justice for victims of “terror”, or Brits who think they’ve been cheated by the EU, but real justice for entire nations, for peoples, for the Middle East, even – dare I mention them? – for Palestinians. They do not live in a “post-truth” world. They’ve been living among other people’s lies for decades.
The only effect of last year’s political earthquakes is that we shall feel less guilty in repeating all these lies. They have now – like war – become normal, a “diversity of perspectives”, part of a familiar, fraudulent world in which untruthfulness has acquired a “weird authenticity”.
Trump is Hitler. Trump is Jesus. National suicide is reincarnation. We may not yet have understood this. But there are many in the Middle East who will understand us. Maybe they’ll have the last laugh.”
Check your sources, use some of your time to evaluate the merit of an argument being made in the media, as a citizen it is your duty to inform yourself to the best of your ability as to how the world works and how to change it toward the better.
Shocking I say! SHOCKING!!!!
The idea that those in control would want media to promote their ideology seems obvious. Let’s examine two helpful charts.
Huh, a bias toward white males. What could it mean?
Bill Moyers on the shutdown and republican intransigence…
I find it amusing how often people refer to the media as having a “liberal bias”. It is such a counter-intuitive claim to make given the composition of the majority of mainstream media outlets (ad driven, reliant on the government for information). Media Lens never gives an inch when it comes to the ‘liberal press’ bowing to power.
Liberal journalism is balanced, neutral and objective, except when it’s not. A BBC news report on Hugo Chavez’s latest election triumph in Venezuela commented:
‘Mr Chavez said Venezuela would continue its march towards socialism but also vowed he would be a “better president”.’ (Our emphasis. The article was subsequently amended, although the ‘but’ remains)
The ‘but’ revealed the BBC’s perception of a conflict between Venezuela’s ‘march towards socialism’ and Chavez becoming a ‘better president’. Despite the appearance of neutral reporting, the ‘but’ snarled at both Chavez and socialism.
A second BBC article described Chavez as ‘one of the most visible, vocal and controversial leaders in Latin America’.
Another found him a ‘colourful and often controversial figure on the international stage’.
“Is Chavez more ‘controversial’ than war—fighting leaders like Bush, Blair, Brown, Obama and Cameron? How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people has Chavez killed? Imagine the BBC reporting: ‘David Cameron is an often controversial figure on the international stage.’ In fact the term is reserved for enemies of the West.
The same bias is found in editorials that often express, or reflect, the passionately partisan views of owners and editors. In 1997, the Independent proclaimed that Tony Blair’s election victory ‘bursts open the door to a British transformation’ to a ‘freer land’. (Neal Ascherson, ‘Through the door he can begin to create a freer land,’ The Independent, May 4, 1997)”
Damn Liberal Media indeed…
I see and hear this little piece of dudely wisdom far, FAR, too often. It represents such an massive break from reality, and yet this harmful trope continues onward. The usual suspects make their appearances, privilege, misogyny the unexamined life – reasons but not excuses for not being in the know when dealing with the basic issue of should we treat women like human beings. It should be concise answer. It almost never is because there inevitably is that lovely word ‘but’ appended to the answer.
Oh yes, women should be treated as human beings, but this Feminism stuff has gone to far.
Yes, women should be treated like human beings, but why all the hate for men why can’t we all just get along?
Yes, but we’re already equal, so what’s the big deal?
The most basic rule when dealing with oppressed classes of people is – shut up and listen. *You* (privileged while males, for example) do not get make the call on saying when someone is genuinely oppressed or when their oppression is done, or anything to do with what they are experiencing as a member of that particular oppressed category. Get over yourself and realize that your opinion has no magical qualities that make it better than those of others, sure it has been the default in society for ages now, but that is changing slowly and will continue to do so whether you are with the program or not.
Feminism is fighting the good fight attempting to make society a better place for women. Feminism is dealing with the mischaracterizations and stereotypes that hurt women in our society, but the fight is far from over. I may have already posted this video, but I found the extended trailer of Miss-representation on youtube. Thank you Sociological Images.
Listen, reflect and take the time to think about what is being postulated. Enjoy.