Thoughts about the "liberal media"

[Guest sek69]

I was thinking about something today while listening to right wing radio rail against the "liberal" media.

 

Let's say for argument's sake the media is liberally biased. What the right seems to be suggesting as a replacement is the Fox News/Talk Radio/Newsmax "New Media" which seems to be just as biased to the right as they complain the current media is to the left.

 

So is that what it's really all about? Getting the bias in your favor? Shouldn't the focus be on getting an HONEST media? A media with the balls to hold government's feet to the fire? Media on both sides should be embarrassed that places like the Daily Show routinely point things out that the real media should talking about.

 

Sadly, too many people rally around outlets that simply tell them what they want to hear.

[NoCalMike 0]

Claiming there to be a "liberal media" is so ridiculous and SOOOOO 80's. That argument holds about as much water as a bottomless cup. If anything it is obvious the media is out for corporate interests and money, and into promoting whatever it gets them. If O'Reaily brings in the best ratings, the media elite will do their best to say he is the best thing since slice bread, same with anyone who gets on a roll. I can't honestly think of any mainstream network that is good for getting accurate news anymore.

 

"liberal media" is another in the long line of "if we say it enough, people will believe it" kinds of situations. The fact that anyone buys into is silly. Sure people can name isolated instances where some guy asked said guy a "tougher question" then other guy, during a tv show, but that is hardly grounds for a "LIBERAL MEDIA" rant.

 

The fact of the matter is, in today's network news market, opinion-based salacious BULLSHIT sells better then actual reporting. Of course it was thought of before that people could tell the difference. Clearly they cannot.

 

I remember leading up to the war Fox News would jump on every bit of "OMG a van in Iraq was stopped and searched....I THINK WE FOUND NUKES....SEND IN THE B-52's" piece of crap reporting, and it clearly showed a huge lack of integrity as a network, as they were doing anything and everything possible to seel and promote the drum beat of war, and didn't care if they had to report MALARKY to meet their goal, ya know kind of like what all the conservatives are whining at Dan Rather about.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

90% of the people who cry liberal media can't actually think of a time where the entire news media adopted a liberal stance.

 

Sure, there's an organization or three that do lean that way (I read an LA Times article in the local paper for the first time in over a year after swearing them off, and the bias was really blatant and reminded me why I usually keep turning pages when I see that name.) There's a few that lean right, too. This by itself wouldn't really be a problem except that one of these sources (hint: LOLyearnumberhere) is being taken seriously by so many people that those of us who know better (and yes, we DO know better, and no, don't tell us that we're being pretentious or belittling others because it's just fucking true.)

 

When it comes to this conspiracy that there's some sort of shady illuminati at the top of the mainstream media that coordinates almost every news service in existance in a large multi-pronged attack on conservatives, that's just the echo chamber at work. The news organizations have already shown they're willing to bend over backwards to not be called biased. They flinched, blood was drawn, whatever phrase you like to use. So the echo chamber folks caught onto this, and their parrots and their dittoheads all collectively keep calling bias. This will continue and someday a big name will go so far to avoid being biased that they will fall into the right and look like a propaganda video, just like LOLyearhere.

 

Curiously, 90% of the media is biased against the party that wins election and gained tremendous power in every corner of our country. These people control our lives every day, and yet their outspoken airbags act like they're being unfairly persecuted, a little guy against the onslaught of the Big Liberal Machine.

 

But hey, don't you ever question a result of one of those elections because then those same folks who consider themselves so downtrodden and under-represented in the media will then turn around and laugh at you and say you're bitter and compare you to a crying baby.

[Styles 0]

The important distinction is between news JOURNALISTS and COMMENTATORS. The radio is dominated by conservative commentators who's job isn't to report the news but to express their opinion and be entertaining. Similarily, Fox News has people like Oreilly and Hannity who host debate style shows that are also meant to present points of view.

 

The "liberal bias" as exists in places like newspapers and network news exists in institutions that are supposed to REPORT the news not slant their opinion. The New York Times only posting negative headlines and CBS news reporting on false documents are not the same as Rush or Savage yelling about the evils of liberals. They are not providing the same service.

[Guest sek69]

The important distinction is between news JOURNALISTS and COMMENTATORS. The radio is dominated by conservative commentators who's job isn't to report the news but to express their opinion and be entertaining. Similarily, Fox News has people like Oreilly and Hannity who host debate style shows that are also meant to present points of view.

 

The "liberal bias" as exists in places like newspapers and network news exists in institutions that are supposed to REPORT the news not slant their opinion. The New York Times only posting negative headlines and CBS news reporting on false documents are not the same as Rush or Savage yelling about the evils of liberals. They are not providing the same service.

The problem is that the conservative radio hosts deliberately blur the lines. They tell their fans they're journalists but tell their critics they're commentators.

 

Hell, Rush calls himself "America's Anchorman", what's that supposed to convey? Is that supposed to make you think he's just a guy with an opinon? These people position themselves as the alternative to what they percieve as biased journalists but they hide behind the "I'm just a commentator" defense when they get called on their own biases.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Unfortunately, those who are actually commentators end up posing as journalists. THAT is the problem; you can dismiss them as "commentators" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nice, posted the same thing I did.

[Jingus 0]

Any theories on why TV tends to lean left, while radio is run by right?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because that isn't true. It may have been true in the 90's, but certainly not in the 2000's.

[Justice 0]

Because that isn't true. It may have been true in the 90's, but certainly not in the 2000's.

I'd say it still runs fairly true. Most of the staff at CNN, along with most networks outside of Fox, tend to lean to the left to varying degrees.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Similarily, Fox News has people like Oreilly and Hannity who host debate style shows that are also meant to present points of view.

Similarly, Fox has hosts that give the news one minute and give their opinion the next. Neil Cavuto does it a lot, I've seen Rita Cosby do it before when she dismissed a talking head's comment that we should evaluate our war policy as "waiting for another attack." Brit Hume is the premiere anchorman on weekdays and airing his political opinion on Fox News Sunday.

 

Rather than try to proclaim Fox's innocence, you should look at what I wrote which is that there's a few organizations on both sides that blur the line. Again, I read an LA Times article today that went at length outside of quotes to make it sound like Condi Rice is a testy asshole. She may be, but I don't expect to see that kind of judgment given in my news. Ditto Fox.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, Newspapers are arguably the most pure bastion of liberal media left. It goes from:

 

Left: Newspapers

 

Leaning/Neutral: T.V.

 

Right: Radio

 

I'd say that's a pretty good way of looking at bias in media.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Pfft.

 

The same MSNBC that features Dennis Miller, Joe Scarbrough, and used to feature Michael Savage? The same one who is now offering Tucker Carlson his own show?

 

CNN could maybe be construed as remotely left, but they're more about being OMG BNENFFER N BRAD PITT shit anyways. The only real "commentary" they have is on Crossfire, which got shitcanned.

 

The swing has been towards the right on the airwaves, both TV and radio, because people enjoy the red-faced idiots screaming. It gets ratings, so they lean right.

[NoCalMike 0]

If the media is liberal, they sure as hell did one hell of a poor job showing it when it was time to question Bush's drum beat march to war. I don't think I have seen newspeople collectively fall in line and salute any administration like that before.

 

Also, it matters little the title of "journalist" or "commentator" when the general public can't tell the difference between watching footage of Abu Grahb which is actually factual, and coming away thinking "Oh there wasn't any abuse" and watching a story on fox about an ice cream truck being a WMD, which as soon as five minutes later is debunked. Like I said, I don't want to harp on Fox a lot because it screams bias on my part, but I admittingly watch their evening shows moreso then the other networks because I find their hosts watchable if not at the same time vomit-inducing in a weird kind of mix of sweet n sour, and I can tell you as a viewer that they went out of their way on a nightly basis to take on any story about a rock in the sand possibly being a mortar, or a roach coach being the center of the chemical weapon lab database and so on. They absolutely had ZERO shame about taking any bullshit story, and figured if people watched only half the story before it was debunked shortly later, they'd feel we have found the biggest chemical and nuclear weapons cache in the history of the world in Iraq.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'd say it still runs fairly true. Most of the staff at CNN, along with most networks outside of Fox, tend to lean to the left to varying degrees.

Congratulations, you too believe the big lie. Exactly when has all the networks coordinated an attack on a Republican politician or program? Where exactly is your proof?

 

Jeebus, I accidentally pissed off a guy who worked at CBS News because I found out by poor circumstances that he was a fundie. And if you do want to talk about influential people with biases, guess where the guys that sign all the checks and run the media outlet's parent company lie?

 

edit: I realized I may have attacked you a little hard there, since you said they simply "lean to the left" instead of making one of those crackpot theories. Apologies in advance for going overboard.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And before you scream WHAT ABOUT CBS NEWS?!?!?!?!, the answer is that it's irrelevant anyways. Nobody watches CBS News.

[Justice 0]

I'd say it still runs fairly true. Most of the staff at CNN, along with most networks outside of Fox, tend to lean to the left to varying degrees.

Congratulations, you too believe the big lie. Exactly when has all the networks coordinated an attack on a Republican politician or program? Where exactly is your proof?

Does it necessarily need to be a concentrated attack? I don't believe it's an "OMG OVERARCHING CONSPIRACY", but if you look at almost all the major news network anchors, almost all are fairly left leaning. Watching people like Wolf Blitzer and others on CNN often enough take a left-leaning side. Most people on news staffs tend to lean left, as do editors and directors.

 

And I don't care about the owners. The owners weren't different in the 90s than today, so why is it all of a sudden gone? It's still there. It's not a massive influence, but I'd say it's tilted.

[Justice 0]

And before you scream WHAT ABOUT CBS NEWS?!?!?!?!, the answer is that it's irrelevant anyways. Nobody watches CBS News.

I know, which is why I didn't mention them.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If Wolf Blitzer is a leftist...

 

Hi, my name is Vladamir Lenin*, and I'm an alcoholic.

 

* - WTF WAS WITH MY SPELLING OF LENIN

[Justice 0]

If Wolf Blitzer is a leftist...

 

Hi, my name is Vladamir Lennon, and I'm an alcoholic.

It's Lenin. Get your leaders right.

[Guest sek69]

Ironically CBS is owned by Viacom, and the CEO of Viacom is a pro-Bush guy.

 

Irony can be so damned ironic.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't believe it's an "OMG OVERARCHING CONSPIRACY", but if you look at almost all the major news network anchors, almost all are fairly left leaning. Watching people like Wolf Blitzer and others on CNN often enough take a left-leaning side. Most people on news staffs tend to lean left, as do editors and directors.

I think in economics they tend to lean to the right, actually. For instance, I've read heated arguement after arguement about Bush's social security plan in newspapers, but little resistance to it on TV. In general, people in TV news make good money and typically don't have to worry about their jobs being done by people in other countries. Ditto tax cuts until the Democrats managed to have a spine.

 

Sure, socially they lean a bit to the left but so does the general public, as a lot of people on the right are there for the war policy or the fiscal policy, and don't have any interest in the social agendas. They're the kind of people who will continue to support Bush but acknowledge they get a little creeped out every time they hear how tight he is with the man upstairs. Also recognize that the leadership of the social right is considered by many to be, uh, a bit off their rocker.

 

So, representative of the nation whole, they do a reasonable job. IMO.

[NoCalMike 0]

Another problem with this theory is a guy like Bernard Goldberg and his book about the subject, and the minute someone confronts him on a debate show, picking apart his book piece by piece, Bernard basically retracts and says "well yeah I might have exaggerated, but you understand the point, eh?" The "media is liberal" banter is often reserved for those that want to scream it without debate or having to actually be confronted about facts on the matter.

[Justice 0]

Ironically CBS is owned by Viacom, and the CEO of Viacom is a pro-Bush guy.

 

Irony can be so damned ironic.

Or it just shows you that, well, the owners don't have as much effect on the political leanings of a network as you'd like. *Shrugs*

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Or it just shows you that, well, the owners don't have as much effect on the political leanings of a network as you'd like. *Shrugs*

[Justice 0]

I don't believe it's an "OMG OVERARCHING CONSPIRACY", but if you look at almost all the major news network anchors, almost all are fairly left leaning. Watching people like Wolf Blitzer and others on CNN often enough take a left-leaning side. Most people on news staffs tend to lean left, as do editors and directors.

I think in economics they tend to lean to the right, actually. For instance, I've read heated arguement after arguement about Bush's social security plan in newspapers, but little resistance to it on TV. In general, people in TV news make good money and typically don't have to worry about their jobs being done by people in other countries. Ditto tax cuts until the Democrats managed to have a spine.

 

Sure, socially they lean a bit to the left but so does the general public, as a lot of people on the right are there for the war policy or the fiscal policy, and don't have any interest in the social agendas. They're the kind of people who will continue to support Bush but acknowledge they get a little creeped out every time they hear how tight he is with the man upstairs. Also recognize that the leadership of the social right is considered by many to be, uh, a bit off their rocker.

 

So, representative of the nation whole, they do a reasonable job. IMO.

Eh, that's a matter of perspective. I'm not saying that the media is massively left, but enough for one to notice. I'd argue that more staffs, journalists, editors, and directors are left than anything else. You can bitch about CEOs, but CEOs often aren't deciding what will be going on the air at 8.

[Justice 0]

Or it just shows you that, well, the owners don't have as much effect on the political leanings of a network as you'd like. *Shrugs*

There's always an exception the rule, but that doesn't make it any different. Most news networks are left, despite the possible right-leanings of their owners and parent companies. Fox News does not an argument make.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's not just Fox News. Murdoch's worldwide operations are slanted right. Disney is another company that's had guys at the top publically lean right.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

CNN could maybe be construed as remotely left, but they're more about being OMG BNENFFER N BRAD PITT shit anyways. The only real "commentary" they have is on Crossfire, which got shitcanned

 

CNN=Certainly Not News.....A little news, human interest, Hollywood, sports, wacky news.....repeat.

 

 

If the media is liberal, they sure as hell did one hell of a poor job showing it when it was time to question Bush's drum beat march to war. I don't think I have seen newspeople collectively fall in line and salute any administration like that before.

 

Gotta support the troops, whether or not you believe in the cause they fight for...My buddy and I argue ever Rembrance Day(also Nov. 11) about my wearing of a poppy. He says its a war monger thing to do. I disagree, citing my year-long hatred of war, but that we should appreciate what was done for us...It's vicariously the same thing when the newscasters fell in line before Iraq.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Jobber's right. Nearly any survey of journalists done in the last decade indicates that a majority self-identify as moderate or liberal on social issues, and moderate or conservative on fiscal issues. This has very little to do with what you actually get on the news because of the much more prominent corporate influences Mike mentioned, but he's on the right tack.