Slayer 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Where does that leave YOUR posts, though? I'm not the one who was unanimously voted to the CE Morons Hall of Fame Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Where does that leave YOUR posts, though? I'm not the one who was unanimously voted to the CE Morons Hall of Fame Aren't you just the cool one? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Yup Good. Then why this urge to post on a wrestling message board? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Because I like it here Gee, I sure hope your arm doesn't fall off from lobbing so many softballs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Because I like it here Gee, I sure hope your arm doesn't fall off from lobbing so many softballs You never use your best stuff for batting practice. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 24, 2004 This thread turning into a big flamewar against Mike? I'm shocked. Might as well make this thread worth opening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Her eyes and skin are the same color. That's pretty neat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Regardless of the personal tendencies of those in the media, I have yet to see it reflected in news coverage on any of the major networks. Otherwise, nearly half of the public wouldn't think that we are invading Iraq to avenge 9/11, and Bill Clinton getting a blowjob would have never become an international news item. The only loyalty or bias the media has is toward the Nielsen numbers. If being liberal will draw ratings, then that's the route that will be taken, and vice versa. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 This thread turning into a big flamewar against Mike? I'm shocked. Might as well make this thread worth opening. Nothing to add really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 I'm with Loss. Claims of indirect bias are old hat and they're definitely there, but only in rare instances that I've seen have researches found actual evidence that this affiliation translates into partisan bias in coverage. If there's anything we should be concerned about it's ownership bias and how that steadily turns the nightly news into a weird filter that protects Disney's, Viacom's, or GE's overall interests. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Tyra Banks has a disturbingly large forehead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Regardless of the personal tendencies of those in the media, I have yet to see it reflected in news coverage on any of the major networks. Otherwise, nearly half of the public wouldn't think that we are invading Iraq to avenge 9/11, and Bill Clinton getting a blowjob would have never become an international news item. The one thing that is a problem is when a news channel doesn't report something because of its owner. A few years ago, a child was killed at Disney World and ABC didn't report the story because Disney owns ABC. That is the real problem with news coverage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 25, 2004 How about the networks refusal to carry an important speech by the President outlining his Iraq policy? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 It was all over here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 25, 2004 It was all over here. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX didn't air it. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 The networks aren't carring the speech because it's Sweeps month and they care more about ratings than anything else. Besides, if not carrying it was a "liberal" thing, don't you think Fox would be carrying it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 25, 2004 The networks aren't carring the speech because it's Sweeps month and they care more about ratings than anything else. Besides, if not carrying it was a "liberal" thing, don't you think Fox would be carrying it? FOX TV is just as much a ratings whore as anybody else. It's just odd that Clinton never seemed to have these problems. The press bitches that the President never gives press conferences or speeches --- then doesn't cover it when he does. THEN they'll bitch that he won't spell out his Iraq policy. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Well the networks have covered all of Bush's speeches before, haven't they? It's just that they took so much crap for Bush's last prime-time speech (when he pre-empted American Idol) that they don't want to risk losing money and ratings again. Is that right? Probably not, but it's business. Pretty much all of TV news is a big load of crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 How about the networks refusal to carry an important speech by the President outlining his Iraq policy? -=Mike This is just a question, but you don't see what I said as a problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 25, 2004 How about the networks refusal to carry an important speech by the President outlining his Iraq policy? -=Mike This is just a question, but you don't see what I said as a problem? It is a problem. I simply missed your post. If a major corporation cannot handle the media reporting on its positives AND its faults, it shouldn't get involved in it. The corporate nature of media causes huge problems. CBS profiles books on 60 Minutes that a publisher its parent company owns publishes. That is bad. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that NBC might have spiked stories critical of GE. I have little doubt that Fox wouldn't report anything extremely negative about Murdoch. CNN had its reporters go through ridiculous PC hoops (no such thing as "foreign" --- everything was "international"?) because of Turner's views. I personally dislike the "synergy" of media that exists nowadays. But, it exists and there is not a lot that can be done about it. I was unaware of the ABC story that was spiked. THAT being said --- the point of this was that the press wishes to portray itself as "moderate" when the journalists themselves view themselves as increasingly liberal. One can argue that the execs at the corporations are conservative (not exactly a guarantee there) --- but the on-air "talent" does more to shape the news than anybody, in my opinion. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 It was all over here. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX didn't air it. -=Mike Local affiliates here did. I think in the case of a big broadcast network like that, they leave that kind of thing to the affiliates to choose what to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Mike, I think your criticisms of the media are totally valid. However, the reasons for this have nothing to do with bipartisan politics and everything to do with television ratings. That doesn't make it right; it's just the way it is. Clinton was smeared constantly; Bush is now smeared constantly. Whoever the next President is will be smeared as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted May 25, 2004 It might help if Bush didn't schedule his speeches for prime time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 I would schedule conferences at 1 a.m. personally. Or perhaps at 1 p.m., when most of the people in this country are at work (believe it or not, there are a few of us that have lasted through "outsourcing" and still make a steady paycheck -- for now...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Seriously, it's not a government right to have press conferencs by the president aired live on TV. To, me that rings of "Nineteen eighty-four". If people want to know what happened at a press conference there are plenty of news channels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Like Mike said, one problem is that Big Media has been bitching about Bush not being more public and when he has a prime-time speech it doesn't bother to get covered over the public airwaves. Perhaps if Bush wore some panties on his head or something it would have gotten more coverage, especially on "Big Fox." Personally, I don't give a shit what Big Media does; like you said, if anyone wanted to see the speech, then they could have watched it on cable. If they don't have cable, well, then it sucks to be them... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 26, 2004 Seriously, it's not a government right to have press conferencs by the president aired live on TV. To, me that rings of "Nineteen eighty-four". If people want to know what happened at a press conference there are plenty of news channels. Thing is --- if one of the media's PRIMARY bitches about Bush is his lack of press conferences and the like --- not COVERING ONES HE GIVES kind of kills that whole line of thought. Like Bob Kerrey claiming that the 9/11 Commission HAD to talk to Bush --- then leaving early during the session. If people wish to bitch about something --- they'd best actually DO SOMETHING when their gripe is answered. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted May 26, 2004 But doesn't the majority of the criticism towards Bush's lack of press conferences come from the print and online media, who REPORTED the event? Why hold the networks accountable for the opinions of a few? How can you generalise the entire media industry so indiscriminately? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 26, 2004 But doesn't the majority of the criticism towards Bush's lack of press conferences come from the print and online media, who REPORTED the event? Why hold the networks accountable for the opinions of a few? How can you generalise the entire media industry so indiscriminately? How can I? Easily. Trent Lott makes comments about Strom Thurmond. Media firestorm. Chris Dodd --- who, mind you, was one of the loud screamers about Trent --- makes an equally asinine remark about Sen. Byrd. Media kinda ignores it. Barney Frank is called "Barney Fag" by Dick Armey. Media firestorm. Nancy Pelosi calls Bush incompetent and says that he has the blood of US troops on his hands. The FOCUS of news stories that day: The Hastert/McCain blow-up. The UN Oil-For-Food scandal couldn't be LESS covered if the media tried --- yet our ignoring of the UN is, in their eyes, a major problem in the Middle East. We are, apparently, as bad as Saddam when it comes to mistreating prisoners. Prisoner abuse scandal is STILL major news --- even though 61% of participants in a CBS poll said that the scandal has been over-covered. According to the Pew poll, the ONLY media outlet with a widely viewed bias was Fox News. Not the NY Times. Not the Washington Post. Not even NPR. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
