Perception is reality, right?
Well, according to the following study, Republicans have quit viewing network TV news in droves because of what they perceive to be liberally biased news coverage. What is interesting in the study is that these disgruntled Republicans have turned, not to objective alternative news media, but rather to purveyors of admittedly conservative political commentary such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
In a newspaper, the difference between news and opinion is clearly defined by the latter being confined to the Editorial and Op-Ed pages. In TV news, the line between objective news and opinion seems to be blurred from the perspective of the lay viewer, who tends to incorrectdly think that political commentators are journalists; and from too network news reporters and anchors, who seem to think that providing commentary along with the news is part of their job.
If newspaper reporters were to share their opinions in stories in print like TV reporters and anchors share their opinions, there'd be a lot reprimanded newspaper reporters.
A 2004 Pew study finds:
"Conservative claims of a liberal media bias are having an impact upon public perceptions of news coverage. According to research by the Pew Center, this led to an overall audience decrease for many of the major broadcast and cable television outlets and a perceived decrease in credibility for the news as a whole. Republicans have turned from traditional news sources to additional media such as Rush Limbaugh's radio program, Bill O'Reilly's TV and radio programs, and the Fox News Channel, while Democrats' viewing habits have remained mostly unchanged. This shift by the Republican audience has led to an overall polarization between where Republicans and Democrats obtain their news, with Republicans, and more specifically conservatives, becoming increasingly distrustful of the mainstream media.
Do you think that TV news reporters and news anchors go beyond "just the facts" and share their opinion and biases in their jobs?
23 November 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am trying to remember how long it has been since I actually watched "Network TV News." The last for sure date I can remember was January 20, 2001 which was the inaugaration of George W. Bush. I remember Peter Jennings describing how presidential President Clinton looked as compared to George W. Bush as they walked together on their way to the swearing in at the capitol building. I do not recall watching network news since then.
Now that event in of itself would by no means make me turn off their programming. What is a dinosaur is the predetermind time of 6:30 p.m. to spoon feed us our news. The Internet and 24 hour cable news have changed that whole structure for news delivery and reception.
I like the freedom of the whole thing. I can get the news from multiple sources. So can everyone else. We can create our own "fair and balanced" delivery of the news by simply reading multiple sources and perspectives. No longer does one or limited networks control the message. Blogs like this even cause more diversity (among the thousands).
The old media monopoly is gone. People have left in droves because there is another place (many many places actually) to go. And any perceived bias just makes the jump that much easier.
To me, it is painfully obvious that there is bias in the network news and some cable networks. Bernard Goldberg nailed it right to the wall with his book of the same name, Bias.
My question would be, how long has it been going on. Cronkite's reporting on the Tet offensive, in Vietnam, making it out to be a disaster for us, rather than the crushing defeat it was for the enemy (which the enemy has admitted), goes back nearly 40 years. I am quite certain it would not be difficult to find earlier examples.
Speaking of bias, you should take a look at today's public school textbooks.
Post a Comment