Agenda Setting
 

While the media may not be obviously biased in its stories, we've discussed many times on here how the media is biased as to what it chooses to cover.

Check this out taken from today's CNN website under politics:
(a list of stories)

• Dems: Bush policies squeezing middle-clase
• Green Party snubs Nader
• Clarke: Iraq war an 'enormous mistake'
• War of words | Cheney 'felt better' after cursing at Leahy
• Ryan drops out of Senate race

How in the hell is that not a HEAVILY liberal slanted example of agenda setting? Just thought that was something of interest.

As I see it, its not a liberal agenda. Its an illiberal leftist agenda.

The people who argue that the news agenda represents corporate interests, site ownership as "proof." They are clearly wrong. The people who gather the news may work for corporations, but they are not simpatico with them. I believe that I read that over 80% of reporters identify themselves as "liberal." That's your information input before it ever gets edited, so its the initial, and primary bias.

I checked it out...the stories you listed were under "other news." The main stories seemed to be more middle-right oriented, mostly about Bush and some stories/commentary about Reagan. I wouldn't necessarily chalk it up to any sort of bias one way or another.

The main story as I saw it was really unbiased. It had both negative and positive info about Bush.

Didn't bother reading the story, I was more interested in the headilines.

The news media don't control what happens during any given day. That's why it's called news.

If the day after, the headlines had been about Kerry doing something stupid, a Democratic Congressperson being stopped for DUI, etc., you could easily make the opposite argument.

However, they do select what to cover vs. what not to cover. What to lead with and what to bury.

That's agenda setting.

ah, while the majority of reporters identify themselves as liberal, the majority of their editors and other higher ups are majorly represented by conservatives.

i think the problem with media is that they choose to cover what will sell them the most papers, magazines, books, and get the most hits on their sites.

i dont think the examples of the headlines is necessarily agenda setting as much as it is being sensationalist to make a profit.
ie the thing about Cheney cussing is old old old, and completely unimportant, but they still report it because its "entertaining."

I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but maybe they're working some reverse psychology. They'll use this as proof for anyone who accuses them of a conservative bias saying, "Look how much Democrat coverage we have!" I'm sure if there were ever a day that there were 5 primarily Republican stories a Democrat would feel the way you do now. But I do see where you're coming from.

Re: Agenda Setting
 

Well, sheesh. No matter how daunting the breadth of one's vocabulary, sometimes it takes just the right curse word to get across a very specific point.

Think about how silly that sounds... accusing CNN of a conservative bias?

Here's the current main page right now:


MORE NEWS Most Popular
• Tunnel blast at Israeli military outpost | premium content Video
• 40,000 protest Bush in Turkey | premium content Video
• CIA insider slams Bush antiterror policies
• FBI warns of possible floating explosives
• Hiker loses eye in mountain lion attack | premium content Video
• Gay pride parade features newlyweds | premium content Video
• Museum re-creates dinosaur breath
• 'Fahrenheit 9/11' breaks records | premium content Video

Everything is either neutral or an anti-Bush item. Yes, they're all news. However, why not any articles on Bush's recent polls coming in higher than Kerry? Or perhaps something on the economic upturn?

Hey *I'm* not. But I've heard it said before.

By who, Michael Moore?

Where did you get that information? I thought that most editors are former reporters.

Maybe they become conservatives because they make more money and don't like the government redistributing their income?