MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2003 You forgot the whole Lynch bullshit. You would think they would be giving more pub to the people who brought her out. God I'm so tired of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest stardust Report post Posted November 9, 2003 You forgot the whole Lynch bullshit. You would think they would be giving more pub to the people who brought her out. God I'm so tired of that. Yeah, tonight it's the battle of the networks: The Jessica Lynch story vs. The Elizabeth Smart story. I'm tired of hearing promos for both. As for the topic at hand, it really depends upon the network/newspaper or the anchor/writer, I think, as to what the bias is. I would agree that the media in general is more socially left leaning than right, but as far as politics and economics go, it can pretty much go either way depending upon what outlet we're talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 I'd say the media is a corporate media more than being right or left. The networks do what is in their best interests to appease the corporate structure, whether it is a favorable news story for the right or left is not the issue, the issue is why does the media directly and purposefully not report important news and instead rot our brains with the Kobe trial and/or Laci Peterson nonsense. Because they feel it will draw in ratings, even if there are far more newsworthy events out there. It's really sad that the only reason the media forgot about Chandra Levy and Gary Condit was 9/11, even though it was never newsworthy beyond the confines of Condit's congressional district. Thousands of people go missing every year, but we were supposed to feel and act like she was the only one that this has ever happened to. The same can be said about Laci Peterson. Face it: The only reason this is getting such widespread exposure is because of that picture. If she was not photogenic no one would give a shit about her or her alleged killer. The DC sniper case from last year WAS newsworthy, though I did find the nonstop coverage repetitive and hardly informing, also these stories prevent other topics from being aired. I miss the days of a broad spectrum of news, instead of the soap opera we are subject to today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Indeed, we aren't talking about opinion shows. This is about the news in general, so Riley, Limbaugh, Carlton, Carville, and Begla shouldn't even be thought of here. It's the bias in the actual news given. At least, that's how I take it. Some weight should be considered though in the choices the network itself is making in hiring these figures. While I can't say that every station that carries Rush is staffed by conservatives and can't be trusted, check out what MSNBC has done: Scarborough, Savage, Buchanan getting an hour to chat every weekday. There's some intentional thinking behind these choices. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 You forgot the whole Lynch bullshit. You would think they would be giving more pub to the people who brought her out. God I'm so tired of that. Yeah, tonight it's the battle of the networks: The Jessica Lynch story vs. The Elizabeth Smart story. I'm tired of hearing promos for both. http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2...672-cartoon.gif Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted November 10, 2003 In my opinion, the recent hiring of wackos by MSNBC is an attempt to copy Fox News. I mean, Scarbourough is like an O'Reilly double (he even has the mannerisms). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Even if so, they are really piling it on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Even if so, they are really piling it on. Eh, they always shoot themselves in the foot anyways (see Savage and Limbaugh). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Limbah will survive. He has a huge market reach, especially in the population-dense areas in the East (yes, the more dense the population, the more likely you'll hear Rush, nyuk nyuk nyuk.) While I suspect he'll hang up his "drug abusers go to jail" belief, I'm sure he'll come up with some way to say that even though he changed his mind, he was never wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Indeed, we aren't talking about opinion shows. This is about the news in general, so Riley, Limbaugh, Carlton, Carville, and Begla shouldn't even be thought of here. It's the bias in the actual news given. At least, that's how I take it. Some weight should be considered though in the choices the network itself is making in hiring these figures. While I can't say that every station that carries Rush is staffed by conservatives and can't be trusted, check out what MSNBC has done: Scarborough, Savage, Buchanan getting an hour to chat every weekday. There's some intentional thinking behind these choices. After watching Donahue flop, maybe they want crazy righties because they are actually more entertaining and generally draw ratings? I don't think that actually has to do with political allignment, it just has to do with ratings, man. Of course, if Sharpton open after this election, he'd get 2 hours. Swear to God. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 The nuttier the person then the more people who will tune in to see what he will say. Same holds true to meaner the person as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Donahue didn't really flop though. He was the highest rated show on MSNBC. MSNBC figured they could hire Donahue and he would beat O'Reaily INSTANTLY, so when he didn't he was canned. MSNBC was just being very unrealistic about their expectations. But like I said before, Donahue was MSNBC's highest rated show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Dude, c'mon. Let it go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted November 10, 2003 The nuttier the person then the more people who will tune in to see what he will say. Same holds true to meaner the person as well. You have a point there. Wackos do seem to bring in high ratings. Sigh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 (edited) Donahue didn't really flop though. He was the highest rated show on MSNBC. On any network besides MSNBC, that's considered a flop. Although it was funny to see him get canned just when his show seemed to be gaining Big Mo, what with the Iraq conflict looming... Edited November 10, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Donahue didn't really flop though. He was the highest rated show on MSNBC. On any network besides MSNBC, that's considered a flop. Although it was funny to see him get canned just when his show seemed to be gaining Big Mo, what with the Iraq conflict looming... well yeah, on any OTHER network, but it still shady to can your highest rated show without much of a reason given. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Donahue didn't really flop though. He was the highest rated show on MSNBC. On any network besides MSNBC, that's considered a flop. Although it was funny to see him get canned just when his show seemed to be gaining Big Mo, what with the Iraq conflict looming... well yeah, on any OTHER network, but it still shady to can your highest rated show without much of a reason given. Again, he wasn't an instant draw, which is what they expected of him. Since he didn't put up anything near what they expected him to do (I'm guessing they were banking on his old popularity which didn't really come through) they canned him like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Wasn't Donahue canned because MSNBC didn't want someone on (in that timeslot) who was against the war? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Wasn't Donahue canned because MSNBC didn't want someone on (in that timeslot) who was against the war? well that is what Donahue's camp is claiming, however no one would ever admit to that, so it is a waste of energy to try and argue that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 Based on the conversation's that have been brought up, I probably should have had one more option in the poll: Neither. The bias is based on which party will become a lobbyist for its interests. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 10, 2003 You have a point there. Wackos do seem to bring in high ratings. Sigh. If that was true then "The 700 Club" would be the highest rated program on all of cable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted November 10, 2003 You have a point there. Wackos do seem to bring in high ratings. Sigh. If that was true then "The 700 Club" would be the highest rated program on all of cable. True. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
