Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1

Not too fair and balanced...eh?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...roadcast-anti-gun-stories-overwhelm-pro-gun-/

 

a) It a blog - admittedly one on the Washington times website but it is still a blog and therefore is mostly personal opinion
b) the study linked to is from the "media research centre" which Wiki describes as

Now the very fact that is is out to "prove bias" means it is NOT following scientific methodology

c) your blog only links to the MRC's website NOT to a particular research study so I cannot review the methodology of the so called "study"

 

So the information is good...just the messenger is bad?

 

Can't tell - get me a link to the original "research" and I will critique it for you

 

provide your own...you are the one who chose to respond....I provided information in another topic from a credible source and you chose to ignore it. Like another logical poster here you tend to ignore any credible sources and attack the messenger. Try responding with a credible or heck even a less than credible rebuttal and we'll talk. sheesh you guys don't even get that what you are doing is damaging to your credibility.

 

Yeah! I can't find that "original research" either

Strange how the research disappears from some blogs so you can never check validity

 

were you actually gonna refute the information provided or go on looking foolish?

 

If you can find the original research they are purporting to be quoting I will cirque it but at the moment it looks like this blog is lying through it's teeth so why rebut lies?

 

I can't tell until you provide some sort of rebuttal eh mate?

 

Once again, showing a lot of patience, - please, please link to the ORIGINAL research the blog purports to be quoting. I am unable to find it from the link.

Now think about someone other than you and I reading this thread. I have made repeated, polite requests and have been met with, well, less than polite responses. Who do you think the other readers will consider to be the more rational and erudite?

 

You need to think of others reading this...I asked you politely to rebut the information provide (as is) that I began this OP with and you spent most of the time creating a misdirection by stating this about the OP "It a blog - admittedly one on the Washington times website but it is still a blog and therefore is mostly personal opinion". You will notice I quoted an article and stated things were not too fair and balanced. Once again with great patience I ask...could you please quote something that refutes the OP?

Thanks

 

And again - I cannot do that without reviewing the methodology of the original research - and that has not been provided - neither can I find it

 

I have no more faith that most major media groups in America (and the West for that matter) are unbiased, than I do that the Easter Bunny will visit me this year.

In the US, there are now seven big super media groups that control something like 80% of what we listen to, see on TV and Cable and on newspapers and news magazines: Time Warner, NBC Universal, Viacom-CBS, Comcast, Disney, Sony Corp, and Newscorp. Of all these, only Newscorp, has a Christian (Murdoch)running it. In fact in Hollywood, there isn't even single movie studio that is run by a conservative, much less a Christian. Micheal Lynton, Summer Redstone and all the rest, and virtually every other one of their underlings are liberal non-Christians. Look who the puppet masters are and the ideology flows from there.

If you can provide a single, solitary shread of evidence to prove me wrong---well, bring it on!

Here's some more facts to chew on: http://www.akdart.com/med1.html

 

Obvious agenda. But, to be fair and balanced, the news media makes its money from 'bad news'; controversy and sensationalism, not 'good news'. I'd love to have had my personal pro-gun story on the news, where the mere sight of my CCW in its holster sent a bad guy on his way rather than robbing me. But, I guess they were too busy not reporting on all the safe commercial flights landing at the airport.

 

People will always (*)(*)(*)(*) up a perfectly worthless study because we are human. Just ask Marx..

 

or a royal wedding taking place in another world.....

 

True that, but I guess my broader point was that the news media will, of course, be biased, because they only report when something bad happens. For instance, you hear about every airline crash in the media, but you don't hear about every safe landing.

 

Have you ever noticed how much difference in news from our country to another? Our papers and news sources are all about whipping fear, which they have down to a fine science.

 

Yeah, and it's sad. The concepts that Fox News articulate in their motto; "We report, you decide." and 'Fair and Balanced" should be the goal for all news agencies, but not one of them, including Fox News, adhere to this basic concept. Instead, we have to watch the right spin till we're dizzy, then watch the left spin till we're dizzy, and try to come to the actual truth that invariably lies somewhere in between.

It is overwhelming for even the most educated and intelligent people, (and downright impossible for the vast majority of folks) to come to the truth, which is why they turn to the likes of Limbaugh and Maher to reduce it down for them. And, therein lies the problem, imo.

Here's a quote from a famous left-wing spin doctor on the media that is pretty accurate:

"The country’s 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen, or, they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.

If we amplify everything we hear nothing. There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate--just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe not more. The press is our immune system. If we overreact to everything we actually get sicker."

 

Faux news - owned by Murdoch - enough said.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/09/05/3309666.htm

"fair and balanced" my arse - they should be had up for misleading advertising

 

I thought you had stopped watching American TV......because it has too much influence in your country.

 

Thought I would update. Everyone is familiar with the Sandy Hook tragedy and the extensive media coverage. I was wondering why the media wasn't covering the following 24/7?

http://www.wbur.org/npr/305905289/45-people-were-shot-in-chicago-over-the-weekend

If they were all in one place what do you suppose the media response would be?

 

Wow! Crap - 45 people in one city in one weekend - that would take all of Australia about 3 months to get to the same level of gun injury. Take Japan about 10 years

So let us see who is treeing this particular beastie - who wins by "suppression" of this news?

Firstly let us look at the so called suppression

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours?page=5

Yep so suppressed that it easily found by google on the internet

But one source definitely IS talking about the gun violence in Chicago - unfortunately for the gun lobbyists it is the UK Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/25/nra-convention-indianapolis-gun-violence

So why is a UK paper reporting on it where American papers are purportedly NOT reporting on it? Well, thing is NEWS is just that - to sell papers it has to be something unusual enough to catch attention and sorry but the gun crime rate in America is so pervasive it is no longer news. But gun crime IS news to Brits and Aussies because we see so much less of it

 

Don't care about Australia or Britain, They have their own issues reporting honestly on their own gun/murder/violence problems. I do care that in one day an American city had 45 people shot and our news media didn't give it a thought but for days and days after a single tragedy all we heard was how bad guns were. Strange thing isn't it? What's up with all your misdirection lately? Someone touch a sore spot?

 

Blame Murdoch then - after all everyone else does.

BTW why do you not hear how many robberies there were in a weekend?? After all if there is a big bank robbery all we hear about for weeks on end is how the police are still chasing the crooks and we NEVER hear of the spate of robberies around a neighbourhood

Conspiracy theories rarely survive logical thinking