Liberal Media??

Discuss the various aspects of Bernard Goldberg's "Bias," the smash bestseller with all the inside baseball from one of their own! Discuss the various aspects of Arrogance, the 2nd NYT's bestseller.

Liberal Media??

Unread postby richk333 » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:42 pm

When I turn on television I do not see a liberal media. Instead I see Fox News and their right wing rah rah bias, I see CNN covering more of the Micheal Jackson case rather than political issues that matter, and I see network news talking about feel good stories in the area. Newspapers, Magazines are no better.

The reason why a liberal media does not exist is media itself is a business. When the media companies have become so large that they themselves rival the size of many of the other corporations, they cannot be liberal. People in the press may be liberal, but they cannot print the stories they want if there is pressure coming from the boardroom saying not to print a certain story because it is too liberal and it may not be beneficial to the father corporation that owns that media outlet (Disney, Time-Warner, GE).

The days of the liberal media has disappeared with the emergence of Mega Media Conglomerates.
richk333
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:44 pm

Liberal Media??

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby MrSinatra » Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:05 am

while i certainly agree news is big business, and could become tainted, i see no evidence big business has tainted it (towards the right).

newsrooms are very territorial, and from what i see on TV, they have at least so far, successfully insulated themselves from any top down board room right wingery.

just because there is senstionalism, and a drive for ratings, does not mean there is an exclusion of bias.
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Unread postby richk333 » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:36 pm

When I turn on the news, I feel like I no longer see the whole picture. With media outlets like Fox News, I see the conservative side, and with CNN, and the local news, like I said before, I no longer see the issues that I feel are pertinent.

An example of boardroom pressure is Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes. The liberal representative on the "fair and balanced" Fox News network. It seems like he keeps his mouth shut to remain employed. He only speaks to introduce guests or to tell the audience that they are cutting away to commercial break. Sweet job if you ask me, get paid to be Hannity's liberal mascot and speak probably 5 times in the program. I feel that the boardroom pressure does exist subtlely and does not necessarily encourage the news to be right wing (besides Fox News), but does in fact pressures to left wing aspects of the news to be less left wing.

I think that the international media (BBC, Reuters, and such) are much more liberal than the US news. When I look to other outlets, I feel that I am getting more of the picture than the US news is giving (granted there are probably many times when they are not giving the full story as well.

What I am saying is the left wing bias is gone in news media. They come down hard on Dan Rathers for reporting an unbsustantiated story about W. Bush, but think of how many times Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity have distorted the truth as well.

Had the media been as liberal as people believe, Clinton's scandal in the late '90s would not have been blown out of proportion as it was.

It's funny because the more discussion I partake in about the media being biased, the more I realize that liberals believe it to be too conservative and conservatives believe it to be to liberal. Logically, could this mean that we have a moderate media? I do not think so, but its possible and it makes an interesting point to consider.
richk333
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:44 pm

Unread postby zola » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:17 pm

nevermind
zola
New Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:07 pm
Location: So. Illinois

Unread postby MrSinatra » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:11 am

richk333 wrote:An example of boardroom pressure is Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes. The liberal representative on the "fair and balanced" Fox News network. It seems like he keeps his mouth shut to remain employed. He only speaks to introduce guests or to tell the audience that they are cutting away to commercial break. Sweet job if you ask me, get paid to be Hannity's liberal mascot and speak probably 5 times in the program.


i see no logic or evidence there whatsoever to back up that feeling.

right wingers "force" alan colmes on the air? and then force him not to speak? is that your hypothesis? based on what???

richk333 wrote:I think that the international media (BBC, Reuters, and such) are much more liberal than the US news. When I look to other outlets, I feel that I am getting more of the picture than the US news is giving (granted there are probably many times when they are not giving the full story as well.


the bbc is afraid to even say "terrorist." u are of course entitled to like more liberal news, but that doesn't mean its a more full picture. if anything, it means the opposite. centrist would be best, yes?

richk333 wrote:What I am saying is the left wing bias is gone in news media. They come down hard on Dan Rathers for reporting an unbsustantiated story about W. Bush, but think of how many times Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity have distorted the truth as well.


there is a huge difference between "hard news" ie. dan rather, and "news analysis" ie. your examples. one is supposed to be objective, the other is NOT supposed to be objective. this is a common misunderstanding.

don't confuse news and editorials.

richk333 wrote:Had the media been as liberal as people believe, Clinton's scandal in the late '90s would not have been blown out of proportion as it was.


news is news, and even the most liberal reporter will go after a presidential sex story, comeo on! but all things being equal, the bias is left.

richk333 wrote:It's funny because the more discussion I partake in about the media being biased, the more I realize that liberals believe it to be too conservative and conservatives believe it to be to liberal. Logically, could this mean that we have a moderate media? I do not think so, but its possible and it makes an interesting point to consider.


imo, libs have many more avenues to get their point across. but conservatives get better numbers. i'm glad that at least now there is some real diversity, but i don't think too much of anything out there is moderate.

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/v ... c.php?t=80
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

clearly you haven't read or understand the book Bias

Unread postby pamsay » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:45 am

Read to understand and to be understood
pamsay
New Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:54 pm

Unread postby MrSinatra » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:51 am

good point, but directed to whom?
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Liberal Bias

Unread postby DonKeehotey » Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:23 am

As displayed on our new website http://www.shamelesspublicity.com
we view the media as shallow not biased.

I used to do polling and content analyses of the media and voters were amazingly ignorant of important issues, even while complaining about them.

The media content was less oriented toward political bias and more toward anything that would increase attention so more ads could be sold.

Unlike Bernie, I view Michael Moore as a gret deal less dangerous than the people who actually make our policy.

One thing the DEms have missed and Karl Rove hasn't is the lack of intellectual interest in the overall electorate, and the media's pandering to that ignorance.
DonKeehotey
New Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:59 am
Location: Dallas

Unread postby SincereRadical » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:58 pm

If they are liberal then why haven't they discussed Michael Savage and his recent anti-semitic comments?
SincereRadical
 

Unread postby MrSinatra » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:00 pm

(savage is on the list btw)
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Skewed View

Unread postby Randymeister » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:35 am

Hey Rich!

The reason you don't see a liberal media is because you are liberal!

Just think about it. If you are left of center and the media is left of center, then your point of reference is skewed. Both you and the liberal media think of yourselves as "center".

When you look at Fox news then you notice they are decidedly right of center (which is true). But you will never see a left of center media because they present the same view of the world that you have. And you most certainly know that your view is the correct view ... right?
A former Democrat who is blessed with the wisdom of maturity.
Randymeister
Media pundit
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:34 pm
Location: Colorado

Unread postby Glennie » Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:21 pm

IMHO, Rich has touched on two separate issues. One is that the media promotes overwhelmingly liberal values. It does, as Bernie supports over and over again in his writings.

Two is that journalism as a whole has become way less credible than it used to be overall, whether it's liberal or conservative in slant. In the rare instance when I turn on the news, I see stories about irrelevant entertainers and their private lives, any gruesome crime (minus the details that matter of course) followed by almost any other form of meaningless drivel that will hold the limited attention span.

I just find that it has so little application to my (average) life that it's not even worth watching anymore.
"as I see it today, these politicians in particular were in fact molded by the mob itself. Certainly the masses roared to the beat set by [their] baton; yet they were not the true conductors. The mob determined the theme"
Glennie
Media observer
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:14 pm

Unread postby ScottT » Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:02 am

If Rich sees "no liberal media" in the mainstream news..........somebody had better go retrieve him from the planet Krypton and bring him back to EARTH. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times (a.k.a. "Algazeera West")..........NOT SLANTED LEFT??? Yikes, this guy's parallel universe is SOMETHING! There's a REASON that in today's world, Fox News has more viewers than MSNBC, Headline News & CNN combined, that most of the prominent leftist newspapers' circulation is in a free-fall, and that conservative talk radio rules the airwaves while liberal talk radio has no audience: Most people DON'T TRUST the elite media & liberal editorialists anymore! Who can BLAME us?? The laundry list of misinformation & propoganda from the Chris Matthews/Dan Rather/Maureen Dowd/David Gregory/Katie Couric/Paul Krugman clan of ideologues is way too long to outline here and has rendered this group of "elites" virtually irrelevant. This isn't opinion, this isn't conjecture, and this isn't theory------it's FACT. If it wasn't, the viewership & readership of these institutions wouldn't be going down the toilet like they are.
ScottT
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:03 pm

Unread postby TerryAnne » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:16 am

richk333 wrote:Had the media been as liberal as people believe, Clinton's scandal in the late '90s would not have been blown out of proportion as it was.


Blown out of proportion?!? Ummm, hello, the President of the United States was conducting extra-marital affairs in the Oval Office. I don't know what planet you come from, but that is certainly a matter for concern.
Is a proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. :twisted:
User avatar
TerryAnne
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:41 am
Location: On the road again....

Unread postby MrSinatra » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:07 pm

i have often said that if the CEO of Haliburton had done such a thing, (sexually harass a 21 year old intern) he'd not only be fired, but be up on all kinds of charges and sued not just by the victim, but also by the stockholders. the left would be outraged, but so would the right.

its apparently only a one way reaction.

is there no decency anymore? no decorum?

has it become acceptable for a president to have sex with his interns, his staff, during business hours on his desk while using cigars and anything else nearby?

this guy belongs in a trailor park jailhouse, he's a true redneck.
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Next

Return to BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, & ARROGANCE: Rescuing America From the Media Elite

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron