Can someone explain "mainstream liberal media" ?

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Remember all those stories about how lopsided the 2004 election was? The vast majority of Bush coverage was negative, and the vast majority of Kerry was negative on almost all TV and Cable News networks.

The media is overrun, at large, by liberals and it shows, each and every day.

You can't report fact or truth without being negative towards Bush.

That's the problem with your type, that is just YOUR opinion, Hollywood's opinion, and by and large the media reporter's opinion. Evidenced by the 2004 election, not everyone buy's into this line of bullshit.

My type? The type that calls a spade a spade and Bush a PoS? If anything the mainstream media cut him a lot of slack over his presidency, not calling him on his lies, corruption and ineptitude and merely spouting what the administration told them to. You should be thanking the "liberal media" for the 2004 election.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: deftron
So far, no one in defense of the term has defined "mainstream liberal media"


I think every concedes the point that there is a liberal media.

As well, we acknowledge there is a conservative media.


Now, we need to figure out what is the "mainstream" media,

and why is that media the liberal media


Please enlighten.

Local newspapers are overrun by leftist staff. Network TV is too by and large and it shows. Between newspaper and network tv, I bet there's a huge chunk of the likely voter block that still gets most of their news from those 2 sources alone. I think it's shrinking fast though and the mainstream media will take on another form, most likely the web where news can be delivered much faster and more personally to a reader.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
btw calling cnn liberal is ridiculous.

True -"Marxist" woudl be better term

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Children being more liberal than their parents is nothing new, and it far far predates mass media. Care to venture a guess as to why that is?

EDIT: Oh, and I've showed you and others real evidence that the media is not biased many many times. It still hasn't made a dent.

Care to post it again? Sounds like you got a list of links saved in a textfile.

I've posted it at least half a dozen times. Use the forum search function.
Also, can you explain the kids being more liberal than their parents in the past as well?

If it had something to do with the media bias I might.

edit: and i'm not going to search for the "evidence" you've posted because i doubt i'll be able to recognize it. It's probably just random opinions you've pieced together that you want to believe is evidence... no offense of course...

The evidence I compiled was a series of academic studies and meta-analysis of the American media, peer reviewed.

As for kids being more liberal than their parents it certainly does have something to do with media bias. You attributed the liberalism of children compared to their parents to liberal media bias. I countered with the fact that this has pretty much always been the case for kids, long before the 'librul media' existed. Will you admit that your correlation of the two is not correct?

What about this? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

About the kids, I don't think we're on the same page here. A "liberal" in 1950 would probably be a conservative today. JFK's great line of "Ask not what your country can do for you" is mocked daily by the liberals of today with all their handouts, philosophy that demonizes producers and victimizers consumers and abandonment of traditional moral values. I'm not even sure all kids have always been "liberal". Kids are by definition more adventurous, but they'd also eat candy and only candy if their parents let them. Liberalism is the route of least resistence. Sit back in my welfare sponsored chair, vote Democrat and keep hailing people who will take from the filthy rich producers to give to my lazy butt. Not saying all liberals are like that of course.

 

[Vic]

'Liberal media' and 'mainstream media' is effectively code words for the closed-logic loop that surrounds the right-wing propaganda machine, i.e. the faithful are to listen to only approved sources of information and none else.

In the meantime, Fox and Clear Channel are 2 of the largest media corps on the planet, about as mainstream as mainstream gets. So wingnuts are just playing the victim card when they pretend that their own media sources are not mainstream.

Take it all with a grain of salt though, as practically all news sources in the US are really for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: deftron
I do not understand the term "mainstream liberal media"?

Does that mean the most mainstream media of media types (newpaper, TV, radio, internet) is liberal?

Or does it mean the type of media the mainstream population prefers is liberal?


If the former, individual media types are usually split or favor conservatism

Radio - Almost completely conservative dominated.

TV - Of the 3 major news channels, one is overwhelmingly conservative (FOXnews), one is liberal (MSNBC), and one is reguarded to as neutral (CNN). Tie

Newspaper - In the 2004 election, 189 newpapers endorsed Bush , 208 endorsed Kerry. In 2000, 179 endorsed Bush, 124 endorsed Gore and 20 endorsed Nader. Tie

Internet - The websites ran by the above sources should folllow their main media type stances. Blogs can be reported by anyone with a computer and there's just as many conservatives as liberals . Tie

Since none of the individual media types are overwhelmingly liberal, it wouldn't matter which one is the mainstream one. However, you could theoreticly use the term mainstream conservative media, if you believed that radio was the most mainstream media outlet.




If the latter meaning is implied, that the type of media the mainstream population prefers, is the "mainsteam liberal media", would that not imply that the mainstream itself is liberal? First, is it not agreed that the people are pretty evenly spit between "liberal and conservative" (as evidenced by the last few elections)? Second, don't both liberal and conservatives prefer a media outlet that is inline with their views? That is why conservatives favor Fox and liberals watch MSNBC

Think in terms of a mainstream "entertainment" media and then correlate it with a news media because they are generally the same people these days. You dont see many conservative actors and actresses etc openly running around because it would be bad for their careers. The networks and major print media also enforce their own agenda and select their own kind. I know people at ABC in NY that got plucked out of classes at Columbia U because their politics were a close fit.

The liberal MSM does not reflect most people which is a main reason why all the papers are dying. This is NOT all because of the internet. The average papers is a rag that vomits on people when they open it. Each day it seems there is a warm and fuzzy story about illegals or transpolydysmorphicsexuals - while the military is called Nazi's and the terrorists assumed merely "misunderstood".

This is also why lib shows on radio die. People aren't interested in them because they know its agitprop. The Marxist left is weird and is for all the low things. The people running news are also running entertainment and fashion and the are desperate to see their odd lifestyles on par with norms (which they despise like a vampire hates the sun).

The stats show people dont trust media and rate journalists lower than congress. Despite most people seeing Fox as conservative (and it hardly is really - just looks that way compared to the Marxists )



" In 2003 27.4% of the poll's respondents said that they trusted all or most of what the MSM reports. In 2007 that number plummeted to just 19.6%. 23.9% said they believe little or nothing that comes out of the MSM with 55.3% saying they believe some of what the media churns out....



As to Fox News, 48.7% felt it was right leaning, but the cable newser got the highest vote for accuracy in reporting. Fox News got 27% of the poll for accuracy, while CNN received 14.6%, NBC got 10.9%, ABC 7%, local news 6.9%, CBS News 6.8%, MSNBC 4%, PBS News 3%, and CNBC .6%."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/w...implicitly-trust-media


Watch the MSM now as it tries to trip up Palin with 56,490 gotcha attempts while Obama and his crews ties to something like ACORN or the kook Wright get/got no scrutiny at all. Lots of bad people in the MSM.

 

[JS80]

CNBC .6%

lulz. they do love to make shit up on the spot.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Liberalism is the route of least resistence. Sit back in my welfare sponsored chair, vote Democrat and keep hailing people who will take from the filthy rich producers to give to my lazy butt.

No, that's socialism you dipstick, not liberalism. In fact that's not even socialism, socialism means the rich get poorer and the poor get richer, everyone still has to work.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Local newspapers are overrun by leftist staff. Network TV is too by and large and it shows. Between newspaper and network tv, I bet there's a huge chunk of the likely voter block that still gets most of their news from those 2 sources alone. I think it's shrinking fast though and the mainstream media will take on another form, most likely the web where news can be delivered much faster and more personally to a reader.

Not true...at least not for the decision makers in Network TV, the only thing they care about is making money (same as Fox for the other side).
Now it is true that most in TV and news in general are better educated than the average person, so it's quite understandable when they laugh so much at interviews like Palin's (anyone with more than a 3rd grade education would probably do the same). But most of the senior producers and Network execs prefer less government intervention, and this is a very Republican idealogy (smaller government). The "talent" and behind the scenes people may be more liberal, but they aren't the ones deciding...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
btw calling cnn liberal is ridiculous.

True -"Marxist" woudl be better term

You wouldn't know Marxism if you got beat over the head with it.

FFS, CNN is part of that hallmark of capitalism, a for-profit private corporation, Time Warner. How stupid do you have to be to believe that such a thing could be Marxist?

And MSNBC is a joint venture between the world's largest software company and the world's largest industrial conglomerate. Oh yeah, there be commies. :roll:

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
As to Fox News, 48.7% felt it was right leaning, but the cable newser got the highest vote for accuracy in reporting. Fox News got 27% of the poll for accuracy, while CNN received 14.6%, NBC got 10.9%, ABC 7%, local news 6.9%, CBS News 6.8%, MSNBC 4%, PBS News 3%, and CNBC .6%."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/w...implicitly-trust-media


Watch the MSM now as it tries to trip up Palin with 56,490 gotcha attempts while Obama and his crews ties to something like ACORN or the kook Wright get/got no scrutiny at all. Lots of bad people in the MSM.

Ummm...that was opinion (not fact), and it was during the pinnacle of Bush and the far right's popularity (2003).

Edit: BTW, I assume you were as offended as the rest of us when Palin indirectly accused Katie Couric of a lack of ethics today...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Liberalism is the route of least resistence. Sit back in my welfare sponsored chair, vote Democrat and keep hailing people who will take from the filthy rich producers to give to my lazy butt.

No, that's socialism you dipstick, not liberalism. In fact that's not even socialism, socialism means the rich get poorer and the poor get richer, everyone still has to work.

Most of the extreme right-wingnuts here have absolutely zero clue about civics and political theory, except what Republican party propaganda tells them to believe.
And now that you and I have disagreed with what they've been told, even just to correct their outrageous ignorance, we are automatically evil commie liberals out to steal their freedoms and force them to convert to Islam and teh gay buttsecks.

Like I said, it's a closed logic loop.

 

[Insomniator]

Watch the MSM now as it tries to trip up Palin with 56,490 gotcha attempts while Obama and his crews ties to something like ACORN or the kook Wright get/got no scrutiny at all. Lots of bad people in the MSM.

this

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
btw calling cnn liberal is ridiculous.

True -"Marxist" woudl be better term

You wouldn't know Marxism if you got beat over the head with it.

FFS, CNN is part of that hallmark of capitalism, a for-profit private corporation, Time Warner. How stupid do you have to be to believe that such a thing could be Marxist?

And MSNBC is a joint venture between the world's largest software company and the world's largest industrial conglomerate. Oh yeah, there be commies. :roll:

A lot of people create their sense of self importance from the size and formidable nature of the enemy they fight. It's sort of a contradiction in terms to get a hard on fighting a software company, but a communist menace, now that's something else again.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Watch the MSM now as it tries to trip up Palin with 56,490 gotcha attempts while Obama and his crews ties to something like ACORN or the kook Wright get/got no scrutiny at all. Lots of bad people in the MSM.

this

So you and Buggerbean are on the same page. Got it:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Watch the MSM now as it tries to trip up Palin with 56,490 gotcha attempts while Obama and his crews ties to something like ACORN or the kook Wright get/got no scrutiny at all. Lots of bad people in the MSM.

this

Yes, because one candidate's obvious incompetence to hold the position they're trying to be elected to is meaningless compared to some vague guilt-by-association tie-ins being pinned on another candidate.

Don't do drugs, kids.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The evidence I compiled was a series of academic studies and meta-analysis of the American media, peer reviewed.

As for kids being more liberal than their parents it certainly does have something to do with media bias. You attributed the liberalism of children compared to their parents to liberal media bias. I countered with the fact that this has pretty much always been the case for kids, long before the 'librul media' existed. Will you admit that your correlation of the two is not correct?

What about this? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

About the kids, I don't think we're on the same page here. A "liberal" in 1950 would probably be a conservative today. JFK's great line of "Ask not what your country can do for you" is mocked daily by the liberals of today with all their handouts, philosophy that demonizes producers and victimizers consumers and abandonment of traditional moral values. I'm not even sure all kids have always been "liberal". Kids are by definition more adventurous, but they'd also eat candy and only candy if their parents let them. Liberalism is the route of least resistence. Sit back in my welfare sponsored chair, vote Democrat and keep hailing people who will take from the filthy rich producers to give to my lazy butt. Not saying all liberals are like that of course.

Please for your own benefit do use the search function. When you search back in those other threads you can also see that UCLA study completely torn to shreds on flaws in methodology. (funny thing is that if you search well enough you can see me predict that right wingers will immediately link the discredited UCLA study after I talk about peer reviewed work on the subject).

So yes, please search the forums. It will show you that not only have these arguments you're trying to present been presented before, they have been shredded before. About 5 or 6 times.

You are right that the kids from JFK's time would probably be conservative compared to today. The thing is that their parents were considered liberal compared to their parents, who were considered liberal to their parents, etc... etc. The world is always becoming more liberal as time goes on, at least socially. That's the great thing about being a liberal. I might not win today, but I'll win sooner or later as humanity progresses.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Watch the MSM now as it tries to trip up Palin with 56,490 gotcha attempts while Obama and his crews ties to something like ACORN or the kook Wright get/got no scrutiny at all. Lots of bad people in the MSM.

this

Yes, because one candidate's obvious incompetence to hold the position they're trying to be elected to is meaningless compared to some vague guilt-by-association tie-ins being pinned on another candidate.

Don't do drugs, kids.

And yea, Reverend Wright didn't get ANY media attention AT ALL. Nah... it wasn't on every news network for several weeks straight or anything.

People have the memory of a goldfish.

 

[Insomniator]

"The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09...als_131216.htm?&page=1

real vague :roll:

I'm not arguing Palin's ability or not, but this should be front page news about Obama right along with her shortfalls.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
"The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09...als_131216.htm?&page=1

real vague :roll:

I'm not arguing Palin's ability or not, but this should be front page news about Obama right along with her shortfalls.

FFS, I discredited that pile of BS just yesterday. The thread I made should still on the front page.

The reason it's not on the front page is because it is LIES. Ask yourself a question, how many banks and lenders have come forth to corroborate it? The Woods Fund has major corporate execs on its board, where are they?

 

[Insomniator]

Why would the banks come forward to corroborate it and risk losing the bailout? They have to play nice in this situation to get as many Dem votes as possible for it.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Why would the banks come forward to corroborate it and risk losing the bailout? They have to play nice in this situation to get as many Dem votes as possible for it.

Even BillO just said it was BS...

It should be out soon on the Fix News transcripts...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Why would the banks come forward to corroborate it and risk losing the bailout? They have to play nice in this situation to get as many Dem votes as possible for it.

Whoa, I think your tinfoil beanie is on a wee bit too tight...

 

[Insomniator]

It gives me strength.

 

[trenchfoot]

Some posts in this thread is just downright scary. The truth be damned. Goebbels lives.

Karl Rove Rules of Engagement is set in stone: Party over Country, Party over All. A lie is an essential tool that should be mastered, wielded and executed against the "true enemy" of the Party: The Truth. Deception is an essential tool to sway the gullible fool into the fold and keep him there. Double-speak is an essential tool to confound the "true enemy" into hopeless confusion and render it impotent. Hubris in the guise of patriotism is an essential tool of persuasion. Plausible deniability embedded in an apparent stated matter of fact is an essential tool to dodge the lie it really is. And on and on and on.

Disgusting, but effective.


Fools who perpetually fool themselves into fooling themselves and those foolish enough to be fooled by it. That's some piece of work there, Rove. A pox on you for your contributions to the corruption of our system of government.