NationStates Jolt Archive

Comments?

And vice versa.

Not really, I know I'm extreme right (in most circumstances, a few issues I'm leftist on), but I still see the media as mostly liberal biased.

The reason? I don't believe it's some evil conspiracy or anything like that. The reason is simply because a liberal-biased media SELLS.

I'll give you a simple example to demonstrate what I mean... let's say there is a war in a foreign country (I honestly do not mean this to be a metaphor for any current events, just an example), we are winning the war, their corrupt evil government is being taken down, their armies are being defeated, etc....

Conservative-bias: We are winning the war, righteousness will prevail, go us, etc.

Liberal-bias: Civilians are being killed, their lives ripped apart, some children have been maimed or killed in the war, our soldiers have died, their families are suffering, etc.

Which do you think sells better? the Liberal-bias point of view, because it has more shock value.

The same applies to other things.

So yes, I think the media is liberal biased, no I don't think I'm a moderate, but also, the reason I think the media is liberal biased is different from what others think (that I've observed)

Nope. I know I'm outside the norm in many things. I automatically figure most people are to the "right" of me, and I take that into account when I speak about my world view.

Liberal bias? Hardly. Maybe it doesn't agree with you that poor people deserve to go without healthcare, but remember that the media is owned by corporations.

Liberal bias? Hardly. Maybe it doesn't agree with you that poor people deserve to go without healthcare, but remember that the media is owned by corporations.

Exactly, money is the motivator. The "bias" label has concervatives watching and buying newspapers and internet subscriptions just so they can complain.

If you want to change the "bias" then stop watching and reading.....

Actually this is why people attack Fox News all the time.


They don't realize that Fox News is closer to the center then any other news source, and it drives them CRAZY!!!!


The New York Times, IS NOT repesentative of the American People.

They don't realize that Fox News is closer to the center then any other news source, and it drives them CRAZY!!!!


if this is true, then canada is way too fucking close to you nutcases, i need to move the hell over to europe.

if this is true, then canada is way too fucking close to you nutcases, i need to move the hell over to europe.


By all means then, please do. Because you've obviosly never watched the Fox News Channel.

By all means then, please do. Because you've obviosly never watched the Fox News Channel.

i've read and heard enough of what they say on there to know that it sure as shit isn't centrist.

I consider myself just slightly right of center, though I think it is impossible to classify someone's political beliefs on a on dementional sliding scale (I believe in paying the consequences of your actions, pragmatism when it come to solving the enviroment mess we have create, the dole system of welfare is one the worse thing that could have happened to our country [but I do believe in helping those in need], promoting stable families [which would solve a lot of our problems], that we can be a strong and empathetic nation at the same time, etc.).

The media is just plane dumb. They focus on the inane and mostly the negative sensationalism that sales. I don't know if I can blame them, the few media outlets that don't really peddle that sort of BS are down right boring (even the nearly monotone announcers).

I spent two years without exposure to the mass media and I must say it was great!

IF the media has a bias it is towards sensation and away from fact.

Actually this is why people attack Fox News all the time.

They don't realize that Fox News is closer to the center then any other news source, and it drives them CRAZY!!!!

The New York Times, IS NOT repesentative of the American People.
You do realize that this is exactly what the thread creator was talking about, right?

By all means then, please do. Because you've obviosly never watched the Fox News Channel.
I watch it occasionally. Don't try to tell me that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. don't have a pretty serious conservative streak. Fox isn't balanced at all.

The mainstream press has said themselves that they are liberal and vote Democrate, why are any of you supprised?

I watch it occasionally. Don't try to tell me that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. don't have a pretty serious conservative streak. Fox isn't balanced at all.

As Formal Dances has pointed out in the past (btw, has anyone seen her around lately?), there is a difference between news commentary and news reporting. O'Reilly and Hannity are both commentators, not reporters.

By all means then, please do. Because you've obviosly never watched the Fox News Channel.
No Canadian in their right mind would watch that tripe! It's such a waste of time. It's the same channel that shows Jerry Springer, so I put no confidence in their ability to relay the news in a objective instead of a subjective manner. I tried watching five minutes... I couldn't take it any more, it was terrible.

As Formal Dances has pointed out in the past (btw, has anyone seen her around lately?), there is a difference between news commentary and news reporting. O'Reilly and Hannity are both commentators, not reporters.
Even so, I don't see any hard-left commentators to balance the equation. The day Fox has "The O'Reilly and Moore Factor" will be the day I call them Fair and Balanced. Coincidentally, it will also be the day I jump from a tall building. Or a bridge. Probably a bridge.
And don't tell me that Hannity and Colmes has a leftist commentator in Colmes, the man never speaks or jumps on Hannity when he spews right-wing rhetoric.

Now please don't turn this thread into a "Fox is Great!/Fox in the Spawn of Satan!" debate. We know that those threads only end in threats of bodily harm.

The mainstream press has said themselves that they are liberal and vote Democrate, why are any of you supprised?


Yeah, that is true, but my father is a reporter for NBC, and his decision (as well as most of his colleagues decisions) is to keep his professionality above his personal biases. Oh, and the media may be more socially liberal, but if you look more closely at your facts, you will also see that they are economically conservative.

For the same reason that a Lawyer believes in justice, but defends the guilty, so the Media are liberal, but write centrist articles.

Or maybe, if you look at it, the news they gather is more liberal? Like, that the facts presented to them make it seem like liberal choices are the way to go? Like, that the truth seems liberal? And that lies seem Conservative? Ponder that one for a minute.

Actually this is why people attack Fox News all the time.


They don't realize that Fox News is closer to the center then any other news source, and it drives them CRAZY!!!!


The New York Times, IS NOT repesentative of the American People.
How does a channel with that punkass smarmy ill-fitted Hannity cheerily and arrogantly proclaiming that there's only a few months left until "we" vote back in "our" president George Bush anything near the center? People like you shouldn't watch TV unless you don't mind staying so stunted.

What is truth? Well actually, truth is neither right or left, that is what makes it so beautiful. But of course, I don't think that we will every understand the truth by ourselves with our limited 4 dementional perspectives. To know the truth of any one event you would have to know everything leading up to the event, including everyone's action and motives as well as the relevant scientific data (including the spin and position of every electron), from every perspective and the possible outcome of every choice. That is a pretty tall order for even the media to fill.

In short, down with the media and up with utilitarian living!

The mainstream press has said themselves that they are liberal and vote Democrate, why are any of you supprised?

Well, that depends on what portion. The people who gather information and write the first drafts of stories tend to be more liberal, but the editors and producers in media tend to be rather conservative.

Guess which of these two groups has the *real* power?



As for the "liberal bias" in media, Al Franken does a pretty good job of debunking that in his book "Lies and the Lying Lyers Who Tell Them". I think the final verdict is on the monetary line.

Even so, I don't see any hard-left commentators to balance the equation. The day Fox has "The O'Reilly and Moore Factor" will be the day I call them Fair and Balanced.

Comparing Bill to Moore is a touch ignorant. O'Reilly is actually more liberal than people give him credit for. He's definitely a right leaning moderate, but he does give the liberals that come on his show as much respect as he gives the conservative guests. He also has a 1.5:1 ratio of liberal to conservative guests, and I'd argue he gives them too many passes on some pretty tough issues. So, The Factor is Fair and Balanced because the right hates him just as much as the left. Everybody still watches his show, though.

And don't tell me that Hannity and Colmes has a leftist commentator in Colmes, the man never speaks or jumps on Hannity when he spews right-wing rhetoric.

Hannitty and Colmes do the show together because while they disagree with eachother strongly, they also respect eachother's opinions - so its rare that EITHER of them "jump" on eachother when they spew rhetoric. That's why Fox News has the best ratings in cable news - because unlike other channels, Fox's pundits respect and tolerate eachother's opinions. It is extremely rare that you'll see five white men in suits stomp on the opinion of a lone black woman in a t-shirt and shorts on Fox news, but that sort of thing happens on MSNBC every week, and on CNN daily.

The American media is hardly liberal, or to be more accurate, leftist. They tend to take moderate-left positions on social issues (because they tend to spend more time investigating social issues than do moderate-right or right holding persons) but moderate-right positions on economic issues (because they work for corporations and have figured out how to work within that system). But in any event, most of the media examine only the symptoms of a problem and not the problem itself. You rarely will see a mainstream newspaper or magazine or news program state: "Problem X is caused by the American economic/political system, which effectively requires this problem to function" This is why the myth of objectivity is so important to our concept of journalism: By limiting the discussion to the symptom (e.g. an environmental disaster) and pronouncing that discussion "objective," then you sidestep any discussion of the systematic base of the symptom (e.g. that capitalism requires that the natural world be seen only as resources to be transformed into consumer goods). Currently, most arguments about whether or not the media are leftist or not have more to do with which symptoms should be examined and which shouldn't.

The American media is hardly liberal, or to be more accurate, leftist. They tend to take moderate-left positions on social issues (because they tend to spend more time investigating social issues than do moderate-right or right holding persons) but moderate-right positions on economic issues (because they work for corporations and have figured out how to work within that system). But in any event, most of the media examine only the symptoms of a problem and not the problem itself. You rarely will see a mainstream newspaper or magazine or news program state: "Problem X is caused by the American economic/political system, which effectively requires this problem to function" This is why the myth of objectivity is so important to our concept of journalism: By limiting the discussion to the symptom (e.g. an environmental disaster) and pronouncing that discussion "objective," then you sidestep any discussion of the systematic base of the symptom (e.g. that capitalism requires that the natural world be seen only as resources to be transformed into consumer goods). Currently, most arguments about whether or not the media are leftist or not have more to do with which symptoms should be examined and which shouldn't.



Brilliant! My thoughts too an exact point! However, I am sure these news organizations would like to offer their thoughts on the causes of the problems. But that would cause far too much contraversy. If one of them said "the American Economy sucks" and then offered their thoughts on the cause, then a civil war would soon be started! The liberals would say it was because of the Capitalists. The Conservatives would say it was because of the socialists.
If they exposed the cause, then the world would end.

Let's keep talking about the symptom, the problem would do us all in.

Let's keep talking about the symptom, the problem would do us all in.

That might be true. We might all grab our guns (or sticks or whatever) and start taking each other out. But the media doesn't avoid the real issues out of any concern for the public. It wouldn't be very good if their audience started to kill each other and stopped watching the news. Of course it might may sensational news coverage, "Nation errupts in bloodshed after CNN covers the root of our poverty issue. Pictures at 11."

Actually, I hope that we are all semi-intelligent individuals that can figure out how to solve our internal problems with out violence. We might just have to have a giant town meeting and talk it out. Voices over a certain level would be banned and everyone would have to leave their witch buring supplies at home.

Actually, I hope that we are all semi-intelligent individuals that can figure out how to solve our internal problems with out violence.

Yes, and look what happens when a nation elects someone less than semi-intelligent....

Brilliant! My thoughts too an exact point! However, I am sure these news organizations would like to offer their thoughts on the causes of the problems. But that would cause far too much contraversy. If one of them said "the American Economy sucks" and then offered their thoughts on the cause, then a civil war would soon be started! The liberals would say it was because of the Capitalists. The Conservatives would say it was because of the socialists.
If they exposed the cause, then the world would end.

Let's keep talking about the symptom, the problem would do us all in.

Thank you for the kind words, Comandante. But I must respectfully disagree that the American media would report on the systemic basis of problems. To do so would be to report on how they are part of that system. In the United States, the news media exist as a means of protecting the current political and economic systems. They report about the scandals and abuses within them, but don't tie those scandals and abuses to the systems. We might hear about George Bush being a disinterested president who has led his nation into a probably unwinnable conflict in Iraq, but we'll never hear anyone suggest that picking our nation's leaders from that subset of the socio-economic upper class is a bad idea -- because that is where the moderate left leaders come from as well.

But you're right, the news media don't want to cause a civil war. They don't want radical change at all -- cf. their minimization of protests; they rarely examine in any depth the positions of the protesters other than they're "against" something. During Bush's inauguration, Tom Brokaw opined that we should be glad the nation had come together behind him, because in other countries they would have taken to the streets to protest, which might have caused bloodshed. Well, perhaps; but it also ignored the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who did line Washington's streets to protest. It also downplayed people caring enough about their government to take action to protest or prevent what they saw as an injustice. And yes, the media do this for right-wing protesters as well (although the mainstream media, to the best of my knowledge, did not widely publicize that the anti-recount protests in Florida were led by congressional staffers working for non-Florida Republicans).

In short, the news media want to report on the condition of the boat, but not in such a way as to rock said boat. Because we're all in the same boat, right? And it's better than not being in a boat, or being in that crappy Russian boat, right? And those are the only options, right?