Can someone explain "mainstream liberal media" ?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
Considering that Saudi Arabia is one of the most extreme right-wing countries on the planet, I'm sure he will.

The problem with Duwelon's insistence that today's liberals are full blown socialists is that today's liberals, just like yesterday liberals, believe in capitalist economies and private ownership. While socialism and communism, both by definition, believe in public ownership of essentially everything (with other issues making up the differences between those 2). This is an extreme philosophical difference between liberalism and socialism/communism that cannot possibly be bridged in the way Duwelon described.

Really, the only differences between modern liberal progressives and modern liberal conservatives in the US (and those are the actual labels for we shorthand call liberal and conservatives) are between calls for government intervention in economic issues and calls for government intervention in social/personal issues. Liberals tend to favor the former, while conservatives tend to favor the latter, from left to right. Just how much or how little of this government intervention they favor then makes another dimension from authoritarian/populist to libertarian (and yes, there are right-wing populists and there are left-wing libertarians).

The Democratic party in the US is centrist by world standards. It believes in free markets, private property, and privately-owned businesses. It's mildly populist on economic issues but relatively libertarian on most social issues. The party even has a sizable conservative minority.
More to the point, this thing about there being a liberal party and a conservative party in the US is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, party membership in the US relied more on geography than ideology, and there tended to be a mostly equal number of liberals and conservatives in each party. I don't think that really changed until Reagan.

And look, both parties have their fair share of wackos. If you're gonna point at some socialists on the far left who vote Dem in order to claim that the Dems are socialists, then I'll point out that Neo-Nazis and the KKK vote Republican. Unfair, you say? Well, duh.

Nicely done! Unfortunately, it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so it's doomed to be ignored.

 

[deftron]

FoxNews leads ratings among all news channels

"Fox also ranked second among all cable channels in prime time with an average 3.3 million viewers"

#2 among ALL cable channels! Not just news

"CNN ranked fifth with 1.9 million. MSNBC ranked 14th with 1.2 mil


So, if the #1 news channel for Americans if not "mainstream" media, than what is ?

Unless, Fox is now liberal? And therefore, just another part of the "mainstream liberal media"?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: deftron
FoxNews leads ratings among all news channels

"Fox also ranked second among all cable channels in prime time with an average 3.3 million viewers"

#2 among ALL cable channels! Not just news

"CNN ranked fifth with 1.9 million. MSNBC ranked 14th with 1.2 mil


So, if the #1 news channel for Americans if not "mainstream" media, than what is ?

Unless, Fox is now liberal? And therefore, just another part of the "mainstream liberal media"?

Where I live, they have FOX news blaring in the background in almost every supermarket cafe that I go to. That's why I carry a TV-B-Gone with me; if I'm sitting by the TV, I click it off.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Considering that Saudi Arabia is one of the most extreme right-wing countries on the planet, I'm sure he will.

The problem with Duwelon's insistence that today's liberals are full blown socialists is that today's liberals, just like yesterday liberals, believe in capitalist economies and private ownership. While socialism and communism, both by definition, believe in public ownership of essentially everything (with other issues making up the differences between those 2). This is an extreme philosophical difference between liberalism and socialism/communism that cannot possibly be bridged in the way Duwelon described.

Really, the only differences between modern liberal progressives and modern liberal conservatives in the US (and those are the actual labels for we shorthand call liberal and conservatives) are between calls for government intervention in economic issues and calls for government intervention in social/personal issues. Liberals tend to favor the former, while conservatives tend to favor the latter, from left to right. Just how much or how little of this government intervention they favor then makes another dimension from authoritarian/populist to libertarian (and yes, there are right-wing populists and there are left-wing libertarians).

The Democratic party in the US is centrist by world standards. It believes in free markets, private property, and privately-owned businesses. It's mildly populist on economic issues but relatively libertarian on most social issues. The party even has a sizable conservative minority.
More to the point, this thing about there being a liberal party and a conservative party in the US is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, party membership in the US relied more on geography than ideology, and there tended to be a mostly equal number of liberals and conservatives in each party. I don't think that really changed until Reagan.

And look, both parties have their fair share of wackos. If you're gonna point at some socialists on the far left who vote Dem in order to claim that the Dems are socialists, then I'll point out that Neo-Nazis and the KKK vote Republican. Unfair, you say? Well, duh.

Nicely done! Unfortunately, it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so it's doomed to be ignored.

Yeah, that's a very good summary by Vic. Especially the part I bolded, which I thought pretty succinctly summarizes the differences between, but more importantly the common foundation shared by both sides. In essence both ?liberals? (i.e. progressives) and conservatives in the Untied States agree with the fundamentals of classical liberalism (property rights, individual freedom, a market economy, a government with some degree of a regulatory role over an otherwise private economy, etc). Their differences therefore are largely confined to how to best achieve that ideal. Only an insignificant fringe element on both sides (Fascism on the extreme right, Communism on the extreme left) truly seeks to challenge this otherwise consensus between the mainstream right and left. And I suppose there is also the extreme-classical-liberalism fringe, represented most prominently by anarcho-capitalism, that opposes any degree of government intervention. Thereby, it too challenges the mainstream consensus that, since we live in an imperfect world, we'll never be able to perfectly achieve a utopia of total liberties due to greed, etc., and therefore to maximize our individual liberties and guard against encroachments on them, we must make the concession of having a government (or something like that...there's probably a better way to say that but I should be getting back to work).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Yeah, that's a very good summary by Vic. Especially the part I bolded, which I thought pretty succinctly summarizes the differences between, but more importantly the common foundation shared by both sides. In essence both ?liberals? (i.e. progressives) and conservatives in the Untied States agree with the fundamentals of classical liberalism (property rights, individual freedom, a market economy, a government with some degree of a regulatory role over an otherwise private economy, etc). Their differences therefore are largely confined to how to best achieve that ideal. Only an insignificant fringe element on both sides (Fascism on the extreme right, Communism on the extreme left) truly seeks to challenge this otherwise consensus between the mainstream right and left.

The only people who claim that any national level American politician is a socialist are those who don't have any idea what socialism is. (unless they're talking about Bernie Sanders, which they almost never are)

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Yeah, that's a very good summary by Vic. Especially the part I bolded, which I thought pretty succinctly summarizes the differences between, but more importantly the common foundation shared by both sides. In essence both ?liberals? (i.e. progressives) and conservatives in the Untied States agree with the fundamentals of classical liberalism (property rights, individual freedom, a market economy, a government with some degree of a regulatory role over an otherwise private economy, etc). Their differences therefore are largely confined to how to best achieve that ideal. Only an insignificant fringe element on both sides (Fascism on the extreme right, Communism on the extreme left) truly seeks to challenge this otherwise consensus between the mainstream right and left.

The only people who claim that any national level American politician is a socialist are those who don't have any idea what socialism is. (unless they're talking about Bernie Sanders, which they almost never are)

Yeah, pretty much. I've never heard of a Democrat or Republican politician come anywhere close to seriously advocating a near or total elimination of, for instance, private property or private enterprise.

Which makes it unfortunate that there can be such heated political disputes and arguments in the US. I mean, arguments over whether we should have progressive taxation or things like the PATRIOT Act, while important, seem downright trivial when you consider that basically everyone agrees on far larger issues like having a society with property rights.

Though at the same time, is this is how ugly disputes can get between people who agree on some of the most fundamental political principals, then I can't imagine how Democracy would possibly function if you threw a genuine communist, fascist, or anarcho-capitalist party into the mix. Granted, I guess it's more fundamental than that: probably no real communist, fascist, or anarcho-capitalists would agree with the validity of a democratic system in the first place, so it's probably a moot point.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: Another thread by a liberal trying to say the media isn't liberal.

Meh... it's not even worth the discussion because most of you wouldn't acknowledge the truth no matter what the facts are.

Considering the discussion is a matter of opinion, I'm not sure how much 'truth' there can possibly be in the assertion.

Having seen all of the media outlets for quite some time, taking an average results in an approximately centrist media in America. Just because the Republicans have screwed up so much in the last 8 years doesn't mean there's a liberal bias. That's just how news works.

Every time Clinton fucked up the media was all over it. Hell, the only reason the blowjob thing was a scandal was because the media reported on it so much. If there were a liberal bias, there would have been much less of that nonsense.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A liberal media is one that says anything contrary to the thinking of the American Taliban party, AKA Republicans.

deftron, just think of Moonbeam, but on TV. You have your answer.

 

[g8wayrebel]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Insomniator
It is admitted and well known that radio and fox news are conservative, but for some reason liberals refuse to admit that the rest of television and the media in general is heavily liberal.

If you watch the news for 5 minutes, the spin is clear, just as it is if you listen to talk radio for 5 minutes.

That's because it's not. The news media goes so far to present both sides of the story that it has descended almost into self parody. It is centrist to a fault, because it is unwilling to take a side when one side is clearly correct. As someone else said, I swear that if a Democrat said the sky was blue, and a Republican said the sky was orange they would report "Democrats say that the sky is blue, but others in Washington dispute this" and leave it at that. Pathetic.

Oh yeah, and CNN is so liberal that when you look at the sort of hosts they employ what do you have? For right wing commentary you have Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Nancy Grace. From the left you have... nobody. Even with such a heavily skewed lineup you still have right wingers complaining that CNN is liberal. Riiiiiight.

The fact that people on here are even trying to cite NPR as liberally biased is flat out hilarious. If you just do some basic reading on NPR you'll find that it's frequently criticized for being too much of a tool of the status quo, too conservative, too liberal, too everything. If all the groups are complaining about you, that means you've hit things about dead on.

The mentioned commentators are claimed as just that commentators (entertainers with an opinion.)
The rest of the crew claims to be journalists , and therefore should be unbiased.
If you think for a second they are even close to that , you need to loosen the foil on your head.
They are liberal through and through.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: g8wayrebel

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Insomniator
It is admitted and well known that radio and fox news are conservative, but for some reason liberals refuse to admit that the rest of television and the media in general is heavily liberal.

If you watch the news for 5 minutes, the spin is clear, just as it is if you listen to talk radio for 5 minutes.

That's because it's not. The news media goes so far to present both sides of the story that it has descended almost into self parody. It is centrist to a fault, because it is unwilling to take a side when one side is clearly correct. As someone else said, I swear that if a Democrat said the sky was blue, and a Republican said the sky was orange they would report "Democrats say that the sky is blue, but others in Washington dispute this" and leave it at that. Pathetic.

Oh yeah, and CNN is so liberal that when you look at the sort of hosts they employ what do you have? For right wing commentary you have Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Nancy Grace. From the left you have... nobody. Even with such a heavily skewed lineup you still have right wingers complaining that CNN is liberal. Riiiiiight.

The fact that people on here are even trying to cite NPR as liberally biased is flat out hilarious. If you just do some basic reading on NPR you'll find that it's frequently criticized for being too much of a tool of the status quo, too conservative, too liberal, too everything. If all the groups are complaining about you, that means you've hit things about dead on.

The mentioned commentators are claimed as just that commentators (entertainers with an opinion.)
The rest of the crew claims to be journalists , and therefore should be unbiased.
If you think for a second they are even close to that , you need to loosen the foil on your head.
They are liberal through and through.

So in other words you think about 50% of the programming on CNN is conservative opinion, but the rest is 'liberal through and through'? Stop being stupid. Use your brain for a second and examine the world around you. They are nothing of the sort.

 

[Mani]

A bogeyman straw man for republican politicians to blame their shortcomings on.

 

[DefDC]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I can explain it right here: Conservatives and right-wing GOP types are perpetual victims who love to play the victim card and pretend that somehow they're the underdog that is fighting to tell you the real truth that the big bad liberal media won't tell you.

It's downright stupid and pathetic.

Dumb, not one thing you said is true, which should be obvious to you if you tried to find evidence for anything you just said.

War on Christmas. Perfect BS victim crying. Anyone who tries to debate it anti-Christian. Just one of MANY examples. Want more?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: Another thread by a liberal trying to say the media isn't liberal.

Meh... it's not even worth the discussion because most of you wouldn't acknowledge the truth no matter what the facts are.

Is this last statement seriously coming from a Republican and a presumed McCain/Palin supporter?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: Another thread by a liberal trying to say the media isn't liberal.

Meh... it's not even worth the discussion because most of you wouldn't acknowledge the truth no matter what the facts are.

Is this last statement seriously coming from a Republican and a presumed McCain/Palin supporter?

No, see according to CAD he is not a McCain supporter. Sure he lets fly with an endless stream of anti-Obama posts, but it's just because he hates Obama not because he likes McCain. (he hasn't seemed to figure out yet that there are only two choices and by tearing one of the candidates down he's helping the other.)