Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Contributor
Peeps
Posts: 33
Registered: ‎10-08-2008
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi

I completely agree with you that everything presented by the media is a biased viewpoint. Everything is written by individuals, so how they not be? We are all biased by our upbringings and personal contexts. But if you use this as a reason to discount what is said, at some point, it sort of spirals out of control. 
Worrying that you aren't hearing the whole story is important. Dismissing it because you think you might not be hearing it can be valuable. But a little more research can often help. There are plenty of people on the internet who are personally involved in stories, or who are interested enough that they do independent fact checking. And orgs like factcheck.org exist and do the same thing in a far more systematic way. 
 To my mind, teaching critical thinkings skills in public schools could go a long way towards helping people be more discerning about their media consumption.
 

thewanderingjew wrote:

because my current events page is not displaying properly, i am having trouble reading all of the comments and who they are from. i can only reply if i choose someone near the bottom of the page because the page view is obstructed with drop down columns.

in essence, it doesn't matter who owns the media or who controls it. what matters is what the media presents. if what they present is a biased viewpoint, then that is all we will hear. if they control the news and how we receive it, we will never know the whole story. if you like what you are hearing you will probably have no interest in questioning it, or perhaps, it won't be in your best interest to wonder about what you are hearing or not hearing. sometimes it is the way you are hearing something that makes it biased. here is one source which shows the media bias some of you do not think exists. here is another from ucla.

twj

 

http://www.tectonic-uplift.com/deepthiw
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi


Peeps wrote:
I completely agree with you that everything presented by the media is a biased viewpoint. Everything is written by individuals, so how they not be? We are all biased by our upbringings and personal contexts. But if you use this as a reason to discount what is said, at some point, it sort of spirals out of control. 
Worrying that you aren't hearing the whole story is important. Dismissing it because you think you might not be hearing it can be valuable. But a little more research can often help. There are plenty of people on the internet who are personally involved in stories, or who are interested enough that they do independent fact checking. And orgs like factcheck.org exist and do the same thing in a far more systematic way. 
 To my mind, teaching critical thinkings skills in public schools could go a long way towards helping people be more discerning about their media consumption.
 

I never learned anything about critical thinking in regards to the media until I was in college. Until then, I think if it was in the paper or on the news, I just assumed it was true. I shudder at my naive younger self.
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi


thewanderingjew wrote:

 here is one source which shows the media bias some of you do not think exists. here is another from ucla.

twj

 

I'm not claiming that the media is unbiased - as individuals, members of the media are of course biased in

different directions.  

 

But what I am saying is that conservative viewpoints are not exactly hidden or hard to find in the mainstream media. 

 

More to the point, there's been a lot of talk by mainstream media pundits about how "the mainstream media isn't

asking certain questions".  The irony of this of course is that many of the people who are saying this are members

of the mainstream media themselves.   It's a rhetorical tactic.  If a columnist wants to appeal to a certain crowd and 

sound more authoritative all they have to do is throw in a line criticizing the "mainstream media" and they gain 

instant credibility among some folks - in spite of the fact that the people who say this are doing so in nationally

syndicated columns that appear in hundreds of newspapers across the country.  And people swallow it hook, line,

and sinker.  

 

________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi

You seem, Jon, to be mixing up the message and the messengers.

 

Conservative viewpoints are present in mainstream media, but they are vastly overwhelmed by liberal viewpoint.  Just as, for instance, it's possible also to find messages about the peaceful nature of Islam in the media, but the overwhelming coverage of Islam focuses on violence perpetuated by Islamic fundamentalists, so the message of the peaceful nature of many Muslims is overwhelmed and, while present, effectively invisible.  It is, imo, similar with conservative viewpoints in the mainstream media; they exist, but they are simply overwhelmed by liberal viewpoints.

 

I suspect that if we were both to examine a single issue of, say, Newsweek, Time, The New York Times, the Washington Post, while we might disagree on some of the coverage, we would both find the majority of coverage in all these publications to be more liberal than conservative, both in their actual coverage and in their decisions on what stories to feature.

 

For one example, the New York Times has yet to do a major story on the recent allegations of voting registration irregularities by ACORN, in spite of the FBI being concerned enough to open an investigation.  (If the FBI had opened an investigation into a conservative organization promoting voter fraud, you can bet the Times would be all over it.)    But I am quite sure that when the Troopergate investigation report is released, scheduled for today, if it is negative about Palin the Times will have a major story on it, even though the issue of whether a state governor improperly fired a state employee is of far less importance to the legitimacy of our democratic system of government than fraud in the voting process.  


Jon_B wrote:

thewanderingjew wrote:

 here is one source which shows the media bias some of you do not think exists. here is another from ucla.

twj

 

I'm not claiming that the media is unbiased - as individuals, members of the media are of course biased in

different directions.  

 

But what I am saying is that conservative viewpoints are not exactly hidden or hard to find in the mainstream media. 

 

More to the point, there's been a lot of talk by mainstream media pundits about how "the mainstream media isn't

asking certain questions".  The irony of this of course is that many of the people who are saying this are members

of the mainstream media themselves.   It's a rhetorical tactic.  If a columnist wants to appeal to a certain crowd and 

sound more authoritative all they have to do is throw in a line criticizing the "mainstream media" and they gain 

instant credibility among some folks - in spite of the fact that the people who say this are doing so in nationally

syndicated columns that appear in hundreds of newspapers across the country.  And people swallow it hook, line,

and sinker.  

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

 

For one example, the New York Times has yet to do a major story on the recent allegations of voting registration irregularities by ACORN, in spite of the FBI being concerned enough to open an investigation. 

 


 

That's a fair point, and I'd agree that the New York Times generally leans to the left (although I'd also note that CNN, which is commonly labelled by the right as being too liberal, is one of the major sources reporting on the ACORN story). 

 

But while there are mainstream media sources that do lean to the left, there are also mainstream media sources that lean to the right and particular mediums - such as talk radio - that tend to be dominated by more conservative sources.

 

My overall point though is that regardless of the numbers, conservative viewpoints are very easy to find.   It's silly to claim that we don't hear them or that conservative voices aren't heard - even if they might be numerically outnumbered (which I'm not sure is even true), they still have a very large audience, they are just as easily accessible as liberal voices, and they retain a considerable amount of power.   

 

People like Bill O'Reilly,  Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, etc... these people are extremely popular and it's very easy to find them on TV, on the radio, in the newspaper.  The questions that these people ask are - by definition - questions that the mainstream media is asking.  

 

When an editor at the Washington Post says that the "mainstream media" is "not asking" a question that is in fact being asked repeatedly not only in that paper but also in the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, on Fox News, on countless popular websites and on popular talk radio stations, their statement is categorically false - the mainstream media is asking those questions and raising these issues, and these popular media figures themselves and the content they produce is proof of it.

 

---- 

 

As an aside, I'd like to apologize for the ongoing formatting problems in this board - it might be caused by the new type of header we're using here but it could also be caused by an html link interacting poorly with the editor - I'm working on figuring it out!

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-10-2008 12:35 PM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: nancy pelosi/sarah palin

headline on fox: palin abused power. headline on cnn: palin abused power, violated no laws headline on msnbc: probe: palin abused power.
headline on obama: conspicuous absence of any...no mention of ties to acorn and the current investigation into the voter fraud, fannie mae/freddie mac ties etc.

if there was no media bias the lead would have been palin: violated no laws.
the special counsel in palin's investigation has a very interesting background. he was a colleague of monegan who now feels vindicated. french who was overseer of branchflower the special counsel, may be an obama partisanthe linked website was the only place i found info on all the players involved and it could be biased itself. however, it gives you a better picture of what actually happened.
palin reports were immediately released while negative reports about obama are "cleansed" and reports about acorn are not only delayed, they are practically non existent.
why aren't  there major investigations into fannie mae and freddie mac? could it be they are being delayed/suppressed by nancy pelosi because it isn't in the interest of her party or obama to have his ties to both exposed?
at the time i am writing, only fox has any mention of acorn and obamas $800,000 gift and that webpage from the washington times, which covers it, mysteriously won't open for me. perhaps it was purged/cleansed  as were the obama "youth" videos that were not flattering to obama's campaign. does anyone have any further information on any of this? Biden's plagiarism is conspicuously uncovered as well.
these are the practices that i object to, the abject bias of what they present and how they present it. is it front page news or on some obscure page of the newspaper? is it true or a rumor? if obama is "the one" let him and his running mate be exposed to intense scrutiny as well.
twj

Everyman wrote:
For one example, the New York Times has yet to do a major story on the recent allegations of voting registration irregularities by ACORN, in spite of the FBI being concerned enough to open an investigation.  (If the FBI had opened an investigation into a conservative organization promoting voter fraud, you can bet the Times would be all over it.)    But I am quite sure that when the Troopergate investigation report is released, scheduled for today, if it is negative about Palin the Times will have a major story on it, even though the issue of whether a state governor improperly fired a state employee is of far less importance to the legitimacy of our democratic system of government than fraud in the voting process