When did YOU realize the media was biased?

[HankB]

A lot has been written over the years about corrupt media - Jefferson, Mark Twain, and others all made legitimate observations about bias, corruption, yellow journalism, etc.

For this thread, I'd like to know the first time when YOU, PERSONALLY saw, heard, or read something that was a revelation about unreliable/dishonest media.

For me, it was around 1980. I'd heard all the reporting about LBJ & Vietnam, the earlier "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline, and the Hearst papers, but that bad journalism seemed abstract. However, in 1980 at the GOP convention, the keynote speaker (handpicked by Reagan) was a congressman by the name of Guy Vander Jagt. Since he was reputedly a very engaging and dynamic speaker, I decided that I wanted to see what he had to say, so I tuned into TV coverage of the convention about a half hour early to listen.

A few minor speakers were up first - with their minor contributions televised in their entirety -  then the KEYNOTE ADDRESS began.

A minute or so into the KEYNOTE ADDRESS, the network cut away from the speech and went to a couple of network talking heads who were chatting about their experiences at previous conventions - a chat that continued until the keynote address concluded.

This shamelessly overt action removed all doubt that the dominant media had an anti-GOP, pro-Democrat bias.

[AZRedhawk44]

2002 or 2003, I went to San Francisco for some IT training.  I watched the local news there and about vomited.

Keep in mind, while I lived in AZ and had been here for 2-3 years, I was a Seattle transplant and was still pretty granola/liberal at that point (though still always more libertarian than liberal). 

It was shortly after watching that newscast that I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and a whole lot of things changed about my world outlook.

Most news that I would watch through the 90's to the late 2000's was more covert in their sabotage than that San Francisco channel was during my trip, but it became a lot easier to see from then forward, after the veil slipped off on that particular occasion.

[TommyGunn]

Maybe 1962 .... or 1963 .....

The media has always   been biased.  Only recently have they become media myrmidons;   operatives actively supporting the democrat party.  

An evolution from activist media.  In the 1950s to the media it was "Who, What, Why, When, Where", but in the 1960s activism was introduced by a new generation of hippy youth who wanted to "change the world."   Just reporting facts became "square."  


And it's gone steadily downhill since then at warp speed.

[Ron]

Sometime in the 80's myself.

The venom poured out towards Reagan and his supporters was my first experience in the bias.
 
Probably around the time I started listening to Rush, as I was driving from service call to service call back in my early HVAC&R days, it became clear it was an institutional and ideological bias.

It wasn't so much what Rush said that convinced me but what the media was reporting about him in the mainstream that was convincing. Like with Reagan and his supporters previously, they were lying about Rush.

I was very much a libertarian back then and just considered Rush a statist establishment guy who was clever and funny. Whether you liked him or not it was obvious they were lying about him without shame, creating a narrative about him that was one dimensional to serve their leftist aims.

[Nick1911]

I'm younger than some of you guys.  I suppose I was vaguely aware as a teenager that all sources have some biases.  As I became more politically aware, and got more information from reading online and interacting with people online and in person, it became more apparent to me that most established media was decidedly biased towards progressive, left-leaning viewpoints.  This was gradual, I don't think there was a defining moment.

I've always avoided broadcast television, but when I've been around it by happenstance, the lies, omissions and manipulations are glaring.  And if you think that's bad, take a minute to critically examine an average sequence of commercials on television.  It's ten times worse.

[Ben]

Opposite of Nick, I'm probably in the "older than" category for APS. I'm trying to remember far enough back, and for 40 years ago, I'm not sure if I'm recalling correctly.

But for 1980, I don't think I really recognized any media bias. Remember at this time it was "the big three" TV news services and newspapers, so it would be harder to compare and contrast since IIRC, they didn't vary all that much in their reporting.

For 1990, I don't think I was recognizing media bias, but I might have been questioning some things.

For 2000, I know I was questioning things, and part of that was my exposure to university and grad school in the 90s. Not that the university professors swayed me the way they wanted to. The more they talked, the more I questioned, and not just them, but what I saw and read in the news. It's when I think I first saw blatant bias being pushed.

By 2010, I fully knew there was media bias, and much of that was, and has been, because of alternative news sources via the interwebz. If it wasn't for these, basically investigative journalists posting on bulletin boards, starting web pages, then getting to where they are today with full blown news sites, I would have missed the majority of MSM bias. Having all these "upstart" people dig into stories and provide documented evidence really affected the way I looked at the MSM. The MSM attacking them helped cement my view of media bias.

Now in the last four years, I have seen more than in the previous 36. Especially with what the tech giants have done regarding censorship and altering the news. That has opened up a whole new area of bias, and it scares me much more than MSM bias. At least with MSM bias, I can read alternate views from other sources and make up my mind. But guess what? That's only as long as the tech giants let me see those alternate views. The way they have been censoring and editing - not just news, but as I griped about earlier last month even things like Netflix editing fictional shows, I'm not given the range of information that I would need to make up my mind. Big tech is making up my mind for me by providing only the views they allow me to see.

[Fly320s]

Sometime in the '90s I realized that people suck.  And since people are "the media," then the media sucks, too.  After I realized that, everything makes sense.

Getting personal biases out of the media is an impossible goal.

[lee n. field]

A lot has been written over the years about corrupt media - Jefferson, Mark Twain, and others all made legitimate observations about bias, corruption, yellow journalism, etc.

For this thread, I'd like to know the first time when YOU, PERSONALLY saw, heard, or read something that was a revelation about unreliable/dishonest media.

For me, it was around 1980. I'd heard all the reporting about LBJ & Vietnam, the earlier "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline, and the Hearst papers, but that bad journalism seemed abstract. However, in 1980 at the GOP convention, the keynote speaker (handpicked by Reagan) was a congressman by the name of Guy Vander Jagt. Since he was reputedly a very engaging and dynamic speaker, I decided that I wanted to see what he had to say, so I tuned into TV coverage of the convention about a half hour early to listen.

A few minor speakers were up first - with their minor contributions televised in their entirety -  then the KEYNOTE ADDRESS began.

A minute or so into the KEYNOTE ADDRESS, the network cut away from the speech and went to a couple of network talking heads who were chatting about their experiences at previous conventions - a chat that continued until the keynote address concluded.

This shamelessly overt action removed all doubt that the dominant media had an anti-GOP, pro-Democrat bias.

Low nineties some time.  Ruby Ridge was developing.  I had a 25 mile commute, and I'd listen to NRP on the way in, and not believe their spin on it, at all.

[RocketMan]

I took a class on propaganda in high school in 1973 that opened my eyes.  The teacher tried to emphasize propaganda was the primary tool of the right wing media.  Actual news reporting was secondary.
I started paying attention a little more after that and figured out there really wasn't a right wing media.

[Blakenzy]

Iraq war (Gulf war 2.0) did it for me.

I don't know if I learned they were biased, but straight up liars?... Yes.

[WLJ]

I took a class on propaganda in high school in 1973 that opened my eyes.  The teacher tried to emphasize propaganda was the primary tool of the right wing media.  Actual news reporting was secondary.
I started paying attention a little more after that and figured out there really wasn't a right wing media.

The left is very good at convincing people the other side is guilty of what they themselves are actively doing.

80s here. When I started comparing what the MSM said Reagan said and did vs what he actually said and did and learned they were flat out lying in many cases and how they treated Rs vs Ds. Also noticed a lot of prime time sitcoms were thinly disguised socialist propaganda  

[K Frame]

Oh, 1975/1976 or so...

[kgbsquirrel]

Late 2006, I was in Afghanistan.  Caught and killed 10 Taliban in a pair of trucks just after they ambushed a convoy.

CNN hauls off and tells the world we murdered afghan national police innocently patrolling the border.

[Ben]

80s here. When I started comparing what the MSM said Reagan said and did vs what he actually said and did and learned they were flat out lying in many cases and how they treated Rs vs Ds. Also noticed a lot of prime time sitcoms were thinly disguised socialist propaganda  

That reminded me that I was probably already developing a sensitivity to some things earlier. They hated Reagan. I guess maybe I have figured there has always been bias regarding R vs D Presidents. It's the "everyday bias" stuff that I think has gotten more and more out of control, with ordinary people being censored and censured for wrongthink.

[K Frame]

At first, they disliked Reagan.

They didn't start to hate Reagan until he had the audacity to actively confront the Soviet Union.

And when his actions in part led to the fall of the Soviet Union without causing the global apocalypse that they predicted (a la The Day After), they could never, ever forgive him for exposing the lies and failing of their pet ideology.

[cordex]

Whhhhaaaaaaat?  The media is biased?

I'm going to need a NYT, MSNBC, or CNN link to prove that.

[WLJ]

Whhhhaaaaaaat?  The media is biased?

I'm going to need a NYT, MSNBC, or CNN link to prove that.

Check out what Snopes has to say about the matter if you want to know the truth

[RoadKingLarry]

Probably had some doubts in the early/mid '80s. I was in the Med in '89 when the Berlin Wall came down and I had access to US media and European news outlets and the stories would be different enough to wonder how the US media had gotten things so wrong  but when Desert Storm was going on I really started noticing the lies. I was seeing news reports that were in many cases 180° from what I factually knew in part due to access to classified briefings, was the case.
Once I got on to the interwebz in the mid '90s and had "alternate" sources of news any lingering doubt was removed.

[DittoHead]

I don't really have a singular moment. I never paid much attention to politics or the goings-on in the greater world until the mid 2000s during the Iraq war. At that point I was spending a lot of time in a patrol vehicle listening to El Rushbo. While he was obviously biased, he was effective in pointing out the bias of the main stream media too. Since then I've moved entirely to reading the internet for my news. I think getting news from the TV (or internet videos for that matter) is just a bad idea, people's brains seem to disengage and they just absorb whatever the talking head says. Radio isn't quite as bad but I still think reading is by far the best way to engage the grey matter and think critically about what's being fed to you.

[cordex]

When it comes to media, bias and accuracy are two separate issues.  A biased source can provide accurate reporting, and an unbiased source can provide inaccurate reporting.

As with many of you, whenever I have had independent or first-hand knowledge of events, they have always differed significantly with what was reported in media - and as far as I know there was no significant political reason to twist the facts.  Based on that I generally tend to question the accuracy of media.

When it comes to bias, I'm not sure if it has gotten significantly worse over the years or if I'm just more aware of it, but I certainly notice it much more these days.

[zxcvbob]

Something new, as in it just started within the past month:  Opinionating in the *headline* of an article, so people who don't read the article or even click on the link at all are influenced.

[Ben]

Something new, as in it just started within the past month:  Opinionating in the *headline* of an article, so people who don't read the article or even click on the link at all are influenced.

I think that's been going on longer than a month, and across the political spectrum, not just the libs. I've been outraged more than once by a conservative headline and then after reading the actual article, walked away with a bit of a different opinion. 

[230RN]

 I've related this before.  It was when I got my first "short-wave" radio (late 70s) and listened to the world news as filtered by various countries' stations.... BBC, Radio Moscow, Radio Nederland, you know.

They'd all report on a news item with their own particular slants, of course.  But when I'd read about it in our newspapers, it was like it happened on a distant planet.  A far-distant planet.

Then, as a member of a professional organization, there would be reporters at our "important" meetings, and one of our officials would speechify "ABC."  It would be reported and quoted the next day as "XYZ," and I was there and heard the "ABC" with my own baby blue ears.

In their defense, however, the traffic reports are usually pretty accurate.  I guess they'd have to be since there are usually thousands of eyewitnesses on hand.

Terry, 230RN

[zxcvbob]

I think that's been going on longer than a month, and across the political spectrum, not just the libs. I've been outraged more than once by a conservative headline and then after reading the actual article, walked away with a bit of a different opinion. 

I think you are right.  But they've turned it up to 11 for about a month now.

[Nick1911]

Since then I've moved entirely to reading the internet for my news. I think getting news from the TV (or internet videos for that matter) is just a bad idea, people's brains seem to disengage and they just absorb whatever the talking head says. Radio isn't quite as bad but I still think reading is by far the best way to engage the grey matter and think critically about what's being fed to you.

I fully agree with this.