Did press bias in favor of Obama constitute a major media failure? Did it matter

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

True, but news is a relatively competitive industry (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) and if someone talks about who people don't want to hear about, then they lose money. While the news media could be argued to be leaning oligarchic, one also has to substitute in the ease of switching channels.  If you don't like the product (the TV show), then it's a lot easier to flip over to the story you're more interested in than to, say, go to the store or whatever.  If you function as a propaganda piece and that turns people off, then your impact is diminished because people flip one channel up.

Broadly speaking (with a few variations here and one major exception, but even then...) American television news basically follows the same political line, which happens (shockingly!!!!!111) to closely match the political views of the people who control purse-strings and to large sections of the political establishment generally. To use an expression about Irish political parties, people are given are basically given a choice between shit and shite. There is no real choice (beyond the mainstream media and a certain openly propagandistic named for a furry animal related to wolves) and no prospect of one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

This.

I'm not saying that public-sector media is without its biases (far from it!) it's just that they often (in the West anyway) aren't generally the same, not quite, as the people controlling the purse-strings.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who are these people?

People that own media companies, other companies that have adverts in the paper or on the channel in question, and so on. And the bureaucratic structure of the companies themselves, of course. I'm not suggesting a crazed conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. And I'm not just thinking about biases as regards to politics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who are these people?

People that own media companies, other companies that have adverts in the paper or on the channel in question, and so on. And the bureaucratic structure of the companies themselves, of course. I'm not suggesting a crazed conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. And I'm not just thinking about biases as regards to politics.

If you can't name these people, how do you know that the actual reflection is mirroring their views?

I cannot name more than a handful of 19th century industrialists, yet I'm pretty sure of their political views, at least in relation to the economic system and to the ordering of society. I can't name more than a handful of Southern slave-owners, yet I'm pretty sure where they stood on the major political issues of the day. And so on and so forth.

Much of what I'm writing here is observably true anyway. Murdoch is the extreme example, of course. But he's only really unusual in that he makes a big thing of putting direct, personal, pressure on the publications that he owns. The media does not shit on its owners.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most of what Beet posted is true as well, of course