So after some satellite interviewer asked joe biden a few tough questions, The obama campaign has now refused to do any more tv interviews...

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/you-decide-biden-interviewer/

this is a really bad move IMO. If you cant handle pre-election media, how the hell are you going to handle the media if you actually win the presidency?

Bad move.

No, they're still doing TV interviews; they're just not taking any more with that particular station.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/

I honestly thought Biden did well in that interview, as inane as those questions were. But I totally get why they wouldn't bother with her again, after she lobbed so many soft balls to McCain. When a reporter is obviously working from right wing talking points, how does that help actual facts get reported?

radarig
No, they're still doing TV interviews; they're just not taking any more with that particular station.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/

oh well then my bad. the way I heard it on the tv, they werent doing any interviews at all.

Yes, well, FOX has pretty much become the Obama smear conflator channel.

I've been noticing a lot of bias in the media regarding candidates lately. I don't know why it shows up extra strong on this election... it may be that I'm just more aware of it now.

But it works both ways. CNN feels like they're on the Obama side and FOX News is definitely on the McCain side. I find it really aggravating since it makes it harder to get unbiased news when you don't want to be on a "side". All things considered, it feels like more of the media is rooting for Obama.

The McCain camp is making unsubstantiated claims about Obama, yet CNN is considered "leaning Obama" because they don't irresponsibly report them like the liars on FOX NEWS do.

What a world.

Always remember that corporate media is more interested in presenting things in a way that appeals to their audience. Where there's money to be made, they say whatever is necessary.

FOX news in Florida won a court case with the essential premise that telling the truth was not a requirement for free speech:

In 1997, Fox reportedly bowed to pressure from Monsanto to suppress an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac. Posilac, a synthetic drug used to increase milk production in cows, is banned in most first-world countries, with the exception of the United States, where it can be found in much of the milk supply. A Fox affiliate pressured its reporters, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, to alter their report, despite evidence that Monsanto had lied about the risks of contaminated milk and infected cattle. The reporters refused to comply, and were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre then sued Fox in Florida state court, claiming they could not be fired for refusing to do something that they believed to be illegal. In 2000, a Florida jury found in favor of the reporters, however this decision was overturned in 2003 by an appeals court on a technicality in the interpretation of the whistleblower's statute under which the original case had been filed, as fabricating the news is not actually illegal. The reporters' struggle with Fox is ongoing. The findings in their original report were never directly challenged.

So now all corporate news can do as it wishes, though I will say that the outright lies seem to be on the right. Maybe that's because their audience likes them, I don't know.

Ronson
I honestly thought Biden did well in that interview, as inane as those questions were. But I totally get why they wouldn't bother with her again, after she lobbed so many soft balls to McCain. When a reporter is obviously working from right wing talking points, how does that help actual facts get reported?

DKos put together a good video contrasting the two interviews, plus the older Biden interview from September:

hmm...id like to see more of the questions she asked mccain. they showed mostly the biden interview there.

Partisan press isn't "press" at all, it's literally worse than nothing. Do you know one of THE major element in a lot of those extremely ultra violent uprisings in so many countries in Africa? (as well as South East Asia)
-Partisan press.

News services that are directly funded by certain political parties and tribal groups stir up the wider populace, spread lies, propaganda and hysteria just to get the people riled up to go on the war path, and that ends in the literal massacres as we've seen...

And don't make the mistake of thinking of Africa as backward or wild. These are normal people like you or me, sane people, civilised, educated people, in ordered towns and cities, not the violent "primitives" the media often makes them look like. It's just that there are so few controls there, things get out of hand.

Now the U.S.A has a LOT of controls, but things can and do get just out of hand there too on occasion (people forget the segregation riots of the 60s and many other events), and the way the free press in the U.S. is going is BACKWARDS, it's no longer "fre"e press at all in many cases, it's mostly the direct equivalent now of what they have in many places in Africa; not "free press", but megaphones and mouth pieces for particular viewpoints directed at stirring up and cheering on their "side"

There is no such thing as a nonpartisan press. That's why you need a robust press, so that all viewpoints can be represented.

Unfortunately, corporate press tests stories on their audiences first. FOX gets the ultra-conservatives, MSNBC gets the moderate liberals (trust me, the far left is all about Air America, NOVA M Radio, Democracy Now and the other Pacifica broadcasts). There's money in everyone's pockets, and corporate media has no other goal than to get it however they can.

Michael Moore explains this in his first "Awful Truth". He says that he does a lot of reports that make corporations uneasy, but that ultimately his show makes money and so they don't care. Of course, once a show loses popularity - especially when it's exposing corporate malfeasance - it's very quick to be cancelled.

Bill Maher had a show on ABC called "Politically Incorrect", and in one of his monologues (just after 9/11/01) he said that Americans should stop calling the terrorists "cowards", because they weren't. Horrible murdering scumbags absolutely, but not "cowards."

What followed was a fairly loud storm against Maher's statements and ABC cancelled the show.

But the truth of the matter is that his show was up against Letterman and Leno and it had been doing poorly for a long time before that. The threat of further revenue loss was just the icing of the cake.

That's why Imus got fired for "nappy headed hos", but Rush can run his racist trash every day all day. He makes them money, Imus was not making enough.

The internet currently allows all voices to be accessible - if not heard. Soon they'll figure out a way to control those voices ... just like they did with the newspapers, the radio and television.

Right now though, the internet is anarchy, and there are treasures buried along with the trash.

There is such a thing as press that keeps its bias in check, which is what I obviously meant. ;)

The idea of "all views" being given a voice is silly, because some will be louder than others because their vested interests and supporters are more powerful. World wide this leads to more separation of groups and peoples, more strife, less truth being heard, less news being reported, and ultimately more violence.

The system as it is in the U.S. is a poor example of free press, compared to similar much saner and less partisan systems in many other nations.

I don't remember who said it, but there was a Soviet citizen who said that the only difference between the Soviet media and the American media was that the Soviets knew their press was lying to them.

A press is only kept in check if they think that they will be called on spreading misinformation. There are a few ways to regulate this with the government - limiting how much media any one entity can control seems the best.

You say that too many voices cause separation and violence, I would argue the opposite and use the USA's media as an example.

Since Reagan, various legislation has allowed individuals and corporations to own larger and larger shares of our media. That is, our media is now owned by fewer and fewer hands. If the argument is that our country was more divided and violent back when we had more media ownership, I think that'd be difficult to prove.

In fact, now that we essentially have 5 media giants that own all of our media, it seems to me to be laughably easy for these corporations to carve up the demographic they want ot exploit - and in the process cause some fairly wide divisions between the citizens.

I know you think our media is a poor example, so how about you tell us how you guys over there keep your press in check. I really am interested in hearing that.

...though I blame you guys for inflicting Rupert Murdoch on us.

Australia and Great Britain have specific laws regarding the depiction of certain groups and events. Like prosecuting a Holocaust denier? Michael Shermer was big in that case (and I read all his articles on the case)

Then there are the far stricter laws regarding libel in GB, Canada etc.

The media has been fiercely partisan in the USA for 300 years, where have you guys been? :) Come on, it's only recently that the media has tried to convince the people that it was impartial. Rupert Murdoch? How about Hearst? Ever read a 19th or 18th century newspaper? HAH! It makes Rush Limbaugh look "fair and balanced" but he has no pretensions to being impartial.

The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is so.

The public does not think critically and follows what is spoon fed to them, that's why the founders didn't want direct election of senators and instituted the Electoral College. It was the media that redefined itself without changing how they reported things. ;)

I agree about the media bravo, but new media usually has a "Golden Age" before the forces of the elite start controlling them.

There was a time where a city would have two or three different newspapers and they would compete, but they'd also try to keep eachother honest. As you point out, that fell apart once millionaires started guiding the message.

So then radio came out, and there was at least the potential for a while for different voices to get out. Then TV. Now the internet. Eventually, it too will be controlled.

But does strict censorship by the government help or hinder a society? Would they be better off, for example, by letting a holocaust denier speak his mind - so long as someone else could refute it?

I don't know, but it seems that if your government can silence some speech that that system will also become corrupted fairly quickly.