The ‘Media Narrative’ Presumption

• Hi Patrick!  Long time no write.  :P  New controversy for you, more editing and misrepresentation by MSNBC.  Even the NYTimes and Huffington Post are pointing out this one.  From the audio and from eyewitness accounts, the crowd is chanting “Romney.  Romney”, but MSNBC puts “Ryan. Ryan.” up on the screen.  They then go on to talk about how Romney isn’t supported but rather Ryan is garnering the support and Romney is secondary.  Here’s the Blaze article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/ In what is portrayed as an awkward moment for Romney as he allegedly tries to reinsert his name into the chant, it is actually a moment of humility for Romney as he tries to get the crowd to add his runningmates name to the chant.  This is a very similar story to that of the black rifle-toting attendee at the anti-Obama rally having his race hidden by MSNBC so they can talk about the anti-black racism of the tea party crowd.This is also a similar alteration of reality as I posted in an earlier comment: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-never-learn-msnbc-caught-selectively-editing-romney-video-to-make-him-seem-out-of-touch/And why not air this audio/video after the WH has confirmed it’s authenticity?  Would it hurt Obama?http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-host-says-she-wont-air-obama-98-redistribution-audio-because-its-not-confirmed-even-though-presidents-campaign-confirmed-this-morning/
  While it remains an arguable point (and heaven knows we’ve argued it :P) that there is an obvious Liberal bias in the  “Main Stream Media” overall,  I think we can close the book on MSNBC/NBC, as an individual news entity, as an unbiased source of any factual information?How much evidence does there need to be before we can agree that MSNBC is severely and intentionally  biased, is now and has been engaged in altering evidence to support a narrative, and cannot be trusted as a source of news?

  •  @JohnH3 I would encourage you again to start a blog. It’s obvious you have a passion for this subject. Best case scenario, you are reaching Patrick, me and maybe a couple of other people who might follow this thread. Think of how many mroe people you could reach with your own blog. 
     
    I know this may sound like I’m trying to tell you to ‘go away’ but that’s not at all what I’m after. I think you would benefit greatly from getting your message out to a wider audience. I’d even volenteer to help you set up your blog. It’s really not that hard and posting isn’t any more difficult that leaving a comment here.
     
    You have such a passion for the issue, I think it would translate to making you a great blogger.

    •  @TedtheThird  @JohnH3 Hi Ted!  Tanks again for the encouragement.  I have through about it, mostly due to your guys suggestions (and no, I don’t think you are just trying to get rid of me. 🙂 )   Honestly, I do enough “blogging” on facebook and if I started another outlet that took even more time away from other things I think my wife would take my computer away. :P  I am still thinking about it though.  I do enjoy the discussion.
       
      Part of the reason to return here periodically is just to accumulate incidents in one spot, enough to hopefully, someday, create some kind of critical mass which can no longer be ignored or explained away as accident or mistake.  As you see, It’s been many months since I’ve popped in.  I’ve had other problems (darn near got laid off. 🙁 , but, I found another position in the company so I’m ok…for now. 🙂 )
       
      Rest assured, If I start a blog I will let you guys know so you can come torment me. :) 
       
      Any thoughts on this latest MSNBC incident?
      Cheers!
       

      •  @JohnH3  The problem here is simple: the post was written to discuss one specific incident. That incident has been discussed.
         
        I will not, however, allow my blog or a post within it to be hijacked as to become a repository for evidence you are trying to accumulate to make a point different than the specific one I was making about a specific incident.

      •  @patricksplace Oh.  I thought the topic was whether or not the media biased it’s news coverage in favor of a particular narrative or narratives.  Multiple examples were provided in the article and several more have been discussed in the subsequent discussion.  I thought that by continuing to provide further examples as they were committed by the media it would further discussion. 
         
        It wasn’t my intention to “hijack”.  I thought of my additional posts as “the next installment in a continuing series of investigative reports”, as the news guys would advertise it.
         
        I assume you’d like me to stop posting evidence of news mistakenly being altered to support a liberal narrative?  If so, I will comply, sadly, but I will.
         
        Cheers!

      •  @JohnH3 Is it your intention to post evidence of news that is “MISTAKENLY altered to support a liberal narrative”? I thought that from the start, you were arguing that there is no mistake involved.

      •  @JohnH3 Is it your intention to post evidence of news that is “MISTAKENLY altered to support a liberal narrative”? I thought that from the start, you were arguing that there is no mistake involved.

      •  @patricksplace :)  Sorry, “mistakenly” should have been in those annoying “air quotes”. :P  😀

      •  @JohnH3  Yeah, I assumed that.
        How do you feel about conflicts of interest in media reporting?

      •  @patricksplace  @JohnH3 Regarding conflict of interest, I’d go with full disclosure as a start an take it from there.  You’ve piqued my curiosity with the question. I sense another shoe on it’s way to the floor. :PI recall NBC news doing all manner of “green” reporting on how wind turbines and some other technologies were going to save the day without ever disclosing that GE, the “parent company of this network”, was the manufacturer of many of the technologies the “news” was pushing.  NBC did the same all through “green week” with no such disclosure.

      •  @JohnH3 What’s curious to me is that you freely use coverage from “The Blaze” as “evidence.” Apparently, you either see no conflict of interest in the reporting Blaze does against MSNBC or others, or you’re just hoping no one else does.
         
        Who created The Blaze? What network was he affiliated with at that time? What is the purpose of The Blaze? What does it hope to accomplish with respect to other media outlet options out there? What reasons might The Blaze have for doing stories about how other news outlets cover stories, rather than just reporting the stories themselves?
         
        I’m sure you know the answers to all of those questions.
         
        And I’m sure you also know that any time someone walks in with a magnifying glass to look at ANY industry with a “guilty until proven innocent” approach, that person WILL find mistakes and missteps. I don’t know what you do for a living, but if someone were to judge your career from the standpoint of looking specifically for things you’ve done wrong, they’d find them. But then, you see, that would be THEIR job: finding fault. If they can’t do their job, then they’re out of one…so guess what: they’ll ALWAYS find fault.
         
        One of the reasons I have tried to communicate to you that it is pointless for you to continue posting “evidence” against MSNBC is that I don’t watch MSNBC (or the other cable news stations) very often. I gather, from things you’ve said, that you don’t watch MSNBC at all. 
         
        The result is clear: you’re relying on third-party reports about how they’ve covered something that support your conclusion that they’re biased, then presenting me with SELECT third-party reports and asking me to speculate on how biased they are. I realize that you have a particular distaste for NBC News; if you don’t, then you’ve certainly done an excellent job of convincing me that you have. But it’s not really fair for you to expect me to constantly comment on stories that neither of us saw in their entirety as they originally ran as viewed through the rose-colored glasses of a third-party report produced by organizations with a clear agenda of their own with regard to “exposing” bias. 
         
        As for your remark about NBC and its lack of disclosure about General Electric, all I can tell you is that any time I’ve seen NBC cover something GE does, I HAVE heard the NBC reporter or anchor mention the relationship. Likewise, when they’ve covered a motion picture produced by Universal, I’ve heard them disclose that, too. I don’t know what you’re watching to hear them not disclose it, since you apparently DON’T watch MSNBC…nor do I know what your sources who have convinced you that they “never” make such disclosures were watching, either. I’m sure that doesn’t matter much, because you’ve already concluded that they NEVER make such disclosures. But I’ve heard them myself.

      •  @JohnH3 What’s curious to me is that you freely use coverage from “The Blaze” as “evidence.” Apparently, you either see no conflict of interest in the reporting Blaze does against MSNBC or others, or you’re just hoping no one else does.
         
        Who created The Blaze? What network was he affiliated with at that time? What is the purpose of The Blaze? What does it hope to accomplish with respect to other media outlet options out there? What reasons might The Blaze have for doing stories about how other news outlets cover stories, rather than just reporting the stories themselves?
         
        I’m sure you know the answers to all of those questions.
         
        And I’m sure you also know that any time someone walks in with a magnifying glass to look at ANY industry with a “guilty until proven innocent” approach, that person WILL find mistakes and missteps. I don’t know what you do for a living, but if someone were to judge your career from the standpoint of looking specifically for things you’ve done wrong, they’d find them. But then, you see, that would be THEIR job: finding fault. If they can’t do their job, then they’re out of one…so guess what: they’ll ALWAYS find fault.
         
        One of the reasons I have tried to communicate to you that it is pointless for you to continue posting “evidence” against MSNBC is that I don’t watch MSNBC (or the other cable news stations) very often. I gather, from things you’ve said, that you don’t watch MSNBC at all. 
         
        The result is clear: you’re relying on third-party reports about how they’ve covered something that support your conclusion that they’re biased, then presenting me with SELECT third-party reports and asking me to speculate on how biased they are. I realize that you have a particular distaste for NBC News; if you don’t, then you’ve certainly done an excellent job of convincing me that you have. But it’s not really fair for you to expect me to constantly comment on stories that neither of us saw in their entirety as they originally ran as viewed through the rose-colored glasses of a third-party report produced by organizations with a clear agenda of their own with regard to “exposing” bias. 
         
        As for your remark about NBC and its lack of disclosure about General Electric, all I can tell you is that any time I’ve seen NBC cover something GE does, I HAVE heard the NBC reporter or anchor mention the relationship. Likewise, when they’ve covered a motion picture produced by Universal, I’ve heard them disclose that, too. I don’t know what you’re watching to hear them not disclose it, since you apparently DON’T watch MSNBC…nor do I know what your sources who have convinced you that they “never” make such disclosures were watching, either. I’m sure that doesn’t matter much, because you’ve already concluded that they NEVER make such disclosures. But I’ve heard them myself.

      • @patricksplace Interesting.  I’ll give you the point on “never”.
         
        The part about using The Blaze as a “source” I do find interesting though.  Let’s talk about sourcing, but first a question: Have any of the Blaze citations I have provided been false?
         
        As I tell my friends, Obama’s speech carried live by Fox News or Blaze TV is no less accurate than that same live feed carried by CNN or even MSNBC, is it?
         
        Let’s take the AR-15 carried by the black man at the anti-Obama rally.  Which do you dispute as truth, the video capture of the MSNBC coverage or the raw video taken at the event used in the MSNBC coverage?  Both videos are truth, the video of what MSNBC actually aired is accurate and the unedited  video of the event is accurate.  The only untruth was in the content of MSNBCs reporting: a rifle carried by a black man is not evidence of white racism against a black president (Ironically a media narrative that Republicans are racist.) Looking at both the edited and raw video, did you yourself not see the 2 edits necessary to remove the race of the man carrying the rifle?  Having seen the edits yourself, is the story less true because it was printed in The Blaze or brought to your attention by me?
         
        Let’s take the Romney speech on Wawa touch screens.  Is the video capture of MSNBCs coverage altered?  I’ve seen it various places captured by various sources and it’s exactly the same in each instance.  I have also seen, in it’s entirety, second source raw video of the actual Romney speech.  I have personally noted that MSNBC edited the Romney speech video using 3 selected portions completely out of context to make it appear Romney is saying something that he, in truth and in reality, did not say.  It’s like cutting up the NY Times to make a ransom note and claiming the ransom note was the work of the NY Times.  When you watched the raw video and the MSNBC story, did you not see with your own eyes the multiple edits necessary to create the falsehood that Romney said that it was the touchscreens at Wawa that were “amazing”?  Having done your own analysis, is the story that MSNBC edited video to make Romney appear “out of touch”, ironically a media narrative of wealthy Republicans, less true because it was originally brought to my attention by The Blaze and to your attention by me? (I was going to side by side the raw and edited videos but just haven’t had the chance.  Looks like I need to do that.)
         
        Multiple NBC orgs and affiliates edited the George Zimmerman 911 call on multiple occasions. Did these NBC orgs wrongly fire people or was the story brought to my attention by The Blaze accurate and people deserved to be fired?
         
        I never used to have a particular distaste for NBC news.  That mistrust has developed in the last year as these incidents have become more blatant.
         
        Just to show you where I am coming from: It has been widely reported in The Blaze and the conservative media that Obama was referring to peoples small businesses when he said, “you didn’t build that.”  I’ve stated on my Facebook several times that Obama is referring to the US infrastructure in his statement and not the business itself. I’m not a sheep. I look at evidence and draw my own conclusions.  I can’t help that the MSM can’t or won’t police itself and that it takes other organizations, typically conservative organizations (for reasons on which we disagree), to be the watchdogs of the MSM who are supposed to be the watchdogs of the Government and not cheerleaders for one side or the other.  Don’t you find it interesting that these media “mistakes” disproportionately go in favor of the Liberal, Progressive or Democrat candidate, politician or issue? (I used “disproportionately” rather than “always” despite the fact that I cannot recall an incident in which the MSM has erred in favor of a Conservative/Republican person or issue.  I’m all ears if you have one.)
         
        I source the folks who report the story.  If nobody reports the story except the Blaze and I find the story true and accurate, what do you suggest I do?

      • @JohnH3 The question of accuracy is, as I’m sure you must know, only PART of the story here. When one media organization sets itself up as a “media watchdog” so that it can cover how other organizations are covering the news, it automatically has an agenda of its own…or, to borrow a phrase you seem fond of, it’s looking for proof of its own “media narrative.”
         
        My latest post addresses this phenomenon in more detail, so I won’t rewrite it here. I can say that in 20+ years in local TV, I’ve never covered how a competitor covered a story. It typically isn’t done.
         
        But here, a competing organization with a vested interest in convincing you that everyone else is biased and they’re the only honest ones does a story on the coverage rather than on the story itself. Of course you find their story accurate, because it matches your belief of NBC’s bias to begin with.
         
        No matter how accurate it is or isn’t, the fact that they’re reporting any incidence of what could be perceived as bias on the part of NBC will always resonate with you as accurate if you haven’t seen the coverage yourself, because, as you’ve already pointed out, you perceive a history on NBC’s part.

      • @JohnH3 The question of accuracy is, as I’m sure you must know, only PART of the story here. When one media organization sets itself up as a “media watchdog” so that it can cover how other organizations are covering the news, it automatically has an agenda of its own…or, to borrow a phrase you seem fond of, it’s looking for proof of its own “media narrative.”
         
        My latest post addresses this phenomenon in more detail, so I won’t rewrite it here. I can say that in 20+ years in local TV, I’ve never covered how a competitor covered a story. It typically isn’t done.
         
        But here, a competing organization with a vested interest in convincing you that everyone else is biased and they’re the only honest ones does a story on the coverage rather than on the story itself. Of course you find their story accurate, because it matches your belief of NBC’s bias to begin with.
         
        No matter how accurate it is or isn’t, the fact that they’re reporting any incidence of what could be perceived as bias on the part of NBC will always resonate with you as accurate if you haven’t seen the coverage yourself, because, as you’ve already pointed out, you perceive a history on NBC’s part.

• Hi Patrick!  Long time no write.  :P  New controversy for you, more editing and misrepresentation by MSNBC.  Even the NYTimes and Huffington Post are pointing out this one.  From the audio and from eyewitness accounts, the crowd is chanting “Romney.  Romney”, but MSNBC puts “Ryan. Ryan.” up on the screen.  They then go on to talk about how Romney isn’t supported but rather Ryan is garnering the support and Romney is secondary.  Here’s the Blaze article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/ In what is portrayed as an awkward moment for Romney as he allegedly tries to reinsert his name into the chant, it is actually a moment of humility for Romney as he tries to get the crowd to add his runningmates name to the chant.  This is a very similar story to that of the black rifle-toting attendee at the anti-Obama rally having his race hidden by MSNBC so they can talk about the anti-black racism of the tea party crowd.This is also a similar alteration of reality as I posted in an earlier comment: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-never-learn-msnbc-caught-selectively-editing-romney-video-to-make-him-seem-out-of-touch/And why not air this audio/video after the WH has confirmed it’s authenticity?  Would it hurt Obama?http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-host-says-she-wont-air-obama-98-redistribution-audio-because-its-not-confirmed-even-though-presidents-campaign-confirmed-this-morning/
  While it remains an arguable point (and heaven knows we’ve argued it :P) that there is an obvious Liberal bias in the  “Main Stream Media” overall,  I think we can close the book on MSNBC/NBC, as an individual news entity, as an unbiased source of any factual information?How much evidence does there need to be before we can agree that MSNBC is severely and intentionally  biased, is now and has been engaged in altering evidence to support a narrative, and cannot be trusted as a source of news?

• Just stopping in to add another bit of evidence to this neglected thread.  Hope all is well in Patrick-land. 🙂
   
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-never-learn-msnbc-caught-selectively-editing-romney-video-to-make-him-seem-out-of-touch/
   

• Just stopping in to add another bit of evidence to this neglected thread.  Hope all is well in Patrick-land. 🙂
   
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-never-learn-msnbc-caught-selectively-editing-romney-video-to-make-him-seem-out-of-touch/
   

  •  @JohnH3 I suppose you saw this case of “selective editing” on your own revered source for news?
     
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/jon-stewart-fox-news-obama-tape-edit_n_1611735.html
     
    In any case, it happens everywhere, all the time, and only you can decide whether it’s intentional or not. If you’re going to apply a broad interpretation across the board, you have to be okay with assuming the worst about people in an UNFAIR manner while simultaneously criticizing their lack of fairness.
     
    In case I haven’t made it sufficiently clear, I cannot speak for NBC News, MSNBC or any other news organization, local station or any producers, reporters or editors who might be involved in what you clearly consider to be bias. 
     
    To be clear, my argument wasn’t, and has never been, that bias doesn’t exist. It has been that what you think may be bias on a case-by-case basis could be the result of errors or flat-out incompetence without any intent to misrepresent what is happening.  You obviously disagree with that assessment, and despite the fact that I actually have experience in the field about which I speak, I’m obviously not going to be able to convince you to the contrary.
     
    Therefore, there’s really no point in beating this long-dead horse.
     
    My best advice to you, John, is to simply STOP WATCHING those organizations you are so convinced have an agenda.

  •  @JohnH3 I suppose you saw this case of “selective editing” on your own revered source for news?
     
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/jon-stewart-fox-news-obama-tape-edit_n_1611735.html
     
    In any case, it happens everywhere, all the time, and only you can decide whether it’s intentional or not. If you’re going to apply a broad interpretation across the board, you have to be okay with assuming the worst about people in an UNFAIR manner while simultaneously criticizing their lack of fairness.
     
    In case I haven’t made it sufficiently clear, I cannot speak for NBC News, MSNBC or any other news organization, local station or any producers, reporters or editors who might be involved in what you clearly consider to be bias. 
     
    To be clear, my argument wasn’t, and has never been, that bias doesn’t exist. It has been that what you think may be bias on a case-by-case basis could be the result of errors or flat-out incompetence without any intent to misrepresent what is happening.  You obviously disagree with that assessment, and despite the fact that I actually have experience in the field about which I speak, I’m obviously not going to be able to convince you to the contrary.
     
    Therefore, there’s really no point in beating this long-dead horse.
     
    My best advice to you, John, is to simply STOP WATCHING those organizations you are so convinced have an agenda.

    •  @patricksplace Good find! 
       
      Let me clarify: I do not watch the MSM organizations, except for occasionally amusement when there is a big new story and I want to see coverage for myself.  Others get paid to do so and I occasionally run across one of their reports when it is posted on Drudge, The Blaze, or brought to my attention from a friend.
       
      I will not stop and I hope that these media-watchers also do not stop keeping watch on the watchers.  The “press” is very important to American Democracy and Freedom and it cannot be allowed to become corrupted (too late, many would argue).  Just like there are checks and balances within the government, the media is a check on the government and media watch organizations are a check on the media. We, you and I, cannot sit by and let these transgressions go unreported and unchallenged as to do so minimizes the “check” affects that the press has on our government and allows the government to get away with corruption.  I point out these instances because it is important to make the public aware of them – but based on the recent polls taken of how much people trust the media, it seems they are figuring out that these MSM organizations are already corrupt and are not reporting the truth.
       
      Let me say that I agree that it is a somewhat misleading edit and I expect better from both Hannity and FNC (and the overwhelming majority of the time i get better), but (and you knew the but was coming. 😛 ) It doesn’t completely is represent Hannity’s representation of the first part of the Presidents statement.  The point Hannity was making was that the President stated that he couldn’t do what he later did.  The fact that the President went on to state what he “could” do, which he really can’t, is irrelevant doesn’t alter the meaning of the original statement except clarify what the President thinks he can do – enforce a law which hasn’t yet passed as though it had.
       
      Hannity/FNC/PRoducers would not be in trouble with either you or Stewart had they used either the Presidents address to La Raza in which he made the declaration Hannity showed without the qualifying follow-up, or another address in which the President made a similar declaration.
       
      As far as whether or not this was intentional, I’d have to have the refs go to instant replay and really analyze this one to determine if the edit really altered the overall analysis, especially in light of the President having made the same declaration on at least two other occasions, and whether this was, as you have clearly stated in the past, an edit for time.
       
      The editing of the Romney speech (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-never-learn-msnbc-caught-selectively-editing-romney-video-to-make-him-seem-out-of-touch/) is just another example of a completely intentional misrepresentation of the truth for the purposes of continuing the media narrative that Republicans are rich and out of touch with American life.  No rational person can look at the editing job, which took seconds from the beginning, middle and near-end of a speech and completely altered the meaning of what was said.  The only thing that could have been more egregious would be for them to have taken individual words and assembled them to make Romney say whatever they wanted while arguing that Romney had “actually said those words”.
       
      Romneys speech use the example of the Wawa touch screens and an innovation which he found “amazing” that the government has not yet adopted.  MSNBC so altered his statement so as to make it look like he thought these newfangled touchscreens were “amazing”.   Then they laughed at him.  Again, the equivalent of editing the fact that a man with a rifle is black out of a video while talking about the racism inherent in gun-toting whites.  These are clear examples of intentional and malicious editing and the public is starting to both be aware of these things and to not tolerate them – as evidenced by the ratings drops.
       
      I implore you and your readers, for the sake of freedom from a tyrannical government, restore the integrity of the MSM as the watchdog against government abuse by exposing these mistruths when they occur.  The MSM needs to come back to being part of the solution and stop being part of the corruption.
       
       

      •  @JohnH3  @patricksplace  JohnH3, given the length of your commentary here perhaps you would find it productive to start a blog of your own to catalog these events. Certainly, he one of your comments here is blog post length.

      •  @TedtheThird Thanks Ted, and Patrick for the same suggestion.  If I didn’t know how much you guys appreciated having me comment here, I’d think you were trying to get rid of me. 😛 :)I’ve asserted before that the evidence points to a media narrative that the Tea Party is “violent”.  I think yesterdays example from Brian Ross of ABC News is yet another data point corroborating this assertion.
         
        Think back to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tuscon, AZ and how quickly the media worked to connect the shooter to Conservative Talk Radio and Sarah Palins use of Bob Beckels (D, Walter Mondales Presidential Campaign manager) “bullseyes” on Congressional districts, including that of Ms. Giffords.  Despite any supporting evidence and in spite of a plethora of evidence to the contrary, the MSM and the Left continues to spread the myth that the Giffords shooter was somehow afiliated with Conservative groups and/or the Tea Party.
         
        Fast forward to the Aurora, CO shootings of Friday morning.  In less than 12 hours ABC News Brian Ross was on the air with ABC’s “Chief Investigator” attempting to link the Aurora shooter to the Colorado Tea Party.  Armed only with the fact that the names were the same ABC News came out and said that there is a James Holmes who has a webpage on the Colorado Tea Party site though we’re not sure if it’s the James Holmes who is the shooter.
         
        Really?  Less than 12 hours after a massacre that left 12 dead we have at first member of the MSM, with the backing of a National Broadcast news organization, using the incident for political purposes and to further the narrative that the “Tea Party is violent”?  Not since the Giffords incident have I seen a more disgusting, repugnant, reprehensible example of the medias attempt to further the narrative they themselves created, which some still deny in the face of overwhelming and ever increasing evidence.
         
        I am very interested to hear the explanation for this latest incident.  I understand that a link between the shooter and the Tea Party is news which the country so needs to know that it must be rushed to air with only a Google hit to rely on as “fact”.  Let’s see if ABC News has the integrity to fire the producer, “Chief Investigator” and Brian Ross for this gross abrogation of journalistic integrity.  My suspicion is that they will  not.  They will conduct an internal investigation and declare themselves to have clean hands and that the rush to air was simply an “honest mistake” made in the “heat of the moment”.
         
        Your thoughts?
         
         

      •  @JohnH3 Not trying to get rid of you at all, John. I just see your passion for the subject and I think it would make you a great blogger.

• I’m posting this in this older discussion because there really isn’t a place to “post” unrelated threads so, I’m returning to the last thread I recall where we discussed media bias.
   
  I’d like to hear the explanation of the “accidents”, “mistakes” and how things are “cut for time” which have coincidentally and continuously occurred for the last three years resulting in the lack of any kind of reporting of this news: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-watch-39-months-69-percent-afghan-war-casualties.  When GWB (R) was President, the media tripped over themselves to get a picture of a flag draped casket returning from Afghanistan or Iraq.  They even filed complaints, and I believe a lawsuit, demanding to be allowed to film casualties being received at Dover AFB.  All we heard about were the daily, even weekly body counts under GWB (R).  “Bush lied, People died”, wasn’t that the mantra?  Now that BHO (D) is President and casualties have increased dramatically – not a peep.  Not a mention.  Not a criticism.  Not a word out of the unbiased MSM. Not even a mention of the increased casualty rate in the analysis following his announcement that we will be in Afghanistan for another 10 years from Bagram, AFB this evening.I have never seen a more clear example of the bias of the MSM, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party,  than this.  No, wait, I have seen a similar example of bias by omission …
   
  Where are the homeless?  I can’t recall a story about homlessness and how the administration (D) doesn’t care about the homeless and isn’t doing enough for them since Obama became President.  Why do the homeless disappear when there is a D after the name of the President? Even in this horrible economy, where are the weekly stories of homelessness? 
   
  I’d like to make the following prediction: If Romney (with an “R”) wins the election In November 2012, I predict that by February 2013 we begin to see a return of stories in the MSM of the plight of homeless, questioning what the new Republican administration is going to do for them.  Also, we will begin to hear stories about why we are still in Afghanistan and stories of the casualties and how the R President should do something.God Bless our Troops for serving under this pathetic excuse of a CinC and shame on the MSM for recognizing their sacrifice only when it suits their political agenda, or should I say, “narrative”.
   

  •  @JohnH3 John,
    Honestly, when you use such sweeping claims against the media, I can’t even begin to debate you.
     
    “Not a mention” of violence or casualties in the Obama administration? That’s absurd. The Associated Press has a story THIS MORNING about violence that broke out in Kabul shortly after Obama’s visit there and discusses the ONGOING security problems in that region.
     
    Even MSNBC, whom you seem to particularly dislike, has that story on its front page.
     
    CBS News just did a piece recently about soldiers who claim they’re being intentionally misdiagnosed so that the government won’t have to pay them benefits for the PTSD they’ve suffered while they’ve been in the war zone.
     
    No mention of homelessness? Really? You haven’t seen ANY mention of people being forced to live on the streets because of the economy?  Or stories about people fighting to keep their homes out of foreclosure? I sure have. Do a search over at ANY of the major organizations and you’ll find stories they’ve done. 
     
    Like this one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hungry-homeless-man-arrested-intentionally-16253210#.T6Epr-3B3b8
     
    It’s a story from ABC News from May 1st — YESTERDAY — about a homeless man for whom things have gotten so bad that police say he intentionally committed a crime to be jailed so he could get a meal.
     
    And when you cite a source like CNSNews.com, which comes right out and says that it is an “alternative” to the “liberal media,” you are actively deciding to trust a source that comes right out and says that it’s looking to change the spin of the news; OF COURSE you’re going to see things differently on sites like that. That’s why they’re there: to capitalize on any inkling of bias. Their reputation (and success) DEPENDS on convincing you that everyone else is biased at every turn, whether they are or aren’t. Once you start drinking their Kool Aid, it’s easy to find what appears to be bias at every turn. (And it’s a lot more fun than giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.)
     
    There comes a point at which debate is pointless. You clearly believe what you believe, and no matter how many examples or possible explanations I might offer, you have the next talking point ready to go. It’s obvious to me that there’s nothing I can possibly say to change your mind. Therefore, furthering this discussion is pointless.
     
    I wish you the best.

    • You are correct.  It would be absurd to state that the media hasn’t mentioned “violence or casualties”.  The problem is, that isn’t what I wrote. What I wrote was that they haven’t  mentioned the dramatic increase in the casualty rate in Afghanistan in the 39 months of the Obama administration after making it a perpetual story during the Bush administration.  PTSD, intentional misdiagnosis and regional security problem were not the story that the MSM harped on Bush about.  You’re changing the subject.
       
      Ok, you got me.  So there was a story on a homeless person.  What there are not are story after story after story about the rise in homelessness, the plight of the homeless, how the administration is worsening homelessness.  All these stories about foreclosures and I don’t hear homlessness.  Homelessness is not a political or campaign issue like I recall during campaign cycles in which Republicans were in the White House or during the rare times that R’s control the House or Senate.  In fact, I’m not so sure that the crackdown by Philadelphia Mayor Nutter against organizations that provide food and assistance to the homeless in PHL made national news.  Nutter is a “D”.
       
      The CNS story wasn’t about bias.  It was about casualties.  The CNS Story was printed 30 APR and reported “1,844 U.S. military personnel have been killed in and around Afghanistan”.  This document from the Department of Defense (http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf) reports 1,834 KIA in Afghanistan and another 111 outside of Afghanistan.  CNS closing paragraph states, “Besides the 1,829 American soldiers who have reportedly died on Afghan soil as of the end of April, CNSNews.com’s total count of 1,844 U.S. fatalities in and around Afghanistan includes 12 U.S. troops who died in Pakistan and three who died in the Arabian Sea while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.”  suggesting that the timing of the two reporting periods, CNS and DoD, could account for the small difference in the numbers. 
       
      So, what’s wrong with CNS facts on this story except that they were reported by a self-described “alternative” news source and not one of the MSM gentry?  The “alternative” to the MSM are the organizations and individuals who are reporting what the MSM is not.
       
      What I have observed in 10 years is a dramatic shift in the reporting of the MSM with regards to war casualties. I’ve watched a media which was collectively focused, almost obsessed, with war casualties during a Republican administration shift to a media that is barely interested in those same casualty rates, despite a sharp increase in those rates, during a Democratic administration.  As our discussions have focused on the “presumption of media narrative” and MSM bias, I expected an “insider” explanation, whether I would believe it or not, as to the cause of this dramatic shift in focus. In the absence of such an explanation, the only change I observe is from an R to a D after the name of the President.  I’m all ears, well…eyes, if there is another causal factor in this change in coverage.
       
      I reject the accusation that I have some kind of “talking points” as everything that I have written in our discussions and the examples I have provided have come from me, my observations, my life experience and my stumbling on various news stories and information.  I have asked my questions, and provided my thoughts and opinions honestly.  I’m sorry that you find such discussion “pointless”.  
       
      Whether influenced by a presumed narrative, group think or simple coincidence, it would appear that the initial reporting and conclusions which were broadly and similarly reported across the MSM in the Zimmerman-Martin case, have been proven wrong as facts have come out.  I suppose the homogeneity of the reporting across so many MSM outlets was coincidental.  You and I agree that it is not the result of conspiracy, but we will continue to disagree that such uniform reporting across such a wide swath of individuals is the result of similar training, thinking, world view and ideological underpinning.
       
      There comes a point at which debate is pointless. You clearly believe what you believe, and no matter how many examples or possible explanations I might offer, you have the next talking point ready to go. It’s obvious to me that there’s nothing I can possibly say to change your mind. Therefore, furthering this discussion is pointless.  😛 (Smile to yourself at the irony that we can both write that paragraph. :)  )  My goal was to continue to provide you examples of what I perceived as bias or double standard in the hopes that when confronted with enough evidence you might just think twice the next time you noticed something that could perhaps go either way.  At the same time I wanted to get some “inside baseball” looks at the inner workings of the newsroom that I might use when looking at coverage as well.I hope you don’t mind if I pop in periodically and see what’s up on the blog.  You may have seen a couple short comments on some other articles which I found interesting. 
       
      God bless, continued success and happiness to you! 
       
      John
       

      •  @JohnH3 John, I am happy for you to visit any time.
         
        I can’t possibly justify, or even explain, specific instances of what you call bias, or narrative, or whatever, because I’m not involved in the discussions in the specific national newsrooms that make the decisions you clearly feel are wrong.
         
        For the record, I don’t automatically assume that coverage COULDN’T go “either way.” Actually, it seems to me that from what you’ve said, you are far faster than I am to assume one way over the other.
         
        I work in the media. I realize that this fact alone makes me an unreliable source in many people’s eyes about how the media works and specifically how well the media does its job. I can’t help but feel that it’s an insult to thousands of hard-working people in the “MSM” who care and do their best to get a fair story to reduce their efforts to labels of bias and narratives. There are failures, certainly. But there are a LOT more successes than most people are even remotely willing to admit. 
         
        Here’s what I’m really curious about: if you can see such an obvious bias in certain organizations, why in the world do you still turn to them? It strikes me as, forgive me, a bit masochistic to watch “unreliable” news outlets just to be able to argue how “unreliable” you believe it to be.
         
        I’m not trying to be facetious here; I’d really like to understand why you follow what they’re reporting if you’ve already decided that they aren’t reporting the “whole” story, or are at least reporting only a “slanted” version thereof.

      •  @patricksplace Thank you again for exactly the kind of reply I’ve come to expect from you  – polite – despite the fact that you probably find me more than a little annoying, for which I apologize.  I know you can’t explain every specific instance, the best any of us can do is to apply our personal knowledge and experience so as to reach a plausible explanation of why something might have happened.  And, I’ll ask you again for that experience shortly, after I address your questions.  I don’t think you are “unreliable”.  Just the fact that you are out here in the blogosphere engaging in the discussion tells me that you are interested in getting to the truth and learning.  I think part of the problem in the USA to day is that we are so divided we can’t even talk to each other anymore.  Quite sad really.So, a long time ago I gave up watching the nightly network news and the local news. 20 years ago I would watch the Big 3 after watching CSPAN and I became quickly aware that what I had trusted for the first 25 years of my life wasn’t really trustworthy.  I could either trust my eyes and ears or the Network News, but not both.  I was a CNN junkie (Crossfire was my favorite show back when it was Buchanan v Kinsley) until Fox came to our cable system (and Fox occasionally says/does/reports something I find not quite right.) 
         
        I’m not a masochist and I gave up the frustration of watching the MSM long ago. I do read and listen and occasionally stumble on stories which I identify as suspect or, most often, have those stories brought to my attention by Drudge, Breitbart, Beck, Bozell, other aggregators.  If it’s interesting to me, impactful or particularly egregious, I’ll do some more research (Googling) and determine if there is really something there or someone is just being oversensitive.Which brings me to something I stumbled onto today which I wanted to make you aware of and the second reason why I popped back in this evening: I learned today that there have now been three NBC employees fired in three separate incidents of editing the Zimmerman 911 call!  Up until a few hours ago i thought there was only the one incident.  Reading this article (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/third-employee-fired-after-another-edited-george-zimmerman-911-tape-surfaces/) I learned that there were two additional cases of edits, both of which were slanted to making Zimmerman look bad.  That’s 3 for 3, or, rather, 0 for 3 if your looking for truth.  The primary reason I came this evening was a thought I had this morning, before I had even seen the article on the 3rd firing and what  I really wanted to ask you.  I can understand that the original Zimmerman 911 editing case was for time.  I honestly understand that.  What I don’t understand, and you likely won’t be able explain because you can’t be in that producers head, but I want you to think about this in kind of an academic way is this: If you were editing that tape, for time, and had to keep the most important information, what information would you choose to keep?
         
        The original call, for reference:
        Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Dispatcher: , “O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?”
        Zimmerman:  “He looks black.”
         
        If I were editing that for time, I would likely not do any cut (except to remove a pause) and keep, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something.”  I think the fact the Zimmerman thought the guys was on drugs is pretty important. 
         
        If not the drug bit, I think I’d keep the fact that reporting suspicious behavior to the police.  I’d keep the bit about someone walking around in the rain, looking about. 
         
        To me, the most irrelevant information for a TV viewer, not for the police but for a viewer, is the race of the suspicious person.  It’s important to the police for ID purposes when they arrive on scene but not to a TV viewer.  Race is entirely and completely irrelevant, yet, this senior producer thought that the race of the deceased Trayvon Martin was the most relevant fact and the fact that, above either of the other items, needed to be communicated to the viewer.  I started thinking about why that would be.
         
        My first thought was that maybe the producer was black and, as such, was more sensitive to the race than maybe a white person would be.  My next thought was that this producer wanted to sensationalize the story for ratings by making it a white-on-black crime.  Next, that the producers worldview, his perception/reality/narrative/whatever we call it, is that the attack was racially motivated just because ‘every white on black crime is racially motivated’ (I need italics. 🙂 ) and he needed to highlight the race so as to “prove” that viewpoint.  I’m sure there are more theories or thoughts.
         
        So then when I discovered this 3rd firing and the content of the edits, naturally I thought that this was 3 datapoints that supported my hypothesis that the cause of media bias isn’t conspiracy but, as I have stated before, similar thinking based on similar training and similar ideology.  Since the overwhelming majority of the MSM are similarly trained and have similar ideology (typically liberal, left, progressive, Democrat, whatever name we want to put on it) it stands to reason that there would be similar thought processes which manifest, across the MSM, as similar biases. 
         
        There were a few who came out initially and stated that there simply weren’t enough facts to draw conclusions of hate crime or racism.  I saw them on Fox because that is what I watch.  I heard that on Conservative talk radio, because that’s what I listen to.  There may have been others outside of my sphere of information, i don’t know, but if the clips of both video and audio from NBCABCCBSCNNMSNBC were any indication, then most (not all) MSM reported the story of the shooting with a racial slant in accordance with their perception. 
         
        As always, I’m interested in your thoughts.  I’ll check back soon. 
        Cheers!
        John

      •  @JohnH3 I’m actually writing a new post about my take on the edits and how I think I would have handled it if I had to edit down the tape, so look for that post on Saturday.
         
        As for the coverage over homelessness and war casualties, again, I think it’s extremely unfair for you to make statements like, “Not a peep.” By your own admission, you only watch a few choices that you consider to be “fair,” so you can’t honestly know what all of them are reporting.
         
        Secondly, wanting coverage about, for example, the plight of the homeless is one thing; wanting coverage about the homeless and how the DEMOCRATIC president is SPECIFICALLY making their plight worse is a desire for a slant. No matter how true or untrue it is, you seem to WANT the president skewered on this.
         
        I have to be honest: that sounds like you’re more interested in hearing an anti-Obama slant on a story AHEAD of a factual account.  (I’m not accusing you of wanting false reporting, but it definitely appears that you want coverage with a pro-GOP agenda.)
         
        If it’s wrong for the media to have looked for ways to skewer Bush, why is it suddenly right for them to skewer Obama? 

      •  @patricksplace Thanks for the tip on the new article.  I look forward to it.Fair enough criticism of my viewing habits in your second  paragraph.  I think I pay attention more than most but, since I don’t watch the Big Three I do rely on what I Google that hits them or what aggregators pull from them.  It’s not that I “want Obama skewered”, I’d just like some equal reporting.  The plight of the homeless seems to be reported far more often and is made-out to be far worse during a Republican Administration than it is under a Democrat administration.  Again, a good Lexis/Nexis search would probably be a good starting point, but, I don’t have a subscription.
         
        I’m not interested in “hearing an anti-Obama slant on a story AHEAD of a factual account”, just surprised that the homeless are doing so well in this bad economy that there are few stories about them.  Fewer still if any blaming the President.  With gas prices it’s interesting.  With Obama in the WH the media has a far more “economic” slant to reporting high gas prices, citing economic theories, world conditions, etc.  Prices half these under Bush were “his fault” and part of a plan to “enrich his oil buddies”.  Any economic argument was met with mocking and derision.I stumbled on an excellent article which you will find interesting, though likely wrong. :P   http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/trayvon_and_zimmerman_the_structure_and_elements_of_a_disinformation_campaign.html 
         
        Cheers!

      •  @JohnH3 So tell me, John: to what degree do you agree with the article to which you posted the link?

      •  @JohnH3 So tell me, John: to what degree do you agree with the article to which you posted the link?

      •  @patricksplace Not being a psychologist and never having studied psychology I’d say that the psychological aspects are consistent with things I’ve heard over the years.  I can see the real world examples in friends and associates especially of the point ,”Early and negative information has a disproportionally heavy impact “.  Despite the voluminous and exculpatory evidence corroborating Zimmermans story released a couple days ago, I have several friends who are still adamant that this was a racially motivated, vigilante “murder”.   I do find the psychological aspects both interesting and reasonable.The other point of the article is that there is a methodology that can be employed to, dare I say, “not let a good crisis go to waste”.  These “events” can be, and I believe in many or most cases are, orchestrated for maximum political or personal gain by a few nefarious people.  We’ve seen it in the past in the examples given in the article and others.  People and organizations whose lifeblood literally is racial tension between white and black “gin up” fear and hatred by misrepresenting events, assigning motivation and misinforming the public. 
         
        Getting to the point of the original article on the presumption of media narrative, the media is complicit in this disinformation campaign and complicit in the misinforming of he public by both sensationalizing the story and giving heavy weighting and coverage to the “organizers” because most in the media share the world view, the presumptions, of the organizers.  While there may be a few rotten apples, I don’t believe that members of the media at large are in conspiracy with the organizers. I simply believe that they are reporting heavily on those “facts” with which they are in sympathy and report lightly on “facts” which do not conform or contradict what they personally believe is the reality of the way the world works. 
         
        Whether the article is right or wrong in it’s conclusion that there is a formula for maximizing the political/personal gain from stories like the Martin-Zimmerman case, it’s hard to argue that the result is consistent across stories like Martin-Zimmerman, Rodney King (in which the media consistently showed only the beating and not the 10 minutes of King resisting arrest prior), Tawana Brawley, OJ Simpson and I’m sure there are more which I just can’t recall right now.
         
        Was there a specific point on which you wanted me to comment? 
         
        Lastly, in the strikingly similar but opposite case from Phoenix.  The shooting of hispanic Daniel Adkins by a black man. There is precious little media coverage, even from Phoenix, no civil rights activism, and, as of the publishing of the latest article I could find of the incident, no arrest of the shooter. This is the most recent story I could find on the APR 4 shooting: http://www.kpho.com/story/18340114/family-tired-of-waiting-for-decision-on-deadly-shooting  I find it interesting that the media in this case is not identifying the shooter as he has not yet been charged. How much violence could have been avoided if the media were that responsible in the Martin-Zimmerman case?  Despite the appearance of a greater injustice in the Phoenix shooting, it’s not getting the attention that the fictional injustice in Sanford received.  My question is why?
         

      •  @JohnH3 You said: Was there a specific point on which you wanted me to comment? 
         
        I was just asking, overall, how accurate do you believe the article is in regards to the media.  On a scale of 1 to 10, let’s say, with 1 being completely inaccurate and 10 being completely accurate in how the media operates, how do you rank the article?

• Another consideration is the actual reporters themselves. Reporters need sources to do their job. When news breaks, the first one to break story garners the most attention/praise. They got the ‘scoop’. When a source has a story to break, they will pick the reporter whom they want to give it to. The reporter has to handle the story in a certain manner or they can loose the source completely, or maybe just loose their place as the first one that source calls with breaking news. I’m not sure there’s a good solution for this, but if we are to analyze the media, we have to analyze how they work to get the stories in the first place.

• Apparently there’s been a little fall out from the 911 call: Source: NBC producer fired over Zimmerman 911 call http://news.yahoo.com/source-nbc-producer-fired-over-zimmerman-911-call-160330268.html

• Wow.
   
  So much to correct and I just know the wife is going to call me for dinner before I get it all out.  I’ll apologize for the brevity of the forthcoming but I got a lot to say in a little space.
   
  Hi, my name is John (Hi John) and I’m the John in Patrick’s article. 🙂
   
  Ted, hang on, I’ll address your comment about “that one cable news network” when I get to the videos.
   
  First, Patrick, what you defined media narrative as is not at all what I’ve defined it as.  Media Narrative is not “intentional effort to tell the story in a false light or portray one character or the other as good or bad through the careful selection of file photos of the two men involved in the story.”  It is not intentional. It is simply a reflection of the perception of the world held by the vast majority of MSM journalists.  To paraphrase Ted, the MSM doesn’t operate on reality but on a perception of reality.  The perception is that the Tea Party (all Conservatives for that matter) are racist.  The fact that it was a black man with the rifle is not important to the story.  The fact that it was a Tea Partier with a rifle is. The story was about “racist tea party members with rifles”.  The race of the Tea Party member is not the issue.  I find it beyond belief that it was an “accident” that the video of the man with the rifle at the rally was the “evidence” MSNBC used as the foundation of a full 1:35 story on racism in the Tea Party against Obama.  Didn’t you ever find it questionable that the dominant reason expounded by the left for criticism of Obama’s policies or for voting for McCain was “racism”?  That was kinda everywhere through the campaign and for the first few years of the Obama Presidency.
   
  Next, when reference the two videos I posted you state, “The second appears to be amateur video that appears to be of the same people at the same place on the same day.”  Look more carefully.  It’s the same video and yes, it is amateur footage taken by someone at the rally.  The MSNBC edited footage is out of order from the raw footage.  The MSNBC footage :04-:11 is the raw footage :14-:20 and the MSNBC footage.  You’ll note the same “swing up” in the camera at about :12 in both.  The video appears to be looped.  It’s also interesting that in the raw footage at, :16, you can hear the interviewer say, “…and he’s a good looking young black man with an AR-15…”
   
  The other angle of the MSNBC story is the violence of the Tea Party,  How often have you heard about the “concerns of violence” from the Tea Party?  Now, how much actual Tea Party violence have you heard reported or heard about?  Contrast that with the number of times the Occupy Movement has been referred to as “mostly peaceful” and the amount of violence that you have actually seen video of at Occupy rallies/encampments?  Rapes?  Theft?  So, what’s the “media narrative”, what is the dominant reportage regarding the violent or peaceful nature of the TP and Occupy when compared with reality?
   
  Now, Ted’s point about the “editing” and Patricks point about the “white flash”.  The white flash is done intentionally to show the viewer that there has been an edit.  Granted we don’t see what was edited out but at least the viewer is told that the video has been edited.  Did NBC tell anyone or indicate in anyway that the 911 recording had been edited?  With all the crap on the bottom 1/3 of the screen, was there no room for “edited audio” to be displayed.  What’s more, MSNBC edited something that altered the listeners perception of the event dramatically.  Patrick, for someone in the journalism business for so long, did you not go see the raw footage of the edited hoodie footage of Rep Rush and the edited footage of Rep Johnson later in your video example from Fox News Channel?  If you had you would have noticed that Fox News did exactly what you state is done in newsrooms – they edited the video for time.  In both cases, in the Fox video, what was edited out was silence.  A pause in the statements of both Rep. Rush and Rep. Johnson was removed for time.  Despite that the video was only edited for time and only silence was removed, the editors at Fox News still put in the white flash to indicate the edit.  Both you and Ted have illustrated yet another “media narrative” – Fox News is lying and biased.  What I see is honest, ethical reporting with integrity and it’s illustrated in the example you provided.
   
  Lastly (because the wife is calling me for dinner and she’s not happy I haven’t come yet. ) )  is Patrick’s pharmacist analogy.  I agree, one poison pill from a pharmacist does not mean he is trying to murder me, or anyone else.  Accidents happen.  The point in the case of the “media narrative”, and this is where your analogy breaks down, Patrick, is that the MSM passing the “poison pill” of “media narrative” isn’t the overtired pharmacist from “It’s a Wonderful Life”, it’s the two little old ladies from “Arsenic and Old Lace”.   To pay homage to Ted, “Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is an enemy action.”  -Ian Fleming, Goldfinger

  •  @JohnH3 Your comment about your wife callling you for dinner reminded me of a funny comic : http://xkcd.com/386/

    •  @TedtheThird Ted!  I think the author of that was spying on me!  I did actually use the words “this is important” in my bid for a few extra minutes.  :)  I shoulda taken still more extra minutes and proofread my post.  Lotsa mistakes. 🙁
      Good laugh!! Thanks!

  •  @JohnH3  John,  first, please pass along my thanks to your wife for her patience in letting you finish that comment.  And I appreciate you taking the time to engage in the debate.  I’ll try to address your points in order, one by one.
     
    Just for the record, I do believe that you are sincere when you state that your definition of the “media narrative” is not quite the same as my own.  Your argument as presented, as I understand it, is that the “vast majority” of journalists share a common political agenda, and that their coverage unintentionally reflects that agenda. Even so, earlier you referred at least once to an incident that you cannot fathom being an accident.  The opposite of accidental is intentional.  So even if you believe that the “media narrative” isn’t a covert operation designed to push an agenda and is instead simply a by-product of beliefs that can’t easily be overcome on the part of the journalist, you still seem to see INTENTIONAL actions there.
     
    Beyond that, we ALL have preconceived notions.  It’s not just a journalist: his audience, his readers, his viewers, also enter the picture with their own understanding of how things are and how things should be.  Your explanation of your definition of the “media narrative” seems to put all of the fault on the journalist but none on the audience; it is impossible to escape the reality that the audience to some extent is as guilty as the journalist in coloring a situation based on its own ideology.  The result of which is simple:  at least SOME of the time, what may APPEAR to be bias is actually a more objective report that happens to disagree with the reader/viewer’s own perception of the situation.  
     
    Take your Tea Party example:  if you believe that the Tea Party is not in any way racist, then you are almost certain to believe that any mere suggestion of racism within the ranks of the Tea Party is bias.  Racism exists in EVERY group to some degree.  There are racists in the Tea Party and in Occupy. The GROUP should not be characterized as racist, of course, because as a whole, it isn’t.  But it’s just as wrong to characterize a discussion about racism WITHIN it as automatic bias against the group itself.
     
    You are quite correct when you point out that there were countless accusations of racism whenever a politician spoke out against Obama’s plan.  But the media wasn’t making this up: it was reporting real accusations.  But in doing so, it certainly covered the other side, who said it had nothing to with race and everything to do with political ideology.
     
    Now, on to the Tea Party vs. Occupy issue.  Again, we have the little “media narrative” question.  Are you seriously going to tell me that you haven’t heard of reports of “concerns of violence” at Occupy rallies?  Whenever there has been a violent incident at an Occupy movement, it has been covered to the hilt.  You suggest that the Occupy movement has been home to more violence than the Tea Party movement.  Can you honestly tell me that you’ve seen MORE footage of violence shown on television from the Tea Partiers?  And can you tell me you’ve never heard a journalist mention “concerns of violence” at Occupy protests?  
     
    As for the video edit: no, I didn’t go dig up the footage to see what was actually removed.  That wasn’t the point.  The point was that the viewers KNEW an edit was made, but no one questioned what MIGHT have been said.  And most viewers aren’t going to take the time to go dig up a longer clip on their own, even in the Internet Age. 
     
    When NBC News aired the clip of the 911 call, at the VERY LEAST, it should have added <i>periods of ellipsis</i>, the <i>…</i> punctuation, to indicate an edit.  But a “white flash” or other video cue wouldn’t have worked here because they only had sound to work with.  Audio edits are particularly dangerous because they can easily change the context of what’s being said.  That change can be intentional or accidental: I suspect I know beyond a shadow of a doubt which you think was the case.
     
    As for the “media narrative” about Fox News being biased, I can refer you to a very interesting piece of research from the Pew Institute from several years ago:
     
    http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/29/fox-news-viewed-as-most-ideological-network/
     
    As you can see, this is hardly a “media narrative.”  It is nothing short of extraordinary that news viewers, when asked which outlet is the most biased (no matter which direction) place Fox News at the TOP of the list.  They didn’t ask a bunch of journalists with axes to grind:  they asked the viewers.
     
    It’s interesting to note that viewers of Fox News were shown to be MORE likely to see bias in ALL of the media outlets than viewers of other networks. But what’s even MORE extraordinary is that of Fox News’s OWN VIEWERS, 48% of them characterize their political agenda of their network of choice as “mostly conservative.” No other network ranks so high among its own viewers as being perceived as biased in either direction.
     
    This begs a critical question:  do viewers want UNBIASED reporting, or do they actually want a “media narrative” as long as it matches their OWN narrative?  Why would almost half of a network’s self-identified “regular viewers” claim a network they are willing to admit is statistically MORE biased than any other?
     
    If you feel that coverage on Fox News is “honest, ethical reporting with integrity,” I will completely respect your opinion on that one.  But as I do so, I will also respectfully point out that according to that media research, you are in a clear MINORITY among the network’s OWN viewers.
     
    The “poison pill” is in the eye of the viewer, John.

    •  @patricksplace  @JohnH3 “Can you honestly tell me that you’ve seen MORE footage of violence shown on television from the Tea Partiers?” 
       
      And who controls what footage is seen? The media, not the viewers.
       
      “Your explanation of your definition of the “media narrative” seems to put all of the fault on the journalist but none on the audience; it is impossible to escape the reality that the audience to some extent is as guilty as the journalist in coloring a situation based on its own ideology”
       
      The issue here is one of power. The media has it, the viewer does not. It puts the onus of being impartial on the media. The viewer only choice is to consume or not consume, the media’s choice is what is consumed and from what point of view the story is told. The media has the power, and that gives them a greater responsibility to be impartial. The viewer, because of his limited power, has greater freedom to be biased. The media does not, yet it is (or at the very least has done things that have created the perception it is).

      •  @TedtheThird  @patricksplace Ted, my point on the seeing more video of TP violence over Occupy violence isn’t that the media is suppressing TP violence video, it is that there simply isn’t any violence from the TP to video.  Conversely, there are bucketloads of violent videos of Occupy all over youtube.  It’s rare to see on MSM and when it is seen on MSM it is explained as “the mostly peaceful Occupy movement…”.
         
        I wasn’t sure if you, Ted, were agreeing with me on this point, hence the clarification.

      •  @JohnH3  @patricksplace I wasn’t really agreeing or disagreeing, but just pointing out the responsibility the media has.

      •  @JohnH3  @patricksplace I wasn’t really agreeing or disagreeing, but just pointing out the responsibility the media has.

    •  @patricksplace I love discussion. :)  Thanks!
       
      I pulled the two following paras fro the end of my reply to the beginning because, well, I tend to get wordy and didn’t want you to fatigue before you got to this point:
       
      The Pew study you cite is interesting but, it is a study of the “viewers perception” of FNC bias and not a study of FNC bias.  I’ll Counter with the UCLA/Groseclose study ( http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-all-major-news-outlets-have-left-leaning-bias-that-distorts-minds/ ) which examined a decade of the actual news coverage by various MSM news outlets and not the opinions of people regarding that coverage.  The UCLA/Groseclose study concluded:
      – All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.
      – The Drudge Report is the most fair, balanced and centrist news outlet in the United States.
      – Fox News’ “Special Report,” which is usually characterized as conservative, is not biased as far right as typical mainstream outlets are biased to the left
       
      The UCLA study also determined FNC to be, yes, the most “right” on the political left-right scale than the rest of the MSM but that FNCs “right” is actually just left of center.  FNC appears to be far right because the rest of the MSM is so far left.
       
      Do people tend to gravitate to that which supports their own ideology or opinion?  Most certainly yes, which explains the success of Conservative talk radio and the failure of Liberal/Progressive talk radio.  The country is predominantly a center-right country and always has been.  The fact that I view FNCs coverage as “fair and balanced” and the MSM coverage as left-biased comes from decades of observation.  Trying to be as first-hand aware of things (I used to watch lots of C-SPAN, congressional debates, hearings, etc.) and then compare them to the news coverage.  What I saw from the MSM often didn’t resemble what I had heard with my own two ears of seen with my eyes.  Much of what was reported was, imagine this, selectively edited to sway a hearing or testimony toward a specefic POV.
       
       Now, back to my point by point of your point by point. 🙂
       
      When I talked about the specific incident being intentional , I referred only to that specific incident and the editor or several editors who sliced the video so as to avoid showing that the man with the rifle at the Tea Party rally was black.  It is the collusion/conspiracy, or appearance thereof,  across a the larger MSM which is accidental, not the individual acts themselves.  How many accidents have to happen in order for a video with a black man with a rifle to be so edited as to remove the black man in order support a presupposition that the Tea Party is both violent and racist for the purpose of discussion on how the Tea Party is both violent and racist?  Keep in mind that the presupposition that the Tea Party was both violent and racist was prevalent and often reported by the MSM without the acknowledgement that either black were Tea party members and no violence had been committed nor threatened by any Tea party? 
       
      Did the MSM report how clean and orderly the Lincoln Memorial was after >1M people, mostly Tea Party members, gathered at Restoring Honor on 8/28?  Did anyone in the MSM report on the total lack of violence and the fact that there were all manner of acts of kindness reported by attendees, everything from people thanking police and security to lost wallets with hundreds of dollars being returned not missing a dime?  That’s the MSM ignored truth of the Tea Party. Nope.  Didn’t fit the narrative. 
       
      Hmm, regarding the racists in TP and Occupy, how does each group treat their racists?  There is great video of TP folks running-off a guy who is both wearing racist/nazi clothing and espousing racism.  TP sent him packing to the cheers of the TP members in the area.  What I see in Occupy, however, are masses of protestors carrying signs with all manner of racism in the form of anti-semitism.  The overwhelming majority of Occupy is participating and thus endorsing racism.  Oddly, I don’t see that on the MSM much, if at all.  Interviews with black TP’rs always seems to be countered by another black who accuses the TP black of being a sellout to his race or somehow confused by the TP’rs.  Does TP have a mind ray or something?  It would be quite comical were it not so serious.
       
      Re the video edit and most viewers not looking up the footage to see what was edited: Isn’t that what Media Matters does?  What I overwhelmingly find at Media Matters is either an exposition of something total out of context or a complete misrepresentation of something based on either misunderstanding or a blatant atempt to mislead.  For the record, MM is NOT affiliated with the MSM.  I do not consider them journalists, the are propagandists and held to a different standard.
       
      Let me leave you with an additional example of MSM bias.  I recalled this today on my way back from breakfast.  Recall when Bill Clinton was in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and had been accused of lying to the Grand Jury in the Paula Jones case.  I distinctly remember a spate of news stories along the lines of “is all lying bad?”.  Oh they talked about husbands responses to “does this dress make me look fat?” and the simple acknowledgment of a “beautiful baby” when, well… lets be honest, they aren’t all “beautiful”.  The MSM flooded with psychologists, etc who asserted that not all lying was bad, if it was done to protect someone or their feelings, etc.  
       
      Then came the Iraq war.  “Bush Lied People Died”, right?  No MSM coverage of the fact that during the Clinton Administration, prominent democrats including John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, President Clinton himself, Madeline Albright, Howard Dean, Joe Biden, ad nauseaum, all made statements supporting the intelligence that Iraq had WMD’s.  All that agreement with the intelligence was suppressed (except by intrepid youtubers who strung it all together into an embarrassing expose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8 ) when Bush became President and acted on that very same intelligence only to be met with accusations of lying from the very people who had supported the intelligence and the war prior to the war.  This isn’t about the Iraq war, it is about the MSM coverage. 

      •  @JohnH3 The question I was asking wasn’t really about which media outlet IS biased, but rather which one media consumers BELIEVE is biased. Yet the majority seem to gravitate toward the one that they seem to agree is MOST biased.  That, regardless of how far either direction is leans, should be viewed as a problem for everyone, without trying to justify it based on which way others lean.  Bias is bias.  It’s either bad or it’s acceptable.  If it’s acceptable in ONE direction but not another, that is a double standard.
         
        It’s a  nice thought that people would gravitate towards Fox News as the lesser of multiple evils.  But again, bias is bias.  Why are Fox News viewers so quickly to blast everyone else, but characterize their network of choice as acting with “integrity?”  If they’re NOT UNBIASED, even if it’s only a LITTLE UNBIASED, then wouldn’t you agree that they aren’t doing their job perfectly, either?  Yet what I seem to see is that people are “settling” for an evil pointing one direction, 
         
        You ask: “Did the MSM report how clean and orderly the Lincoln Memorial was after >1M people, mostly Tea Party members, gathered at Restoring Honor on 8/28?” 
         
        Why would they?  The media almost NEVER does stories about people who do what they’re SUPPOSED to do.  Have you not seen NUMEROUS stories about Occupy leaving a mess in its wake?  In South Carolina, the governor tried to get them off state capitol grounds, and in Charleston, the mayor tried to run them out of a downtown park because of garbage concerns.  THAT was covered quite a bit.
         
        As for Clinton allegedly getting a pass, how long was the Lewinsky scandal covered?  Why not ask former Rep. Anthony Weiner how much of a free ride a Democrat gets in a sex scandal!

      •  @JohnH3 The question I was asking wasn’t really about which media outlet IS biased, but rather which one media consumers BELIEVE is biased. Yet the majority seem to gravitate toward the one that they seem to agree is MOST biased.  That, regardless of how far either direction is leans, should be viewed as a problem for everyone, without trying to justify it based on which way others lean.  Bias is bias.  It’s either bad or it’s acceptable.  If it’s acceptable in ONE direction but not another, that is a double standard.
         
        It’s a  nice thought that people would gravitate towards Fox News as the lesser of multiple evils.  But again, bias is bias.  Why are Fox News viewers so quickly to blast everyone else, but characterize their network of choice as acting with “integrity?”  If they’re NOT UNBIASED, even if it’s only a LITTLE UNBIASED, then wouldn’t you agree that they aren’t doing their job perfectly, either?  Yet what I seem to see is that people are “settling” for an evil pointing one direction, 
         
        You ask: “Did the MSM report how clean and orderly the Lincoln Memorial was after >1M people, mostly Tea Party members, gathered at Restoring Honor on 8/28?” 
         
        Why would they?  The media almost NEVER does stories about people who do what they’re SUPPOSED to do.  Have you not seen NUMEROUS stories about Occupy leaving a mess in its wake?  In South Carolina, the governor tried to get them off state capitol grounds, and in Charleston, the mayor tried to run them out of a downtown park because of garbage concerns.  THAT was covered quite a bit.
         
        As for Clinton allegedly getting a pass, how long was the Lewinsky scandal covered?  Why not ask former Rep. Anthony Weiner how much of a free ride a Democrat gets in a sex scandal!

      • Hmm, interesting on the “consumers believe is biased” point.  I would then agree that FNC would come out to be rated more Conservatively biased BUT, I think there may be a flaw in the Pew study. Does the Pew study compare the “news” programming of all of the networks analyzed or does it include opinion programming on the Cable news networks as being “news”? If Pew is comparing only the ABCNBCCBS “news” programs to ALL of the programming on CNNFNCMSNBC and not only the actual news/journalism programs on CNNFNCMSNBC then the study is flawed.  FNC starts the 7PM Fox Report with “from the journalists at Fox News” so as to differentiate the program from Beck (when he was on), Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. O’Reilly especially does an excellent job of having the opposing view argued and grills both sides fairly and equally.  Hannity, not so much but he does have the opposing viewpoint on – Hannity just interrupts too much (which is why I seldom watch him and stopped listening years ago.)  But the point is, there a lots of opinion/discussion programs on FNC.  What differentiates FNC opinion show hosts from the hosts of the other networks is that they are very upfront about being Conservative and they state so – with the exception if Lawrence O’Donnell who did state that he was a socialist on Joe Scarborough’s show.  Pew may need to recalibrate their poll to focus on journalism products of the networks and not overall programming. “According to Pew, 53 percent of MSNBC’s viewers identify themselves as Democrats, compared to 47% at CNN and 21% at Fox News. Applying those percentages to the August Nielsen ratings, it means that the average number of Democrats watching Fox News is 214,200. MSNBC has 199,810 Democrats, and CNN 179,070.” “But all three networks have similar percentages of independents: 31 for CNN, 30 for MSNBC and 28 for Fox News.”  “Pew’s survey found that 29% of the people responding say they “believe all or most” of what they see on CNN, with 27% saying the same for Fox News. MSNBC lagged a little bit behind at 22%, but still ahead of ABC and CBS (21 percent), NBC and the New York Times (20%).” (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2010/09/cable-news-fair-and-balanced-audiences.html) Your point about the double standard of the viewers may be moot based on how many viewers actually believe what they’re seeing (see the last quote in the above para).  While most may “perceive” bias in their favorite network, few believe what they are being told.  Yes, good point on the coverage of the mess left behind by Occupy.  The “mess” wasn’t a “narrative” story, however, as the racism and violence were. And, yes, I know I brought up the mess, but I did so in the context of the “better behavior” of the TP’rs with respect to racism and violence.  The lack of a “mess” is simply another sign of the better behavior of the TP members. Re the Weiner scandal.  While it was seemingly ubiquitous, Weiner’s scandal did not garner half the number of stories that the similar Republican sexting scandal of Mark Foley (R, FL) received.  Foley received 2x as many stories in a similar period of time, 12.7 per day Foley vs 5.9 per day Weiner ( http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/06/23/mrc-study-networks-found-twice-much-intensity-gop-foley-scandal-2006-wei ). The Clinton/Lewisnky story first broke on the Drudge Report when Drudge reported that Newsweek had spiked the story.  Granted this is a single editorial decision by Newsweek but, I can’t help but think that had Newsweek had the same scandal and evidence on a Republican President they certainly would have run it. Off to get dressed for Easter services and then dinner with the family.  Happy Easter to you Patrick!  He is Risen!

      • Hmm, interesting on the “consumers believe is biased” point.  I would then agree that FNC would come out to be rated more Conservatively biased BUT, I think there may be a flaw in the Pew study. Does the Pew study compare the “news” programming of all of the networks analyzed or does it include opinion programming on the Cable news networks as being “news”?
         
        If Pew is comparing only the ABCNBCCBS “news” programs to ALL of the programming on CNNFNCMSNBC and not only the actual news/journalism programs on CNNFNCMSNBC then the study is flawed.  FNC starts the 7PM Fox Report with “from the journalists at Fox News” so as to differentiate the program from Beck (when he was on FNC), Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. O’Reilly especially does an excellent job of having the opposing view argued and grills both sides fairly and equally.  Hannity, not so much but he does have the opposing viewpoint on – Hannity just interrupts too much (which is why I seldom watch him and stopped listening years ago.)  But the point is, there are many  opinion/discussion programs on FNC.  What differentiates FNC opinion show hosts from the hosts of the other networks is that they are very upfront about being Conservative and they state so – with the exception if Lawrence O’Donnell who did state that he was a socialist on Joe Scarborough’s show.  Pew may need to recalibrate their poll to focus on journalism products of the networks and not overall programming.
         
         “Pew’s survey found that 29% of the people responding say they “believe all or most” of what they see on CNN, with 27% saying the same for Fox News. MSNBC lagged a little bit behind at 22%, but still ahead of ABC and CBS (21 percent), NBC and the New York Times (20%).” (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2010/09/cable-news-fair-and-balanced-audiences.html)
         
        Your point about the double standard of the viewers may be moot based on how many viewers actually believe what they’re seeing (see the last quote in the above para).  While most may “perceive” bias in their favorite network, few believe what they are being told. 
         
        Yes, good point on the coverage of the mess left behind by Occupy.  The “mess” wasn’t a “narrative” story, however, as the racism and violence were. And, yes, I know I brought up the mess, but I did so in the context of the “better behavior” of the TP’rs with respect to racism and violence.  The lack of a “mess” is simply another sign of the better behavior of the TP members.
         
        Re the Weiner scandal.  While it was seemingly ubiquitous, Weiner’s scandal did not garner half the number of stories that the similar Republican sexting scandal of Mark Foley (R, FL) received.  Foley received 2x as many stories in a similar period of time, 12.7 per day Foley vs 5.9 per day Weiner ( http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/06/23/mrc-study-networks-found-twice-much-intensity-gop-foley-scandal-2006-wei ).
         
        The Clinton/Lewisnky story first broke on the Drudge Report when Drudge reported that Newsweek had spiked the story.  Granted this is a single editorial decision by Newsweek but, I can’t help but think that had Newsweek had the same scandal and evidence on a Republican President they certainly would have run it.What followed was a long run-up to MSM media coverage.  The story was largely uncovered by the MSM in the initial weeks after Drudge revealed the story of the Newsweek spiking.  It then became a story which could not be ignored any longer.
         
        Off to get dressed for Easter services and then dinner with the family.  Happy Easter to you Patrick!  He is Risen!

• It’s possible that the two incidents you cite were simple mistakes, but to quote the infamous (fictional) villian Auric Goldfinger, “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” 
   
  Isn’t it odd the allegations of media bias tend to only go one way (that is the complaining is always from one particular side that the media basis is against it)? Isn’t it interesting that one cable news network was able to seize on this idea to create an entire brand of opposite bias?
   
  Cosmo, in the movie Sneakers says,  “I learned that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality – but the perception of reality.” Perception is reality, and media controls that perception giving them great power and ‘with great power comes great responsibilty’
   
  (I think I have now fulfilled my movie quote quota for the month).

Comments are closed.