Government intervention, manipulation and political bias in media

[abskebabs]

I recognise that this a complex topic, and forms part, philosphically of the discussion on whether government intervention in regulating business should be there at all. The topic of this discussion is on the media, but almost primarily, the attention is on the role of the news media.

 

I think people may recognise that news agencies are becoming increasingly "slanted", one could say in propmoting political views. I guess, it is rather obvious, that they often "spin" the news to protect their owners, and their investors' interests. This makes sense, as in any enviroment the only role of a business is to make profit, it is the yardstick of success.

 

My first question is could this problem be tackled by reducing government regulation. For example, if the government has no power to regulate th media, does this remove the incentive for the media to try and politicise what it produces, as well as remove their incentive to bribe policy makers to pursue beneficial polices to their particular station if the government no longer excerciese such power?

 

I recognise that this problem may be quite hard to combat. Strangely, I think businessmen grow quite fond of regulation if it protects them from competition. So now that a lot of media sources are corporate and politicised(I guess America is my case in point), it will be especially hard to reverse this trend.

 

Secondly, is the fact that media is owned by corporate conglomerates make it impossible for there to be media that do not act directly to protect the interests of their owners, and therefore not report stories that could be to their detriment? Does this mean that regardless of whether government intervention is removed, the media will still be used to try and manipulate the populace for powerful interests?

 

Thirdly, do you think that corporate news media actually have it in their interests to keep news uncritical of other businesses and corporations, being light in coverage of scandals, because they rely on the same kind of outlets for the advertising, and sponsors? I guess part of this, depends on how much variety, we judge there to be in the marketplace.

 

So, any thoughts?

[Pangloss]

What government regulation of the media do you think there is to be removed? There isn't anything that governs bias -- the Fairness Doctrine was dropped 20 years ago, and it's actually usually touted today as a way to RETURN objectivity to the media (though wrongfully so, IMO, for the reasons you describe). This is mainly a position of Democrats, annoyed at the rise and popularity of the right-wing media (ignoring the left-wing influence on traditional outlets), whose championship of free speech seems to have been conveniently misplaced on this issue.

 

If you mean stuff like FTC control over mergers, or FCC licensing, I'm not sure how those issues affect bias. Maybe you could expand on that a bit. You mentioned something about competition, but I don't see the connection between competition and bias. Not saying you're wrong, just asking if you could explain that a bit more.

 

I do agree that corporate ownership implies a desire by a media outlet to not offend its owners. Such has always been the case in media. It's expensive to run network news, and the money has to come from somewhere. But the rise of the blogosphere and Web outlets seems to offer a way out of that problem, does it not? The cost, of course, being unknown bias in thousands of outlets instead of known bias in a handful. An interesting conundrum.

 

But even there I don't necessarily see a connection with political bias. Corporations are not political entities, at least in the same sense as parties and special interest groups.

[Blade]

I recognise that this a complex topic, and forms part, philosphically of the discussion on whether government intervention in regulating business should be there at all.

 

The government sould govern company's. because company's are not above the law.

 

The topic of this discussion is on the media, but almost primarily, the attention is on the role of the news media.

 

American "news"media is not up to par with europe. here in the nertherlands news really is news

 

I think people may recognise that news agencies are becoming increasingly "slanted", one could say in propmoting political views. I guess, it is rather obvious, that they often "spin" the news to protect their owners, and their investors' interests. This makes sense,

 

"this makes sense" NO! just NO

 

as in any enviroment the only role of a business is to make profit, it is the yardstick of success.

 

There is such a thing called moralls

 

My first question is could this problem be tackled by reducing government regulation. For example, if the government has no power to regulate th media, does this remove the incentive for the media to try and politicise what it produces, as well as remove their incentive to bribe policy makers to pursue beneficial polices to their particular station if the government no longer excerciese such power?

 

So if the media voices the opinnion of the civillians of the country that's an bad thing? If the media questions things it's bad?

 

So, any thoughts?

 

Ask Questions all the time. Question eveything. It's the way of SCIENCE.

 

The Government and Company's are not your friend by default.

 

any questions?

[Royston]

I think people may recognise that news agencies are becoming increasingly "slanted", one could say in propmoting political views. I guess, it is rather obvious, that they often "spin" the news to protect their owners, and their investors' interests. This makes sense, as in any enviroment the only role of a business is to make profit, it is the yardstick of success.

 

I think it's important to outline the specifics of bias and its source, because I think you're being rather general, i.e some media agencies are bias due to demographic, other media agencies such as daily newspapers rely on PR (middle men) between the government and the press who invest in spin. There's an excellent satirical series with Stephen Fry which revolves around such a PR agency, though the name escapes me.

 

I'm not sure what the situation is in the US, however IIRC I do know that federal control has been implemented (Center for Media and Democracy ) on preventing PR agencies intervening in news stories, programmes et.c I'm not sure of the impact that has on freedom of speech, maybe somebody knows more about it, or I may have got my wires crossed.

 

Then of course you have state-run media agencies who will be inherently politically bias, because, well, they're state-run.

 

My first question is could this problem be tackled by reducing government regulation. For example, if the government has no power to regulate th media, does this remove the incentive for the media to try and politicise what it produces, as well as remove their incentive to bribe policy makers to pursue beneficial polices to their particular station if the government no longer excerciese such power?

 

I'll take a guess, and presume you're refering to the UK media. With the press, at least, the newspapers are not regulated by the government in the way you think, they would only intervene if there was an infringement on rights e.g privacy. I'd be careful in flat out denying any government intervention on media, clearly if the intervention is to bolster some government policy through questionable means, then that's understandable. However Tony Blair himself, condemned the BBC for 'following the herd...and sensation' and if some regulation was put through to raise the bar, on quality and reducing bias due to the agendas of a media agency, personally I'd welcome that.

 

Does this mean that regardless of whether government intervention is removed, the media will still be used to try and manipulate the populace for powerful interests?

 

More specifics, the UK tabloid press for example ? It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, A. because as I said, they rely on demographic B. they're politcally bias, because as you know, we have right wing / left wing newspapers. You don't need government intervention to form bias, the journalists already have a political stance, and this creates massive competition between certain newspapers.

 

Not sure about you're third point yet, but I can come back to it....bit busy at the moment.

[ParanoiA]

I love the spirit of the OP. Likewise though, I'm having trouble understanding what regulation is being endured by corporate media. I agree with the premise that lack of regulation should equal lack of influence since the connection is figuratively severed. I just don't know how that applies with media.

 

Also, consider that while corporate news agencies may not be inclined to report negative things about their owners, that doesn't mean the corporate news agency down the street won't report negative things about the other agency's owners. I think there's still a bit of competition to be enjoyed here.

 

Great thread, abskebabs.

[Phi for All]

Also, consider that while corporate news agencies may not be inclined to report negative things about their owners, that doesn't mean the corporate news agency down the street won't report negative things about the other agency's owners. I think there's still a bit of competition to be enjoyed here.

For how long? Every day you hear about mergers in the works that would concentrate even more power in the hands of corporate giants. It's not just the big guy buying up the small guy anymore. The biggies are merging and creating empires.

 

And consider what we may never know. If you had a mega-corp that wanted to shield its clients from bad press, wouldn't it be a smart business move to contact another mega-corp and arrange a truce for both your clientele? As the competition dwindles deals like this are inevitable, imo, if not already in place.

 

Speculation? Possibly, or an educated guess from 30 years in business. I don't think the government is the entity we need to look at here. They're being manipulated too.

[Pangloss]

Still waiting to hear how corporate ownership equates to, or causes, political bias. Corporations are not political entities, and they tend to sink their teeth into ALL available political parties -- in my country that means both Democrat and Republican. And for every right-leaning Fox News Channel, there's a left-leaning CNN, so you really can't say that corporate ownership causes political bias, at least not in any specific direction. To me that sounds more like a marketing choice than a political one.

[Blade]

Still waiting to hear how corporate ownership equates to, or causes, political bias. Corporations are not political entities, and they tend to sink their teeth into ALL available political parties -- in my country that means both Democrat and Republican. And for every right-leaning Fox News Channel, there's a left-leaning CNN, so you really can't say that corporate ownership causes political bias, at least not in any specific direction. To me that sounds more like a marketing choice than a political one.

 

The very existance of biased news is bad. it creats a wrong view.

 

it misguids people.

 

misguided people can do wrong things.

 

and the term News is supposed to mean something.

[Phi for All]

Still waiting to hear how corporate ownership equates to, or causes, political bias.

Consider that if a corporation is influencing the news, they're influencing consumers who have learned to shield themselves from the more obvious advertising but remain vulnerable where news sources are concerned. Those consumers elect the politicians so if they are misinformed isn't their vote more likely to be misinformed? If corporations were interested in influencing elections to favor their businesses, this is a very likely scenario, especially if the cost of such manipulation is less than backing ALL the candidates to assure a favorable outcome.

 

All really smart business moves, as long as you can get away with them. But is this what the system is for?

[Royston]

I don't think the government is the entity we need to look at here. They're being manipulated too.

 

That would of been the perfect summary to my post, dammit.

[Phi for All]

Let's not forget the lobbyists. How much more effective are they at political manipulation when their clients own the media? Between spin and suppression these guys multiply the influence exerted on politicians in addition to what they already have by being professional influence peddlers.

 

 

That would of been the perfect summary to my post, dammit.

Milton Berle (the Thief of Bad Gags): "Damn! I wish I'd said that!"

George Burns: "Don't worry, Milton. You will."

[ParanoiA]

Speculation? Possibly, or an educated guess from 30 years in business. I don't think the government is the entity we need to look at here. They're being manipulated too.

 

The very existance of biased news is bad. it creats a wrong view.

 

Perhaps it's our expectations that create the problem here. We're setting ourselves up for failure if we think a human being can be truly objective, even with sterlized leadership. Sure, that's their intent, but we all know this entirely impossible. So, maybe the answer lies, once again, in public perception and expectation, rather than the problem truly being externalized in big business.

 

Perhaps we should wise up, quit being so naive, and quit expecting humans to sell us a product that isn't biased. Rather, understand it is biased, and then soak up news and information in that context. Keep our sources diverse, and reject any notion of "unbiased" reporting.

 

Maybe Fox news could rename themselves Fox Conservative News Channel, and CNN could own up to being the Liberal News Network.

[Phi for All]

Perhaps it's our expectations that create the problem here. We're setting ourselves up for failure if we think a human being can be truly objective, even with sterlized leadership. Sure, that's their intent, but we all know this entirely impossible. So, maybe the answer lies, once again, in public perception and expectation, rather than the problem truly being externalized in big business.

 

Perhaps we should wise up, quit being so naive, and quit expecting humans to sell us a product that isn't biased. Rather, understand it is biased, and then soak up news and information in that context. Keep our sources diverse, and reject any notion of "unbiased" reporting.

 

Maybe Fox news could rename themselves Fox Conservative News Channel, and CNN could own up to being the Liberal News Network.

I've gotten pretty good at recognizing slant, and you're right, everyone's got one. Bias is recognizable.

 

But when a story is suppressed we never get a chance to detect for slant. And again, I see the problem stemming not from government, but from corporations that can wiggle out of most any regulations the government might use to restrict their influence.

 

Economic practices are being rewritten by these mega-corps. They are unfairly influencing government legislation that affects entities like the Patent Office, the GAO and others. And every administration in the last couple of decades has given them more and more of a hold over the media.

[Royston]

I've just realized I completely forgot to mention the press officers of Whitehall, perhaps this is the type of area abskebabs is alluding to, but I'll wait till he replies and see what examples he was referring to.

[Pangloss]

Consider that if a corporation is influencing the news' date=' they're influencing consumers who have learned to shield themselves from the more obvious advertising but remain vulnerable where news sources are concerned. Those consumers elect the politicians so if they are misinformed isn't their vote more likely to be misinformed? If corporations were interested in influencing elections to favor their businesses, this is a very likely scenario, especially if the cost of such manipulation is less than backing ALL the candidates to assure a favorable outcome.

[/quote']

 

Yes, if political bias, chosen for marketing reasons, is causing more division and partisanship amongst the voter base, then that is a bad thing.

 

But what's the alternative? As you say, the government's just as bad. Most press/media advocates support LESS government intervention and regulation. That means more corporate ownership.

[Phi for All]

Most press/media advocates support LESS government intervention and regulation. That means more corporate ownership.

Interesting how that works in the corporation's favor, huh? It's almost as if the corporations OWN the media! Oh, wait....

 

Like so many things, government regulation has been spun to be evil in virtually every instance. It helps people accept deregulation more easily and without all those pesky questions, like, "Why am I paying so much more for energy now but the service hasn't changed?" It also keeps people leery of funding new government programs like national healthcare ("Oh, the gov't will surely make a mess of that, let's not even try!").

 

A side note on national healthcare: I find it more than coincidence that the current administration made such a stink about the French not supporting us fully in the Iraq invasion. Spin like that is worth it's weight in gold when it serves to play down the fact that the French knew better than we did that no Nigerian yellow cake had gone to Iraq, AND it inflames US nationalism for an invasion, AND it will taint the people's opinion of France when the subject of their excellent national healthcare system crops up. Nice.

[swansont]

Milton Berle (the Thief of Bad Gags): "Damn! I wish I'd said that!"

George Burns: "Don't worry, Milton. You will."

 

James Whistler and Oscar Wilde did it first. (and Monty Python based a whole sketch on it, and other sayings)

 

Now back to our regular program, on the "you'll like whatever we damn well tell you to like" network. (<—— what will happen when GeneralStarbucksoftMobil owns all the media channels)

[john5746]

After reading through this thread, I have a solution.

 

We need a media Czar to head up the War on Bias.

[iNow]

The Daily Show actually did a mockumentary on Fox news last night. It seems appropriate here (2 short [3-5 min] parts):

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165990&title=the-meter-is-running-pt.-1

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165991&title=the-meter-is-running-pt.-2

[Pangloss]

A side note on national healthcare: I find it more than coincidence that the current administration made such a stink about the French not supporting us fully in the Iraq invasion. Spin like that is worth it's weight in gold when it serves to play down the fact that the French knew better than we did that no Nigerian yellow cake had gone to Iraq, AND it inflames US nationalism for an invasion, AND it will taint the people's opinion of France when the subject of their excellent national healthcare system crops up. Nice.

 

I completely agree that their criticism of France turned out to be in error, but I don't think they are to be blamed for the public outcry against France, most of which was driven by CTR and right-wing media, and some of which was deserved, IMO.

 

The Daily Show actually did a mockumentary on Fox news last night. It seems appropriate here (2 short [3-5 min] parts):

 

The Daily Show mocking Fox News is like Rush Limbaugh calling Al Franken a shill. It is actually an interesting example of what this thread is about, and clearly not an objective critic on the subject. In fact it is fast becoming extremely hypocritical on this issue. Jon Stewart has created quite a franchise out of anti-conservative bias couched as independent common sense, sinking his teeth into all sorts of interesting projects.

 

And of course Comedy Central is owned by Viacom-MTV-Paramount-Gulf-Western-BET-CBS-Dreamworks-HBO-Showtime-UPN-NeedIGoOn.com? (Hey don't quote me on some of those, that's off the top of my head!)

 

(Mind you, that doesn't meant I don't watch TDS or find it extremely amusing at times.)

[iNow]

Oyy... One is on "Comedy Central," the other has 24 hour news cycle presentations and ticker... I'm not sure the comparison you suggest is appropriate.

[Pangloss]

I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out why The Daily Show lacks an objective basis for its criticism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

This is something that has been forgotten in mainstream comedy in recent years. Comedians used to criticize politicians on the commonly understood basis that it was just in the name of fun, the implication being that it wasn't intended as real criticism, but was just done for laughs. After all, if you can't laugh at yourselves, who can you laugh at?

 

But ideological, partisan-based comedy is a different animal. And I think people are starting to recognize that sort of thing for what it really is, just as they began to recognize Conservative Talk Radio for what it really is, in previous years.

 

There is a place for that sort of thing, but it's not the same place. Jon Stewart (and others like him, David Letterman for example) just hasn't realized that fact yet. As amusing as I find his comedy, it is interesting to watch him proceed as if he holds the same moral high ground as, say, Johnny Carson or Bob Hope. It just isn't there, and even his increasingly left-wing fans know it. The disconnect is quite interesting to observe.

[swansont]

But Stewart mocks the left, too. There's no doubt in my mind that he leans left, but the satire is aimed at targets of opportunity, and the president — who tends to be in the news a lot — is a republican. Do you expect the show to cease production if a democrat is elected? I don't.

[Pangloss]

I agree, but I don't think that counters my point. To draw on a comparison from outside the field of comedy, Bill O'Reilly often criticises the right, but does anybody here really think that Bill O'Reilly is a legitimate political commentator with an objective analytical position? I kinda doubt it. But that's what he presents himself as -- an objective analyst, "just looking out for the folks". Jon Stewart does exactly the same thing, albeit less-directly stated, and in the field of comedy.

 

I don't think Jon Stewart is the same as Al Franken or (on the right) Rush Limbaugh, but I do think him the same sort of act (in his own genre) as Bill O'Reilly.

[ParanoiA]

I don't expect him to make fun of the democrat president, he'll just stick to the republican representatives. What I've noticed is that he'll make fun of the lefties in the good spirit that Pangloss was talking about, making fun of their tie, or the look on their face in a still shot, non-political joking. But he'll actually try to score political points with the righties, although also equally non-political if the opportunity is there.

 

I think most people see the Daily Show similarly to the whole pop culture presumption that republicans = bad and that for every one of their fans and the audience it's a foregone conclusion. I always wonder how many republicans are sitting in the audience when Trent Reznor does his ignorant teenager impression on stage crying about the republicans, or Bush. I've never heard any of them say a democrat's name with that bratty snarl in their voice. Funny actually. Too bad real life ignorant teenagers are impressed by this and grow up to live up to that short sighted, dangerously stupid view.

 

That said, I still enjoy the Daily Show (I love the funny looks he does) but Colbert is the best!