robert108,
I’m entirely opposed to propagandizing by the news media – in fact, I stated my opposition in my post -

Of course, news organizations can legitimately ignore public opinion and lead the news cycle themselves, but that is generally more appropriate for taking a view on news stories they have broken themselves, rather than propagandizing on existing issues.

- so I’m not sure why you think I am in favour of it.

In fact I would argue that it’s impossible for the news media to be genuinely “unbiased” in the way you’re thinking of. There is no truly objective way to decide which stories deserve coverage, or how much coverage they should get. Someone ultimately has to take the decisions, and even if they’re trying to be unbiased as they see it, their choice of what is the headline story will be informed by their own background. Something like the Fairness Doctrine is ludicrous, because who will decide what is fair? Nobody can decide where the centre is – we hear from some pundits that America is a “conservative country”, then liberals argue that since Obama was elected with a majority, it is clearly a “centre-left” country. If the middle ground is “unbiased”, then where is it and who’s going to decide?

That’s not to say that the news shows shouldn’t try to be fair. But the trick is to actually apply a filter to what you read or hear, instead of just accepting it at face value. That applies whether it’s from MSNBC, Fox News, the government, whatever. Unfortunately, many people are either unable to do this or don’t understand why they should, so the viewers of these news shows end up mimicking the opinions of the people who make them.

post: As someone who knows economics, calling Obama’s spending scheme a “stimulus” package is propaganda. The first debate should have been about whether or not govt spending can “stimulate” economic growth.

Unfortunately, governments tend to set the terminology for these things. Hence the Bush administration talking about a “surge” in Iraq, and the left trying (and failing) to rebrand it as an “escalation”. It happens all the time, and the press aren’t always alert enough to it IMO.

You see, I regard it as essential that news organizations not only give equal coverage to all sides of an issue(not just two), but that they discuss and examine all the premises of the arguments of all sides.

This is true, but returning to my first post on this topic, someone still has to draw a line somewhere. Should we give equal time to evolution and creationism? How about flat-earthers? There are always many opinions if you look hard enough, and someone has to take a decision about what to cover. This decision will inevitably be informed by their own background and prejudices, no matter how hard they try to be objective. I agree, though, that they should try, and that they don’t do a very good job of it.

Perhaps if they actually did some investigation of their own, rather than just lining up a Republican and a Democrat, letting them go at it, and then concluding that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, then we would all be better informed.

Rob,
I thought I covered your point with the link, but I’ll repeat it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx

From the Gallup link (dated mid-February) :

Public support for an $800 billion economic stimulus package has increased to 59% in a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Tuesday night

So all the news organizations were doing with their choice of talking heads is reflecting the general public’s view on the matter – is that “biased”?

I just think you’re reaching a bit here.

post: I was replying to this statement from you:

Just because an issue ostensibly has two sides, does not mean that the best practice for news organizations is always to give equal coverage to both.

You see, I regard it as essential that news organizations not only give equal coverage to all sides of an issue(not just two), but that they discuss and examine all the premises of the arguments of all sides.

The abject failure of news organizations to do their due diligence in this manner has led us to our present predicament, IMO.

robert108 – fair point – which came first, the chicken or the egg? I’ve pretty much pointed this out at the end of my previous post.

In this case, I think Obama’s popularity at the time was the key, rather than the coverage he got on talking head shows. If the coverage had been 60/40 against the stimulus, I can’t believe that Obama supporters (which wouldn’t have been far short of 59% of the country at that point) would have turned on him and opposed the stimulus just because of that.