Liberal Media / Conservative Media

[michaeledward]

True. But how many times has let's say, Fox News given time to, oh let's say, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, or General Zinni? Or, how many Republicans do they include, as compared to how many Democrats?

Things that make you go "hmmm".

 

[Tgace]

Dont really have a strong stance on this topic, but I remember the big to do over this guys book...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Zempel20031211.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Zempel20031215.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Zempel20031222.shtml

 

[rmcrobertson]

Curiously, the "Times," today ran a big mea culpa about their having accepted with too little question the Administration's stories about WMDs in Iraq. Kinda screws the whole notion of simple liberal, don't it?

Of course, the real issue here is that some simply don't like what's being said and shown, and will go to any rhetorical lengths (and some other lengths, too) to attack. Similarly, Rumsfield has been claiming that the real problem with torturing prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere is that some SOB took pictures, and squealed.

Let me try and explain this. In a democracy, there are many, many different viewpoints--one term for this is, "the marketplace of ideas," which just incidentally helps illustrate the ties between democracy and capitalism. But these many, many ideas are supposed to compete for credence.

Similarly, there are supposed to be many voices in a democracy; "truth," comes out of the chorus, not out of some group of boneheads telling everybody the right way to think. In a democracy, it is considered healthy to have lots of dissent.

See, if you do not have many voices you do not have an honest society. More than that, "truth," cannot be generated out of the give and take of discussion in all its forms. So when the government closes down the press, or when pressure groups demand that the press agrees with the government, democracy is damaged.

By the way too, I see that the issue of these cheerful, mean-spirited personal attacks on fellow Americans continues to get ignored: must still be easier to hurl insults than to discuss issues.

 

[Cobra]

Good to see the point confirmed: "conservatism," has sunk so low, intellectually and morally speaking, that dissent can only be labelled un-Amerikan.

Barry Goldwater would be ashamed of such discussion. But then, as I've come to realize, he was the real thing.

In brief, can't you use commas properly? Or are you too ashamed of being a comma to use one?

Still waiting to see addressed the point about shameful attacks on Americans who have given their country a great deal, even if we don't like their politics. It's people like that who called Robert Oppenheimer a traitor.

But keep going. Nothing could possibly illustrate the bankruptcy of "conservative," claims as well.

Hey, calm down there. I am not accusing you of not being proud to be American. I just wanted to point out that many liberal sources do act very un-american. It's not rocket science, you don't even have to observe carefuly to see that. CNN for example says so much crap like more than five times an hour like "Our country is so horrible to other countries making sweatshops and goin into other peoples buisness. And by the way you spelled America it seemed like you put down America on purpose.

Why care how I use commas? Wahaha, I'm not going to waist my time looking whether I have perfect grammer. I type fast, and you get what I post. And if you don't atleast get the main idea, something is very wrong with you. Or maybe it's with me, who knows. And that as they say is that.

 

[Cobra]

You're kidding, right? Limbaugh? Hannity?

BTW, I don't see CNN, MSNBC or The NY Times as "Liberal." Air America Radio is liberal.

Are you kidding me about CNN and MSNBC?

 

[michaeledward]

Cobra, it appears you don't recall what you say from one post to the next....
Of course, by employeeing a double negative, you are accusing someone of not being proud to be an American; but that is just someone looking for perfect grammer.

Hey, calm down there. I am not accusing you of not being proud to be American.

I don't mean to disrespect rmcorobertson ... But it seems to me on observing his posts, he seems very liberal ... But it seems to me that almost very extreme liberal hates being American.

Now I'm not assuming rmc hates America and isn't proud to be one, I just wanted to point that out.

If you have also noticed, liberal news channels and radio always seem to put America down all the time.

I just wanted to point out that many liberal sources do act very un-american. It's not rocket science, you don't even have to observe carefuly to see that. CNN for example says so much crap like more than five times an hour like "Our country is so horrible to other countries making sweatshops and goin into other peoples buisness. And by the way you spelled America it seemed like you put down America on purpose.

Why care how I use commas? Wahaha, I'm not going to waist my time looking whether I have perfect grammer. I type fast, and you get what I post. And if you don't atleast get the main idea, something is very wrong with you. Or maybe it's with me, who knows. And that as they say is that.

And, I am curious on which CNN news report, or show do they make the claims you list above? I would really like to see that transcript.

Cobra, I don't want to assume you are full of crap ... but, as your conservative talk show hosts often say "Words Mean Things".

Come on .. put up or ......


Mike

 

[loki09789]

Standard media fall back when under criticism is that the reader is confusing his/her inferrance with the author's implications....

I think a lot of this "liberal"/"conservative" media is really about how people read into reports/stories than how they read them. There is an obvious pattern that can be observed in some news organizations, but others aren't as clear.

A basic explanation of human interaction I got in school broke it down like this:

70% of human communication is non verbal - that means that we are more sensitive/adept at reading/sending non verbal ques than we are at articulating or understanding verbal/written forms of communication. This can/and very often does lead to some powerful misinterpretations.

There are three components and two layers of communication:

messenger, message and reciever make up the components. If all three of these components are not as open, clear and precise as possible confusion will occur.

the two layers are informational and emotional. People generally respond first to what they percieve on the emotional level which will heavily influence how they interpret the informational level.

After all the class hours of teaching skills this is the basic stuff that I always come back to - and some of it came from MP training!

Looking at the stuff above and considering how the media either extremely or subtlely sends 'information messages' that are dripping with 'emotional messages' (headlines, selected quotes, slanted word choice...) it is no wonder folks get riled up.

I have chosen to get my degree in what is now called English Language Arts Education (we all just took English ), and it is interesting to see how easily people are manipulated (and be manipulated myself) by those who have made that 30% of human interaction their tool to wield for good or ill.

Our only chance to deal with the 'evil' media whether left or right is to be critical thinkers and articulate communicators. That doesn't have to mean we all speak/read like PhD's just be clear in thought, word and deed and everything will be more clear.

 

[Makalakumu]

As for Michael Savage, on radio ... he is just another of the rabid voices of extremism (on the right) ... on Television, he was an FCC fine waiting to happen ... which is why he is gone.

Take a look at Michael Savages book "Savage Nation". Its a neo version of "Mein Kampf".

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm hopping over the line to NH. I am also intersted in the Libertarian Free State Project. www.freestateproject.org

This is one of the most interesting social experiments of our time. I hope it gets off the ground because it would give the American people a true comparison of life with big government and life with small government. No more lies and hypocrisy like one gets from the Republicans. No more schizphrenic blending of Libertarianists and the Religious Right. No more vieled fascism...if you guys can support this project, I would recommend it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hey, calm down there. I am not accusing you of not being proud to be American. I just wanted to point out that many liberal sources do act very un-american. It's not rocket science, you don't even have to observe carefuly to see that. CNN for example says so much crap like more than five times an hour like "Our country is so horrible to other countries making sweatshops and goin into other peoples buisness. And by the way you spelled America it seemed like you put down America on purpose.

Why care how I use commas? Wahaha, I'm not going to waist my time looking whether I have perfect grammer. I type fast, and you get what I post. And if you don't atleast get the main idea, something is very wrong with you. Or maybe it's with me, who knows. And that as they say is that.

Examples, examples!????????? And just for the record he was making fun of right wingers not intentionaly mispelling America as a hatred for America. You either already knew that and were making a false accusation or you really came to that conclusion. (I know Mr. Mike was just lashing back, but what about you?)
Sean

 

[Makalakumu]

This thread has been very interesting to read. I am glad I took the time to wade through the posts. I have to agree with Robert, though. The media is not liberal or conservative. It's corporatist. It's capitolist. This explains so many things including the sensationalism. The media sells information.

Here is a curveball...the crieds from the left or the right of bias usually increase and decrease proportionally with those who are in office, in my opinion. If this is the case, just how much influence does the government have on the media?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Some folks really need to learn something--actually, anything--about their country and its history. It wouldn't hurt none to learn a little about democracy, neither.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think most would agree that the slant is more toward the left

I completely disagree. During the majority of the coverage I've seen of the Bush "theft" of the Presidency (depending on your view and your opinion of the Supreme Court ruling), through September 11, to coverage in Iraq, it seems like now more than ever (as far as I can remember) it is not even allowed that newscasters or commentators (particularly on TV, where most folks seem to get their news) to question the war, question the President, and so forth. For example, I remember distinctly reporters stating that they would not question the Supreme Court ruling because it would "undermine the President Bush's" authority. Well, of course!

In terms of airtime, I believe conservative talk shows on the radio take up a much larger chunk of time, but I will have to check the statistics on that to give a concrete example.

I think the "liberal media" argument is, frankly, tired, aside from being presently not the case.

And Americans seem to have forgotten that you can love this country (as I do), and still question what certain individuals do in our government. BECAUSE I love my country, I shudder at certain policies. BECAUSE I support the military and have friends and family in the armed forces, I don't want our government seeking out military engagements or wars that are not necessary.

 

[Phoenix44]

The "liberal" media is a myth. That's the reason for all the hoopla surrounding Air America Radio. It's the ONLY liberal radio network.

Last week, most newspapers featured a horse race on the front page, while the investigation of Halliburton, including the possible involvement of Vice President Cheney, was tucked away in the middle somewhere.

 

[MisterMike]

Flip through the morning shows between 7 and 9 and tell me what you think.

Katie Couric and Matt Lauer come to my mind - and not from the side of Republicans, who we generally associate with Conservatives.

Liberal/Conservative may not be the most accurate depiction...I think the media is simply politicized(Dem/Repub). The liberal/conservative is more a secondary comparison as Democrats are usually associated with liberal and Republican with conservative.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I have to agree with Robert, though. The media is not liberal or conservative. It's corporatist. It's capitolist. This explains so many things including the sensationalism. The media sells information.

I agree that the media sells. I think one of the problems we are facing now is that a few large corporations - with some very strong political ties - own most of the media sources we get our news from. They are both selling information as a product, in a way, but can control the kinds of information or the slant on the news that is given out.

 

[Phoenix44]

Perfect example:

Yesterday, a non-partisan group of 27 career diplomats and military commanders (Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change) held a press conference urging voters to oust the Bush Administration in November. They stated:

"The Bush Administration...is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change." And they cited reasons.

The press conference was covered by news services all over the world--but the New York Times didn't have a single sentence. Liberal media?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Perfect example:

Yesterday, a non-partisan group of 27 career diplomats and military commanders (Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change) held a press conference urging voters to oust the Bush Administration in November. They stated:

"The Bush Administration...is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change." And they cited reasons.

The press conference was covered by news services all over the world--but the New York Times didn't have a single sentence. Liberal media?

A very good point here. If the New York Times was liberal, it would have jumped at the opportunity to showcase a bunch of conservatives "coming out" against Bush.

William Kristol, a conservative writer who was chief of staff (and probably the brains for) Dan Quayle, put it simply. He said that blaming the media was the Right's way of denying conservative failures. When something goes wrong for the Right, they blame the "liberal" media.

This is almost a knee-jerk reaction on the part of conservatives. Anytime anything unflattering about a conservative or conservative cause comes to light, one maligns the press for "undue attention". I have a friend (and yes, I have conservative friends) who did this as a matter of course with the Abu Ghraib scandal. This was the story of the year, with fifteen year old boys being raped by American translators and seventy year old women being ridden with bridals and called "donkeys"--horrific history in the making--and he said he couldn't believe how the media jumped all over it. How could they NOT jump all over it?

One has to understand how incredibly competitive journalists are. They'd rather scoop the competition on a story, beat them to the punch, than have to bother with focusing on any particular political slant. They might leave it to the Op-Ed folks, Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams to talk about the political merits of any issue...but for the reporter on the street, rule one is GET THE STORY. Rule two: IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS. It is not at all surprising that the prison abuse story got so much attention. It CALLED FOR ATTENTION. And it sold papers.

One wonders if the press is so "liberal" why they've so lionized Reagan as of late.

Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I'm hopping over the line to NH. I am also intersted in the Libertarian Free State Project. www.freestateproject.org

For those interested, it seems that the good people of Grafton, NH are not too interested in the 'Free Town Project' ... which came as a surprise to the members of the Free State Project.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1967764

Mike

 

[Phoenix44]

I think the media is getting lazier and lazier. There used to be investigative journalism. Now, just take a look at the major newspapers. How many of the articles are AP newswire, or even quotations from OTHER newspapers? And did you ever call a newsroom? I did. You'd be amazed at how incredibly ignorant these people are about what's going on in the world.

It's shocking. No wonder the Bush administration can put out "Video Press Releases," basically fabricated propaganda using actors calling themselves journalists, and have them picked up by the major TV stations and presented as "news." Sure, it's easier than investigating. No, I'm not making this up--the DHHS recently sent out such videos re: Medicare. This practice was investigated, and found to be ILLEGAL, because it was not identified as DHHS propaganda when presented to the public. The finding was that the DHHS owed the Treasury--ie the taxpayer--the money used to produce these videos. (Of course, DHHS does not intend to pay us back)

Hey, I can subscribe to AP, too. I don't need the New York Times to print it out for me, and pretend to be a newspaper.