NationStates Jolt Archive

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

Is your only source of news www.newsmax.com or something?

Er, I don't know what new station you've been watching, but news networks like CNN and MSNBC are always criticizing the goverment...Hell, every now and again, Bill O'Reilly will have some criticism for the government and I mean hell, it's O'Reilly...

Well, if it could be believed that there wasn't any criticism of the current regime in the mainstream media, I'd say that they just needed something else to be pissed off about for a few days.

But don't worry: Spain is about to pass a bill that will legalize gay marriage. That'll give them something to chew on for about a week.

I think the media is too liberal and not in the respect of criticism of the government or NO critism of the government, but in that there are too many opinions and not enough fact. This country's news is like no other country in that its completely and utterly chocked full of BULLSHIT. There is no news in the actualy news but just a bunch of dumb asses spouting their own (or their companies) dumb ass opinions and straying as far away from actual facts as possible. We've got tabloid news in this country more so than any other in the world. Not to mention that the way they are "reporting" the war in Iraq... THey always seem to show the nice US soldiers giving out candy and food meanwhile in the UK or england they're showing US soldiers shooting civilian Iraqis... Its propaganda my friends. And yes FOX news is too right wing.. THey're a bunch of nut jobs over there. CNN and MSNBC are almost tolerable being that they're a little LESS whacked out, but they still don't show actual NEWS.

Er, I don't know what new station you've been watching, but news networks like CNN and MSNBC are always criticizing the goverment...Hell, every now and again, Bill O'Reilly will have some criticism for the government and I mean hell, it's O'Reilly...

It's not “liberal” to criticize the government. Its our inalienable right given to us in the constitution. I criticize the government plenty, and I am considered a “conservative”.

By the way, some of the best things O’Reilly says is when he is criticizing the government.

It's not “liberal” to criticize the government. Its our inalienable right given to us in the constitution. I criticize the government plenty, and I am considered a “conservative”.

By the way, some of the best things O’Reilly says is when he is criticizing the government.

I was referring to the part of the post that said: "Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism..."

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

You don't have to be liberal to criticize the government. Republicans criticize each other all the time, without any help from Democrats.

Are you saying that somehow, Senator John McCain always votes in lockstep with whatever Bush wants? Or did you miss the news over the past month or so?

CBS is, by its own admission, and by the admission of some of its current and former news anchors, a liberal news network. Since the 1960s.

I was watching CNN the other day on cable, being as I'm from the UK I had a fair chance to judge it objectively I think.

My verdict is:

What the hell?!?!

One of their top three stories of the hour was 'People believe in Jesus' resurection!'

This 'news' item presented no research information and no analysis. It was simply interviews with, and voice-overs about people who believe in the resurection, and how great believing makes them feel.

Is this normal for american news?

The other news stories I watched then, and previously, have seemed shallow and full of 'entertaining' jokes rather than the semi-objective reporting we see here in the UK. Even ITV news (Commonly regarded as the most 'dumbed down' news in the UK) doesn't get as jingoistic and narrow sighted at it's worst moment as CNN appears to consistantly be.

And CNN is supposed to be liberal?? Yeah right.

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

Funny! I could've sworn I've heard ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC criticize the government every single solitary day since 2000.

I still continue to hear it to this day.

I take it that your either a southerner (Johnny Reb) or a European or just not American.

THey always seem to show the nice US soldiers giving out candy and food meanwhile in the UK or england they're showing US soldiers shooting civilian Iraqis... Its propaganda my friends. And yes FOX news is too right wing.. THey're a bunch of nut jobs over there. CNN and MSNBC are almost tolerable being that they're a little LESS whacked out, but they still don't show actual NEWS.
Well, since you're obviously such an expert on what does and does not constitute "news," why don't you explain it to us ignorant Americans? What, exactly, do you consider "news?"

Also, I'd like to see some of those photos of "US soldiers shooting civilian Iraqis," please.

Well, since you're obviously such an expert on what does and does not constitute "news," why don't you explain it to us ignorant Americans? What, exactly, do you consider "news?"

Also, I'd like to see some of those photos of "US soldiers shooting civilian Iraqis," please.

Eutrusca, cut him some slack.

To people like "booty", any shooting by Americans is unjustified wanton slaughter of unarmed babies. You remember accusations like this from your day, don't you?

Even if there are bad guys shooting at the Americans first in the video frame, some people will say, "oh, look at those horrible, evil Americans".

Because they think rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly are journalists and have "news" programs

Ihatevacations']Because they think rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly are journalists and have "news" programs

Oh, like Al Franken is a "journalist".

Ihatevacations']Because they think rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly are journalists and have "news" programs

Bill O'Reilly is a Com-men-tat-or and so is Rush Limbaugh. Why do liberals always think we consider these two news people when they are commentators? Jeez...

Whispering legs: No one asked about Al franken
Corneliu: Because alot of rightwingers are excessively stupid

Ihatevacations']Whispering legs: No one asked about Al franken
Corneliu: Because alot of rightwingers are excessively stupid

Actually, I haven't met a right-winger yet that has called Bill O'Reilly a newsman nor have I met a right-winger that has called Limbaugh a newsman either.

Actually, I haven't met a right-winger yet that has called Bill O'Reilly a newsman nor have I met a right-winger that has called Limbaugh a newsman either.
Which counters my point how?

Ihatevacations']Which counters my point how?
Most conservatives do not believe that they are anything but commentators.

Liberals like to make that claim in order to simultaneously bash the commentators and paint all conservatives with a broad brush.

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

It worries me that no one on this thread has yet mentioned a print source of media. Nicholas Kristoff of The New York Times, which is, on the whole, a left-leaning newspaper, recently wrote a series of articles criticizing the federal government's lack of action in Dharfour. Yesterday (I think, though it could have been the day before), the Times published an editorial of his protesting Bush's receival of the Pakistani prime minister because of the country's treatment of women.

Most conservatives do not believe that they are anything but commentators.

Liberals like to make that claim in order to simultaneously bash the commentators and paint all conservatives with a broad brush.
Again this coutners my ponit how? I think the very fact you all keep using the word liberals with a broad sweep proves my point

Ihatevacations']Again this coutners my ponit how? I think the very fact you all keep using the word liberals with a broad sweep proves my point

No! We only use the word liberals on a select few. We know there are moderate Democrats and Conservative (yes conservative) Democrats too.

We also know the Republican Party has liberal (yes Liberal) Republicans and Moderate Republicans.

It is only the Liberal Democrats we hear from most of the time just like it is the Conservative Republicans we here most of the time.

Go figure that we know this. Does the Democratic Party know they have a conservative section? Apparently not. To bad. They have good ideas that no one hears about because it gets rejected by the Liberal Democrats who are in power.

So yes, what we are saying does counter your view point. I haven't met one republican yet that considers O'Reilly and Limbaugh newsmen. I've met several of them and they don't consider these men newsmen. They consider them commentators. Al Franken is a liberal commentator. He's not a newsman. BTW: I found several of his books in the Humor section! :D

Whats the relevant point of that last statement? I'm sure if there was a crazy bitch section it would feature only Ann Coulter

Ihatevacations']Whats the relevant point of that last statement? I'm sure if there was a crazy bitch section it would feature only Ann Coulter

You'll get no arguement out of me on that one! :D

It proves my point that you've never proven the point that conservatives believe that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are reporters, newsmen, or anything other than commentators.

You haven't done anything other than make a ridiculous assertion, so I countered with an assertion.

Since you have no proof at all, you lose.

The rule in American politics is: the media is 'liberal' if you consider yourself 'conservative,' and the media is 'conservative' if you consider yourself 'liberal.'

This is similar to other rules, like if you're 'conservative' liberals are the root of all evil, and if you're 'liberal' conservatives are the root of all evil.

It proves my point that you've never proven the point that conservatives believe that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are reporters, newsmen, or anything other than commentators.

You haven't done anything other than make a ridiculous assertion, so I countered with an assertion.

Since you have no proof at all, you lose.
Wait wait wait. If I lose because I make an provable assertion, how don't YOU lose? is this some kind of "anti-liberal" rule I wasn't informed of when arguing?

Ihatevacations']Wait wait wait. If I lose because I make an provable assertion, how don't YOU lose? is this some kind of "anti-liberal" rule I wasn't informed of when arguing?

Kinda hard to be a provable assertion when you haven't provided ANY PROOF whatsoever.

Kinda hard to be a provable assertion when you haven't provided ANY PROOF whatsoever.
Unprovable I meant, I have stupid fingers so I can't type

Ihatevacations']Unprovable I meant, I have stupid fingers so I can't type

Well in that case, I forgive you. :D

Anyway, you did make an assertion and were called on it. That is why you actually lost this line of debate.

The rule in American politics is: the media is 'liberal' if you consider yourself 'conservative,' and the media is 'conservative' if you consider yourself 'liberal.'

This is similar to other rules, like if you're 'conservative' liberals are the root of all evil, and if you're 'liberal' conservatives are the root of all evil.

This is probably the most accurate statement I've heard today.

Ihatevacations']Wait wait wait. If I lose because I make an provable assertion, how don't YOU lose? is this some kind of "anti-liberal" rule I wasn't informed of when arguing?
You don't have any "proof" of your assertion. So even if I say nothing, you lose.

Nicholas Kristoff of The New York Times, which is, on the whole, a left-leaning newspaper,
Emphasis mine. this is proof sufficient of a severe skew of the American political spetcrum towards the right, and an equal, if not superior, deformation of media reporting. Case closed.

All media takes things way out of proportion. I hate the media. Period.

.. and I don't hate many things.

You don't have any "proof" of your assertion. So even if I say nothing, you lose.
as do you

Ihatevacations']as do you
Yes, because I only made a counter assertion. I was hoping you would get it sooner or later.

Still, we can't say that conservatives think of O'Reilly as a real newsman...

and I can't say that liberals throw that out for fun...

You could probably get away with saying "some" conservatives (and then name them), and I could say that "some" liberals throw that you (and name you).

Emphasis mine. this is proof sufficient of a severe skew of the American political spetcrum towards the right, and an equal, if not superior, deformation of media reporting. Case closed.
According to whom? Isn't American media ... well, American?

Well Liberal is a relative term.

Obviously people that have seen media from other countries know that the crap they put on American tv is far from Liberal.

But imagine if you had grown up with that crap and never seen anything else. You would naturally believe that CNN is more liberal than Fox because it is by a micro amount.

Well Liberal is a relative term.

Obviously people that have seen media from other countries know that the crap they put on American tv is far from Liberal.

But imagine if you had grown up with that crap and never seen anything else. You would naturally believe that CNN is more liberal than Fox because it is by a micro amount.

Ahhh, C & T, just the point I made on another thread. The Americans' innately-conservative skew makes it impossible for them to be objective about their media. What passes for journalism in the States'd be considered "free political time" most anywhere else. Except most anywhere else, they wouldn't try passing it off as 'news'.

Ihatevacations']Whats the relevant point of that last statement? I'm sure if there was a crazy bitch section it would feature only Ann Coulter
Nope, you'd have to add Janeane Garofalo as well. Other than that, the field's pretty limited though.

According to whom? Isn't American media ... well, American?
I might have answered if you'd actually articulated the idea your sentence hints at, but unfortunately a tautology is not an argument. American media is American from whatever viewpoint i choose to adopt.

The liberals and conservatives in the American media are all a bunch of cunts Take it from me, I'm a student journalist and my high school paper (tho we're pretty good) is probably more objective than the national media.

And for all of you who say it's all conservative biased - Dan Blather, anybody?

The media is neither conservative nor liberal. They adopt whichever view they believe will garner the highest ratings.

Ihatevacations']Wait wait wait. If I lose because I make an provable assertion, how don't YOU lose? is this some kind of "anti-liberal" rule I wasn't informed of when arguing?

You haven't proven your assertion. Instead, you made an Unrelated Assertion that Conservatives are all "Stupid". This second unrelated assertion not only does not support your initial assertion, but requires some form of proof as well-and voting for a Conservative, or supporting Conservative causes, is not proof (that would be a circular argument).

The media is neither conservative nor liberal. They adopt whichever view they believe will garner the highest ratings.

But it is the media that shapes opinions in the first place. Where do you get your belief system from:

-Your family and friends

-school or church

-the media

But mainly the media as it has a major effect in shaping the thoughts of your family, friends, teachers, etc.

It is a spiral type relationship, the media affects the way people think and then the way people think affects the media, and so on and so forth.

The media is neither conservative nor liberal. They adopt whichever view they believe will garner the highest ratings.
Which is why Fox News currently has the highest ratings. And the other networks' news ratings are in the crapper.

Because a LOT of people in the US are conservatives.

Which is why Fox News currently has the highest ratings. And the other networks' news ratings are in the crapper.

Because a LOT of people in the US are conservatives.

And the Democrats are only now figuring that out. It'll be awhile before they begin to adapt to this realization.

Y'know guys, you don't get this crappy 'bias' angle thrown into the mix anywhere but the States. Most of the rest of the world's news agencies stay clear of this sort of BS.

Why can't you just frickin' RELAX?

Y'know guys, you don't get this crappy 'bias' angle thrown into the mix anywhere but the States. Most of the rest of the world's news agencies stay clear of this sort of BS.

Tell this to the HMS Ark Royal! The admiral removed it from the ship because of the biasness during the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

Why can't you just frickin' RELAX?

Why can't you just calm down yourself?

Y'know guys, you don't get this crappy 'bias' angle thrown into the mix anywhere but the States. Most of the rest of the world's news agencies stay clear of this sort of BS.

Why can't you just frickin' RELAX?

I hear bias complaints from friends in Europe who complain not about left or right, or which party controls the news media (well, there were some Italian complaints...), but more along the lines of which huge corporation actually holds a particular news organization - and how they can't say anything bad about that corporation or its subsidiaries...

Then there's the recent BBC thing. For a government entity to attack its own government, well, that's anti-Government bias, but it shows that up until that point, the BBC was free to do what it wanted, and exhibit any bias it felt like.

Now I bet that things are different.

Emphasis mine. this is proof sufficient of a severe skew of the American political spetcrum towards the right, and an equal, if not superior, deformation of media reporting. Case closed.

Viewpoint is tied very tightly to the culture in which it exists. Insofar as one could say America has a culture, yes, compared to socialist Europe, the entire American Culture is skewed "right"-and has been since...oh... what, about 1820 or so? Remember, the U.S. is the place where all your ancestors dumped the people they didn't like, or who wouldn't "Get with the Program". (okay, "Dumped" is unfair. most of those people left your countries on their own, as soon as physically possible... sometimes at great personal risk.)

That said, the "World" spectrum, our most "Liberal" citizens are those that want to emulate European values in politics and the media.

In order to make that saleable in the U.S. (fulll of folks who don't), it's mildly-to-severely skewed to the "Right" on the Global scale.

Locally to the U.S., however, it's very, very, left of the Domestic Centre.
The American Population has never (in the 20th Century) been as "Left" (really "Statist") as their European contemporaries. You can follow this by realizing that Gun-Control (a major hot-button in the American Electorate) was passed in most of Europe without much debate-even the Tories in Britain supported laws restricting firearms for most of the last century, while getting passage here of what Euros would consider "Basic Reforms" (really Statist Restrictions) requires some massively hyped disaster or another, right before the vote in the legislature/Congress.
Our media is all-too-ready to provide the necessary hype, as well, often in result feeding a frenzy of copycatting and hysteria to help push the law a bit further left.

In other political areas, the American Media (with the exception of Fox News, whose editorial staff is further to the right, and therefore can't get away with it...) has little problem endorsing both overtly, and covertly, politicians whose affiliations push toward the left on the American (not European) scale. In the area I live, virtually every single newspaper, radio station, and television outlet supported Gregoire for Governor, and only reluctantly mentioned the irregularities in King County that gave her the Statehouse-the only time it was front-page after the third recount, was when the Court in Chehalis decided that the lawsuit needed to die-conveniently ignoring the rampant shenanigans, including a district in Seattle where nearly a thousand voters have the Elections Office as their place-of-residence. (Must be a big office, no?)
On the national level, positive coverage of Gore's recount efforts outnumbered negative or neutral coverage by a significant margin, while negative coverage of the final result outweighed positive by a smaller, but still significant margin.

in 2004, the "Swift Boat" controversy was first covered in Fox News after being on the Internet for months. Negative coverage of SBVFT was the rule, not the exception, all the way through the election. Meanwhile, Moveon.org recieved little media attention at all, and what did recieve was overwhelmingly positive in mainstream outlets (this in spite of Moveon's being funded by a crooked billionaire with a stake in the outcome of the election!)

Doesn't start in 2000, though. The Clinton Administration's Policies were embraced whole-hog by the mainstream media in America. The land-theft and possible bribery involved in the creation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah being a prime example. The creation effectively finished killing the local economy while simultaneously securing a monopoly for an Indonesian firm that funnelled moneys to the DNC (Riaty).

The Celebrated "Microsoft Lawsuits" favoured heavily -democratic contributors at Sun, Apple, and other firms, little coverage of that angle was to be had in the American press (IIRC, both CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) and BBC had coverage, however...) and BBC also covered the sale of Ballistic Missile technology to China in violation of Export Regulations under Clinton-and his use fo Executive order power to retroactively make the sale legal and cover McDonnell Douglas (a major Democratic party contributor)'s ass.

Media coverage of Enron emphasized Dick Cheney's connection, while ignoring the fact that the vast bulk of the criminal actions occurred while William J. Clinton was in office. Likewise, the current bad-times economically began in 1998, not 2002, while changes instituted on the Executive level permitted a merger that made U.S. airliner production (one of the largest export-side items in the U.S. trade portfolio) into a Monopoly (In 1990, there were two airliner producers in the U.S., in 2000, there was one, plus Airbus.)
It's interesting to note that GW Bush gets accused of Enron, when the graft, theft, and fraud occurred under the Clinton watch, and the Bush administration is simply the one that's prosecuting.

Media coverage of environmental news is skewed as well-from TMI through Hanford, facts are left out of reporting in favour of striking fear into people. The Mainstream Media faithfully hypes Human-Centric Global-Warming in spite of massive flaws in every model presented so far, and questionable transparency in the methods of the people hyping it.

There are plenty of examples of Media Bias towards the american Left.
Fox News gets the ratings they do, because they don't pretend to be one thing (objective) while being another (biased). Their bias is open and well-understood. The Mainstream media's bias is well-understood, but they try to decieve the market, and themselves, (I don't know which is more pathetic...) by claiming no bias exists.

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

That is not a given for one thing. It is absolutely false.

Mainly because of numerous surveys done over the past 25 years in which journalists have consistantly said they were liberals, but also because of the scandals in which networks and their talking heads have been caught red handed trying to undermine elections. Many are very matter of fact about it. The NY Times actually hired someone to oversee the reporting it had become so blatantly one sided and it has done their credibility great damage.
Another telling tidbit is that our schools of journalism actually have professors teaching garbage like, "Isn't it wonderful that we have biases in journalism. In this manner we can transfer the emotion to the viewer when we feel passionate about what we cover." You see our universities have managed institute hiring processes that are designed to completely eliminate the possibility that a conservative could get hired. One must keep in mind that during Vietnam our cowards had two ways out of avoiding the draft. Go to canada, or hide out in school for many many years. The draft was a terrible terrible policy. Number one, it put people that didn't want to be there along side outstanding soldiers who couldn't trust them in the first place. It ruined the balance in education and the damage it did to Canada is unforgivable because our cowards settled down there and infected an entire population with the weak minded deserters.
CNN is another story. They simply have no integrity of any kind and gladly trade truth in journalism for access by their own admission.

Liverbreath']That is not a given for one thing. It is absolutely false.

Care to prove it false?

Mainly because of numerous surveys done over the past 25 years in which journalists have consistantly said they were liberals, but also because of the scandals in which networks and their talking heads have been caught red handed trying to undermine elections.

:eek: Undermining elections? The press? oh the horror! :D

Many are very matter of fact about it. The NY Times actually hired someone to oversee the reporting it had become so blatantly one sided and it has done their credibility great damage.

Yep. Membership is down! Can't get much more damaged than that. Not to mention the NYT making up news stories didn't help it much either.

Another telling tidbit is that our schools of journalism actually have professors teaching garbage like, "Isn't it wonderful that we have biases in journalism. In this manner we can transfer the emotion to the viewer when we feel passionate about what we cover."

Do you have any proof of this? Not that I don't believe you but it'll be nice to have said proof.

You see our universities have managed institute hiring processes that are designed to completely eliminate the possibility that a conservative could get hired.

And then wonder why professors have a hard time with students these days. Why? Students are more conservative these days and don't take what professors say for granted anymore.

One must keep in mind that during Vietnam our cowards had two ways out of avoiding the draft. Go to canada, or hide out in school for many many years. The draft was a terrible terrible policy. Number one, it put people that didn't want to be there along side outstanding soldiers who couldn't trust them in the first place. It ruined the balance in education and the damage it did to Canada is unforgivable because our cowards settled down there and infected an entire population with the weak minded deserters.

At least they are in Canada and not here in the states. :D That way, you can deal with their weakmindedness and we can keep going stronger. That also explains the state of the Canadian Military too! :D

CNN is another story. They simply have no integrity of any kind and gladly trade truth in journalism for access by their own admission.

No wonder CNNs rating is down the tubes from where it was during Gulf War 1.

All major media is corporate owned, and will slant it's stories according to their philosophies, consciously or unconsciously. I just don't know if, polically speaking, there are any unbiased news sources.

According to whom? Isn't American media ... well, American?

No, actually the major networks have huge blocks of ownership in France, Saudi Arabia, Germany and more, but France is by far the largest.

And the Democrats are only now figuring that out. It'll be awhile before they begin to adapt to this realization.
Haven't they become similar enough to the Republicans? Do you want them to become just like them? Wake up. The liberal wing of the Dem party is not in power.

Haven't they become similar enough to the Republicans?

Nope. Not even close.

Do you want them to become just like them?

I want two parties that can debate without all the name calling. I doubt I'll get my wish.

Wake up. The liberal wing of the Dem party is not in power.

Thank God.

Nope. Not even close.

They look pretty similar from an outside perspective. Add that many of the differences are imagined, or exaggerated. Over the past 20 years the Dems have almost totally abandoned any kind of left-wing economics in an attempt to become the Republican-lite party. The only real big divider left between them is abortion. Which I guess you consider a pretty big issue.

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

Primarily to feed the fear and anger fueling their movement, and also because no one legitemately remembers what a true leftist movement really is.

Basically, conservatives started talking about a "liberal" media in the '88 election, which is odd when you consider a) that a Republican won in 1988, and b) he did so primarily by completely misconstruing the case of one Willie Horton to make it look like Dukakis was at fault when he wasn't. Their common complaint was that the majority of identifiable members of the press are (or at least were at the time) registered Democrats, and in surveys tended to describe themselves as more "liberal" than average. The theory was that this liberalism bled over into their reporting, leading them to cover stories that made Republicans look bad, and not report things that made Republicans look good.

Of course, there are several problems with this analysis. For one thing, while reporters tend to skew liberal, most of their editors tend to skew conservative, and its the editors who have the most control in deciding what does and does not get published. For another, there has been very scant evidence to suggest that liberals have indeed been biased in how they report against Republicans. In fact, prior to Dan Rather's travails at CBS news last year, Republicans would have been hard-pressed to find a single instance where "liberal" journalists deliberately skewed a story in spite of actual evidence showing that it was incorrect for the stated purpose of hurting a Republican official or candidate (and in fact, you could even say that Rathergate doesn't even qualify: it's already known that Bush had troubles showing up for duty while in the National Guard, but the source that Rather used to describe where Bush was and was not turned out to be falsifying information to prove his case).

For a third thing, and perhaps most importantly, is that what conservatives dub "liberal" would hardly be called liberal in any other era and country in the industrialized world. While many journalists skew more liberal on social matters than the rest of the country, such as say gay marriage, on economic matters polls tend to show they skew more conservative than average. So while you will often find journalists supporting Roe V. Wade, you will hardly ever find one opposing NAFTA. In short, most "liberal" commentators and newspapermen are really what might be more accurately described as little l libertarians. Real liberalism in journalism simply doesn't exist, and you will never find an article that demanded truly liberal economic policy. Instead you will find such moderate positions as expanding minimum wage described as "communist" (which is ridiculous. Conservatives, for the record, unless you see an article arguing that we should all go down to the NYSE and shoot every last bourgeouis in the face, or something that reaches similar levels of violence against capitalist institutions, the article ain't communist).

Now, why is the position so skewed in America? Primarily because conservatives have been telling themselves, and commentators such as Grover Norquist, William Safire, George Will, William Buckley, Bill Bennett, John Leo, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity have confirmed, that the media is "liberal". As I said before, there isn't a lot of actual evidence for this, and when pressed conservatives usually rely on the ad populum fallacy for confirmation, but really it's because conservatives have built themselves an echo chamber in which anything that doesn't agree with their worldview is not something that actually disconfirms their worldview, but an example of a conspiracy against their correct worldview. They cling to this conspiracy because it comforts them against the terrifying idea that they might just be wrong.

Then there's the recent BBC thing. For a government entity to attack its own government, well, that's anti-Government bias, but it shows that up until that point, the BBC was free to do what it wanted, and exhibit any bias it felt like.


Now I bet that things are different.

Wanna call it 5 dollars?

Because they are still not 'pro-goverment' they gave a pretty good slab of Newsnight (and presumably the man news too, I was out) to giving the government a hard time over tax credits. They told the government's side too of course but most of it was pointing out the (numerous) faults in the system.

In my opinion, all media is corrupted (though some to varrying degrees). There Biased stories, screw ups, and made up stories will always exist. To get any true picture of any subject, you must have at least secondhand knouledge, and a good suply of news stories to sift through. (Preferably from many different countries)

What I find to be interesting is that in a recent poll, our overwhelmingly conservative nation (the US) believes PBS & NPR to be more trustworthy than the mainstream media, fair and balanced and provided more in depth news. Fewer than 10% found the coverage of the Iraq war to be "slanted"

More than half of those surveyed believed that PBS news and information programming was more “trustworthy” than news shows on the commercial networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CNN (while between 6 and 15 percent found PBS programming less trustworthy). Similarly, more than half of those surveyed believed that PBS provided more "in-depth" news and information programming than the networks (compared to between 17 and 24 percent who thought such programming was less in-depth). Only about 8 percent thought that PBS’s Iraq war coverage was “slanted.” More than a quarter of those surveyed said the reporting was “fair and balanced” (while 63 percent had “no opinion” at all). NPR received similar results.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0427-08.htm



I find that interesting, because I have always been under the impression that the general public viewed both entities as liberal. It's interesting to think that more people find the coverage "fair and balanced" than found it "slanted", and that the greatest percentage had no opinion at all.

If NPR is fair and balanced, I think we're safe to say that the Liberal Bias in the Media may be a social construct rather than fact.

Given that criticism of the government is now all but nonexistent in mainstream American journalism (Downing Street, Jeff Gannon anyone?) why do rightwing yanks believe that the media is liberal?

You're one of those retards from DU aren't you? :mp5:

Which is why Fox News currently has the highest ratings. And the other networks' news ratings are in the crapper.

Because a LOT of people in the US are conservatives.

Then how come there are virtually no conservatives in Congress, only neocons and liberals?

Speaking of downing street? Did anyone see the cap from the questioning of bush and blair about the memo? That was so scripted a pair of identical twins couldn't have done it better

Then how come there are virtually no conservatives in Congress, only neocons and liberals?

To be fair, I don't consider Senator Lieberman to be a liberal. There are moderates in Congress. Unfortunately they get drowned out by everyone else.

I think the media is too liberal and not in the respect of criticism of the government or NO critism of the government, but in that there are too many opinions and not enough fact. This country's news is like no other country in that its completely and utterly chocked full of BULLSHIT. There is no news in the actualy news but just a bunch of dumb asses spouting their own (or their companies) dumb ass opinions and straying as far away from actual facts as possible. We've got tabloid news in this country more so than any other in the world. Not to mention that the way they are "reporting" the war in Iraq... THey always seem to show the nice US soldiers giving out candy and food meanwhile in the UK or england they're showing US soldiers shooting civilian Iraqis... Its propaganda my friends. And yes FOX news is too right wing.. THey're a bunch of nut jobs over there. CNN and MSNBC are almost tolerable being that they're a little LESS whacked out, but they still don't show actual NEWS.

i am with you 100% on this one.

another point is that any network that decides to admit to this and show how all the other networks screwed up could make millions...but they are all too scared of bein screwed. They hide behind being conservative, thinking that everyone will put up with that; but there are also a lot of liberals that cant stand the news because they arent respected in it. Switching this little system could bring a jackpot to some people...but who will do it?

as for the the tabloid part, you are also extremely accurate. No one needs to know about celebrities lives on the news. Who broke up with who. Who got laid by the wrong girl, and who is fat. there is no reason that i should care. i should care as much about tom cruise getting engaged just as much as the next happy couple.

paparazzi are getting off too easily. Celebrities dont like them. They are becoming too reckless and invading peoples lives too much and even injuring innocent people to catch them at their worst. And why would they be a target? only because they did GOOD at their job! its sick

media is also not displaying the war correctly. war is hell. they make it seem like its all fun and games over there. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO SEE PEOPLE GETTING SHOT AND KILLED BY AMERICAN SOLDIERS BEFORE THEY CAN SUPPORT THIS WAR! people dont know what war is. its gruesome primitive slaughterings. its sickening. but of course the media doesnt wanna show that because that would make them seem bad. what would the government do?

WE DESERVE THE TRUTH, THE FACTS, ALL OF THEM, AND BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR OWN OPPINIONS AND NOT WHAT THE MEDIA WANTS US TO THINK!

ONLY THEN CAN WE TRUELY BE FREE. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THAT WE CAN BE FREE FROM OUTSIDE CONTROL. I STRONGLY URGE THE MEDIA TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH, AND SET OUR MINDS FREE.

Now, regardless of criticism of the government or so...many people do seem to believe the media is "liberal" (read left-wing)

I read recently that the reason many people think that is because of the civil rights movement and Vietnam.
Apparently (mainly in the South, I guess) people got very upset back then when the TV reported about that kind of stuff. Bigots and armchair warheroes didn't want to hear about it, and when it was reported on, then what could have been the reason?
It must've been because they supported anti-war and civil rights people! So this urban myth of the left-wing ("New York dominated" is always popular) newsmedia started and is still alive today.
I read that in a recent issue of the "New Leader" Magazine, I don't remember who the author was, but it was some media person/researcher.

I don't know whether the US Media is left-wing, but I would strongly suggest that it is rather right-wing (criticism usually along the lines of "they're not right-wing enough"), based on the little US TV I watch here in Oz, and the horror stories about FoxNews, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly (probably the most obnoxious person on the planet, except for Amanda Vanstone)

Then how come there are virtually no conservatives in Congress, only neocons and liberals?

Because the average American doesn’t care to look into politics. If they did, they would realize that Bush spends just as much, if not more, that Democrats. Honestly, if my fellow Americans were not so apathetic, a third party would probably be in power. One that would be moderate to liberal on social issues, fiscally conservative and mildly isolationist.