Media Dishonesty - anybody else notice this?

[Lostlover]

Every news station is saying the public is mad about the AIG bonuses which isn't unthinkable. But, have you thought about what the media is basing this anger off of especially since the news about the million bonuses is barely a day old?

Did Gallup do a polling of Americans the minute the news broke? Where/how is the media measuring American's anger? They're saying we're angered but how do they know this?

I think it IS a leap to say Americans are mad about the bonuses. I think, if you randomly polled 100 people, most wouldn't even be aware of the AIG bonuses that were made public YESTERDAY.

This to me is journalistic dishonesty. Am I the only one that notices these things or am I making something out nothing?

And it's not just CNN or Faux or MSNBC. It's all of the media.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

I think what they're saying is people who find out about the bonuses tend to respond with anger, and I believe that is an honest assessement. And I think you understimate the sped with which news travels today.

 

[gewhite3]

I've noticed things such as this but thought maybe it was just me. Glad to know others have those thoughts as well. In any case I think a lot of this is based upon phone calls and e-mails they receive from viewers. I would also tend to believe that because viewers who are angry and emotional over such news are more likely to call or write in than those who aren't, they could come to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are angry over it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess they have to do what they have to do to make the news..... ;-)

 

[BabiGayPimp]

I've noticed things such as this but thought maybe it was just me. Glad to know others have those thoughts as well. In any case I think a lot of this is based upon phone calls and e-mails they receive from viewers. I would also tend to believe that because viewers who are angry and emotional over such news are more likely to call or write in than those who aren't, they could come to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are angry over it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess they have to do what they have to do to make the news..... ;-)

I don't recall news oulets saying the "majority" of americans were angry about this shit (see I'm fired up too)! I just recall them saying people (who have a clue) are angry. I agree with that.

They're not making new, honey this is news.

 

[gewhite3]

I think you may have missed my point but that's OK Babi. Maybe I should have mentioned about how the media has a tendency to sensationalize some things a tad.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

What they're saying is -- we've finally found an angle on the financial meltdown that even we understand. So we're giving it all we've got even though it's really incredibly trivial in the overall picture.

 

[jonboy1645]

The commercial media is in the business of selling soap. They are going to say / do things that will cause the commoners to tune in for more. Further, they have no accountability for clarity, fairness, or the mixing of fact and opinion, except from their advertisers. For a while I would have all that noise on so when people called I would be able to let them know that GM isn't going bankrupt in an hour, or that nobody can call the bottom of a market until that bottom has passed.

I've found the best days at work are when I turn all that off, and flip over to the Margaritaville channel.

 

[Lostlover]

I think what they're saying is people who find out about the bonuses tend to respond with anger, and I believe that is an honest assessement. And I think you understimate the sped with which news travels today.

And what are they basing this off of? This news story is barely a day old. How do they gauge public anger with this story when it barely came out?

Those Gallup polls that were taken during the presidential campaign took dates to tally and report. The AIG bonus story is barely 25 hours old and counting.

 

[Lostlover]

I've noticed things such as this but thought maybe it was just me. Glad to know others have those thoughts as well. In any case I think a lot of this is based upon phone calls and e-mails they receive from viewers. I would also tend to believe that because viewers who are angry and emotional over such news are more likely to call or write in than those who aren't, they could come to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are angry over it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess they have to do what they have to do to make the news..... ;-)

Glad it wasn't just me.

If it was phone calls and emails, is that professional of the media to make conclusions about 310 million people off of emails their offices have received? It's like reading reviews on Amazon.com. You get the customers that really like or dislike a product and nothing really in between.

For a news story barely a day off, I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans were unaware of the story.

 

[Lostlover]

For one, members of Congress have reported hearing in large numbers from their constituents.

How large of numbers? There's something called sample size that needs to be considered when polling and constituents that are heated enough to speak to their politicians aren't exactly representative of the general public. I'd imagine most folks are less passionate (this is why polls are random and not skewed towards more vocal people being polled).

 

[NineOfClubs]

I don't listen to talk radio, but someone who does tells me that both the left and right wing radio shows are all ablaze in anger, or whatever. This might be what the papers are referring to..

 

[NickCole]

Every news station is saying the public is mad about the AIG bonuses which isn't unthinkable. But, have you thought about what the media is basing this anger off of especially since the news about the million bonuses is barely a day old?

Did Gallup do a polling of Americans the minute the news broke? Where/how is the media measuring American's anger? They're saying we're angered but how do they know this?

I think it IS a leap to say Americans are mad about the bonuses. I think, if you randomly polled 100 people, most wouldn't even be aware of the AIG bonuses that were made public YESTERDAY.

This to me is journalistic dishonesty. Am I the only one that notices these things or am I making something out nothing?

And it's not just CNN or Faux or MSNBC. It's all of the media.

The news of these bonuses did not just break yesterday; it broke and was widely discussed last week, several days before you apparently first heard about it. Over the weekend it was a hot topic of discussion across the nation and on Sunday morning talk shows.

Many Americans express their anger by writing or calling their elected representatives and cable news stations; this has been the case for many years. After Internet use became widespread, email, blogs, forums like this and comments on websites increased the volume of expressed anger when something touches a common nerve. You don't need Gallup to do a poll to know when millions of American voices have spoken out in anger.

The media isn't making up the anger Americans are expressing about the AIG bailouts and bonuses. I think the media isn't that imaginative, but it IS that hungry for attention and money, and anything that'll get people watching their show or buying their magazine or clicking into their website, they'll report on and discuss.

There's plenty of dishonesty in the media, but it's not about the public's interest in stories like this. The media could have reported widely about AIG bonuses any time they wanted over the past year -- this information was public a year ago and AIG's troubles and bailouts have been public -- but IMO they dropped the ball in reporting about it. That is, until the public started expressing a common anger over it.

 

[Shafted]

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about AIG. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Liddy. The guy came out of retirement, took $1.00 pay, and is being roasted by Republicans and Democrats who know about the bonuses already. The guy's no saint, but what's the impetus for using him as the sacrificial lamb of political grandstanding?

 

[NickCole]

^^ Obama and Geithner are the problem, not Liddy, but yesterday Liddy appeared before a Congressional Committee carried live on all cable news stations, and Obama's going on Leno. Which of them provided an opportunity for Congress to go after him?

Also, both Democrats and Republicans are afraid to hold Obama and Geithner accountable but going after Liddy carries no political risk.

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about AIG.

Ah, the short attention span of many Americans when it comes to substantive issues.

AIG is a fascinating story, the stuff that books are written about and that's studied for hundreds of years after the event. You're living in the middle of it and you're already getting sick and tired of hearing about it.

 

[hermanding]

everyone who hears about the bonuses seems angry - no matter from what party. it also seems that the amount is very small compared to the citigroup problems and other financial issues - distracting- from the larger problems. but - that bonus thing is easily understood and festers right away and gets the attention
ding

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

How large of numbers? There's something called sample size that needs to be considered when polling and constituents that are heated enough to speak to their politicians aren't exactly representative of the general public. I'd imagine most folks are less passionate (this is why polls are random and not skewed towards more vocal people being polled).

Exactly. And I'm sure that most people who have a strong enough opinion about the bonuses to call their Congressman are probably going to be against them. I mean, how many people are going to call their Congressman to express support for them? So that's kind of a non-issue.

I pretty much agree with your point, LL. Sure, it makes sense that people would be upset with bonuses going to employees of a company getting tens of billions of dollars in government (taxpayer) money. I'm sure most are pissed about it. But if you dig deeper and find out the details the bonuses aren't as bad as they would seem. Most of those receiving the bonuses didn't take salary. So if they'd taken salary instead of the bonuses, we'd have never heard about it.

And, yeah, it's easy to say that they're the ones who caused the problems at AIGFP, but these derivative products are so complicated, that it would appear that nobody else could close this business out without causing irreparable harm. So paying them to close out the business in an orderly fashion rather than have $1.6 trillion in instruments unravel seems like money well spent.

The real issues are how did this happen in the first place and who allowed it to happen? I think the first place to look is Congress, and not just the current crop. I wonder if that's why they, and the willing media, are using the bonuses as a diversion.

 

[HenryReardon]

Every news station is saying the public is mad about the AIG bonuses which isn't unthinkable.
.

One of my favorite philosophers once wrote: "Only an unthinking mind finds anything unthinkable."

Think about it.

 

[HenryReardon]

And the mainstream media are mortally afraid to go after Obama. After all, they anointed him, they helped get him elected, and they have a huge stake in his success, if any.

Not to mention the fact that they're mortally afraid of being called racist if they attack him.

Hence, they cannot afford to let him fail.

On the other hand, some reports seem to be leaking out. We shall see, will we not?

 

[Lostlover]

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about AIG. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Liddy. The guy came out of retirement, took $1.00 pay, and is being roasted by Republicans and Democrats who know about the bonuses already. The guy's no saint, but what's the impetus for using him as the sacrificial lamb of political grandstanding?

Especially being roasted by that spitting stutterer Barney Frank.

Pure grandstanding. I'd like to wring their necks but I'm sure these politicians are doing this to score political points. Which makes them opportunists and not genuinely concerned.

 

[Lostlover]

Well, sure, it's the vocal ones who make their point to their elected representative. Question is, if you are such a representative, how do you interpret the calls, emails, and letters in the large scheme of things.

Well the representatives have a duty to speak for the people that voted them in.

However, the media doesn't. The media has to report the news. And creating an anger that hasn't in any form been tabulated, is disingenuous.

Not even a day old and the media was saying the people are mad. Where are they getting "the people are mad" from? I'm not denying it but I'm just saying I take issue with them creating a story that is based on inferring what the general public might feel about the AIG bonuses when nothing concrete (like polls) have been released to accurately gauge the public's actual and not perceived anger.

This is partly why I don't like watching MSNBC. I'm a Democrat but I still dislike any media that editorializes and feeds me what they think I should hear. The public's "anger" is the same shit just a different toilet.