You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
New Pew study suggests perceptions of media bias are on the rise, too.
Rachel Maddow isn't the front runner though--unless you are referring to bias.
Are you serious? Network news and newspapers are objective?
Minnesota resident posting from Florida
People who think that ANY medium is unbiased when it comes to news are incredibly naive'. The 4th Estate has long since gone from seeing itself as the reporters to the creators of news. Dan Rather may be the most obvious example but there are dozens of others. "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see" is a good philosophy when it comes to broadcast or print news.
When people talk about watching Fox News and MSNBC, they're really not talking about the news, which is still fairly straightforward from what I've seen. They're talking about the personalities like Hannity and Maddow, O'Reilly and Matthews who pretty much don't hide their biases. They watch the ones they agree with, politically. Then they say things like "thank God for Fox News" because they say the things I want to hear.
IMO-If you want facts and stats refer to the CBO and Congressional Record. If you like hatred in your news plug into the cable news networks.
rlund102-You nailed it!!!! Good job.
Interesting. If you read the charts from the polls, you'll learn that the people who pay the most in taxes, who fight the wars, start the companies, create the jobs, and who've been on this planet the longest also see the news organizations as most biased, while they are also the ones paying the most attention to the campaigns. The young and the clueless, those who have the least to lose from big government and pay little or no taxes, see no bias and aren't following the campaign that closely because their guy already has the job.
When I still had cable, I used to appreciate CSPAN, not because of the call-in shows, which were where uninformed idiots spouted their opinions, but because of the live, unedited coverage of D.C. events and sessions of the House and Senate. This was the REAL "we report, you decide" station. (It is one of the three things I miss about not having cable, the others being the Weather Channel and Turner Classic Movies.)
"When people talk about watching Fox News and MSNBC, they're really not talking about the news, which is still fairly straightforward from what I've seen. They're talking about the personalities like Hannity and Maddow, O'Reilly and Matthews who pretty much don't hide their biases." ................. True, pretty much. The difference in roles between Shepherd Smith and Bill O'Rielly is pretty fundamental. But sometimes it gets a bit more subtle: Two newscasters can be reporting on the same story, presenting the same facts, and readers or listeners can come away with completely different impressions depending on the words used in the story. What is the difference in mental image between "aging politician" and "venerable statesman", for example? It is not so much what we hear, but how we hear it, that remains with us.
dentester: "you'll learn that the people who pay the most in taxes, who fight the wars, start the companies, create the jobs, and who've been on this planet the longest..." TRANSLATION: ...the people that pay the smallest percentage of their income (most of which is unearned) in taxes, start but don't fight the wars, send American jobs overseas, and have the most archaic, anti-middle class political ideals...."
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks