The Liberal Media Strategy?

[First]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234
The book Bias is *trash*, filled with lies, bad logic and other such drivel.

great comeback.

Train, you either haven't read What liberal Media?, or your reading comprehension is so bad you would describe Hamlet as about breakfast meat.

You're obviously too indoctrinated to do anything other than spout the same old lies, and not to consider the evidence.

What Evidence!!!???? WLM? had NONE! A bunch of no names interviewed and get led right into comments like "uhh ya I guess" and whatever they agree with gets taken out of context and edited. Micheal Moore would be proud.

But media outlets having up to 90% self described libs/dems IS NOT biased to you? Are you frikkin crazy? How can you see something like 90% and then say there is no bias present? For what reason do you want to deny the obvious?

lmao. Sad.

Maybe you should take your own advice and "consider the evidence"

Except none of your "evidence" actually proves a media bias. We all know there are more liberals than conservatives in the media; the pertinent questions to ask are 1) does that fact actually slant the news and 2) does slanted news actually change preconceptions to begin with.

 

[theeedude]

I'd pick the mainstream liberal media over the out of the mainstream conservative media any time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Link

I should post at least one of the many examples of Bernard Goldman's trash I referred to, so enjoy the link above.

Maybe you need to send that to Andy Rooney, he seemed to agree with some of what Goldman said.

So your response to the factual issue is to cite one obscure tv figure out of thousands who happens to like some of the things the person said?

You?re calling Andy Rooney obscure? Yet at the same time you are suggesting we all run out and read a book by Eric Alterman?

We need to work on the definition of obscure here Craig. Andy Rooney is a legend who started at CBS in 1949.
Who?s Eric Alterman? Some guy more famous for his recent arrest at the Democratic debate than anything else he has done.

 

[marincounty]

As Colbert says, "Facts tend to be liberal".
It's not so much that the media is liberal, it's that when conservatives are wrong, they tend to be spectacularly wrong.

 

[PottedMeat]

Originally posted by: daveymark
the only reason ron paul is at the top of republican polls is because liberals are voting for him - given the choices of republican candidates. Libs won't have that luxury come primary time.

Can't they just switch parties for the primary and vote for him - assuming the candidate in their party will win by a large margin?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: daveymark
the only reason ron paul is at the top of republican polls is because liberals are voting for him - given the choices of republican candidates. Libs won't have that luxury come primary time.

I was going to say that. Ron Paul has been on Bill Maher TWICE. And his audience went nuts.

yep. next logical step for ron paul would be the daily show. this will backfire though, as their major viewing base consists of libs, and these libs aren't going to give up support for hillary or barack just to vote for ron paul.

 

[SirStev0]

I have to agree that a majority of the other non-front runners get very little press. Ron Paul is making his own campaign and that is why we hear about him... The same thing is going for the dems who are behind. You hear nothing about him... This absurd early coverage is ignoring everyone except for the big people...
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore on the dems
Guilly, McCain, Newt, the tv star Thomspon, and occasionally Romney.

The others are barely mentioned... but hey at least they aren't 3rd party members... then they'd be screwed.

Personally I feel Paul should just contact the libertarian party and see if they'd be willing to throw all their support behind him... He would def get more press.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Personally I feel Paul should just contact the libertarian party and see if they'd be willing to throw all their support behind him... He would def get more press.

So you want him to join a party where he has no chance in getting elected?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Personally I feel Paul should just contact the libertarian party and see if they'd be willing to throw all their support behind him... He would def get more press.

So you want him to join a party where he has no chance in getting elected?

how is that any different from the Republican party?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I have to agree that a majority of the other non-front runners get very little press. Ron Paul is making his own campaign and that is why we hear about him... The same thing is going for the dems who are behind. You hear nothing about him... This absurd early coverage is ignoring everyone except for the big people...
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore on the dems
Guilly, McCain, Newt, the tv star Thomspon, and occasionally Romney.

The others are barely mentioned... but hey at least they aren't 3rd party members... then they'd be screwed.

Personally I feel Paul should just contact the libertarian party and see if they'd be willing to throw all their support behind him... He would def get more press.

The job of the media isn't to push candidates you personally feel would be good for the country, their job is to cover the people likely to win. People have this absurd expectation that the media is supposed to reflect their personal view of reality, and when it doesn't, it must be because the media is incompetent or biased or something.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Personally I feel Paul should just contact the libertarian party and see if they'd be willing to throw all their support behind him... He would def get more press.

So you want him to join a party where he has no chance in getting elected?

how is that any different from the Republican party?

Because libertarians refuse to grow up and rig with elections like everyone else.

 

[laketrout]

The job of the media isn't to push candidates you personally feel would be good for the country, their job is to cover the people likely to win. People have this absurd expectation that the media is supposed to reflect their personal view of reality, and when it doesn't, it must be because the media is incompetent or biased or something.

So by that logic you think CNN did a good job with their debates by putting the popular candidates in the middle and giving them the most air time (not counting Blitzer...)? Personally I would like it if the "non-front runners" were given more time at the debates, etc. so that they could push the front runners to talk about what makes the candidate differences rather than every one discussing what they already agree on.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: laketrout

The job of the media isn't to push candidates you personally feel would be good for the country, their job is to cover the people likely to win. People have this absurd expectation that the media is supposed to reflect their personal view of reality, and when it doesn't, it must be because the media is incompetent or biased or something.

So by that logic you think CNN did a good job with their debates by putting the popular candidates in the middle and giving them the most air time (not counting Blitzer...)? Personally I would like it if the "non-front runners" were given more time at the debates, etc. so that they could push the front runners to talk about what makes the candidate differences rather than every one discussing what they already agree on.

I agree with you, I'd also like to see more from the less popular candidates, especially if they challenge the views of the frontrunners. But it's not the media's job to make sure that happens, they are supposed to report the news, not try to shape it...no matter how much we might agree with the reasons for doing so. While the current debate format is hardly a forum for real change or excitement, it's probably the fairest way to do things.

 

[laketrout]

Well, I do think its the media to run a smooth and impartial debate (possibly based on some sort of rules). I thought the format of the FNC was actually quite good with the 3 moderators and time limits on questions - it moved much better and you didn't have a news commentator with more time talking that any of the candidates either. For that reason I would actually really like it if the Dems were to do the FNC debate.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: laketrout
Well, I do think its the media to run a smooth and impartial debate (possibly based on some sort of rules). I thought the format of the FNC was actually quite good with the 3 moderators and time limits on questions - it moved much better and you didn't have a news commentator with more time talking that any of the candidates either. For that reason I would actually really like it if the Dems were to do the FNC debate.

Yes, except they also had ridiculous questions pulled from imaginary scenarios culled from a bad episode of '24'. What they gained in presentation, they gave up in stupid content.

 

[Auryg]

Who here actually writes for a newspaper?

...*raises hand*

You guys have no idea how things work in the business. The owner has little to do with the content-the only real part they play is possibly hiring/firing.

Of course, they'll direct things to a certain exten aswell, but no writer would listen to "Put a Republican slant in your writing." For all I know TV could be a completely different story, but in the newspaper business every writer is fairly self contained and allowed to do what he/she wants.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Auryg
Who here actually writes for a newspaper?

...*raises hand*

You guys have no idea how things work in the business. The owner has little to do with the content-the only real part they play is possibly hiring/firing.

Of course, they'll direct things to a certain exten aswell, but no writer would listen to "Put a Republican slant in your writing." For all I know TV could be a completely different story, but in the newspaper business every writer is fairly self contained and allowed to do what he/she wants.

Link

Tom Johnson knows something about the business, maybe even more than you, as he's the former published of the LA Times and President of CNN. He said:

It is not reporters or editors, but the OWNERS of the media who decide the quality of the news.

Your statement defies common sense. Owners decide the type and general content of a publication. You don't see a lot of prudish articles against nudity in Hustler.

They hire the editors to implement the publication, who hire the reporters and direct their activites to implement the publication, and so on.

Of course they're not involved in the day to day operations- does Rupert Murdoch need to be in the day to day operations of Fox News for it to be predictably right-wing?

No - but imagine Fox News was bought by Michael Moore, do you think that might have more effect on the content than the reporters have?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Can't they just switch parties for the primary and vote for him - assuming the candidate in their party will win by a large margin?

Well they could pull a Bloomberg and run as the opposite party to get elected...

Stranger things have happened.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Personally I feel Paul should just contact the libertarian party and see if they'd be willing to throw all their support behind him... He would def get more press.

So you want him to join a party where he has no chance in getting elected?

how is that any different from the Republican party?

Because libertarians refuse to grow up and rig with elections like everyone else.

zing

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Auryg
Who here actually writes for a newspaper?

...*raises hand*

You guys have no idea how things work in the business. The owner has little to do with the content-the only real part they play is possibly hiring/firing.

Of course, they'll direct things to a certain exten aswell, but no writer would listen to "Put a Republican slant in your writing." For all I know TV could be a completely different story, but in the newspaper business every writer is fairly self contained and allowed to do what he/she wants.

Link

Tom Johnson knows something about the business, maybe even more than you, as he's the former published of the LA Times and President of CNN. He said:

It is not reporters or editors, but the OWNERS of the media who decide the quality of the news.

Your statement defies common sense. Owners decide the type and general content of a publication. You don't see a lot of prudish articles against nudity in Hustler.

They hire the editors to implement the publication, who hire the reporters and direct their activites to implement the publication, and so on.

Of course they're not involved in the day to day operations- does Rupert Murdoch need to be in the day to day operations of Fox News for it to be predictably right-wing?

No - but imagine Fox News was bought by Michael Moore, do you think that might have more effect on the content than the reporters have?

Don't get me wrong, the owner has something to do with it- but it's not like you'd imagine. Who is interviewed and who isn't is usually purely up to the individual journalist, or possibly the editor.

Now, if I were working for Fox News, would I do a heavily left slanted story? Of course not. But it's not like the owner is going around telling everyone to have a particular slant.

 

[Craig234]

Don't get me wrong, the owner has something to do with it- but it's not like you'd imagine. Who is interviewed and who isn't is usually purely up to the individual journalist, or possibly the editor.

Now, if I were working for Fox News, would I do a heavily left slanted story? Of course not. But it's not like the owner is going around telling everyone to have a particular slant.

You seem to be imagining some position I and others have, that I don't have. I agree with you that things like 'who to interview' are going to be tactical decisions of the reporter. But if you think that you are going to be able to get things published regularly that are outside the direction set by the owner of most media, I disagree.

The owner doesn't HAVE to go around telling everyone to have a slant - it's a hierarchical setup, where his choice of the editor in chief and direction set their affects the layer below and the layer below that. There's a lot that's 'understood' without being said a lot - even though Fox News has been found to issue daily 'directives' from top management on some stories to cover and the angle for them, to 'set the tone' more directly.

Why do you think, for example, CNN has gone through 'face lifts', sometimes going for the 'neutral' approach, sometimes trying to emulate Fox a bit more with more right-wingers, and so on? It's top-down tone.

But the main biases for most media are less partisan politics than they are corporatist. The fact that a few of the big corporations own around 90% of the media consumed in the US does a lot to spread an ideology.

Of course, you have to love the counter-argument, that you see whenever there's a widespread ideology, that those who have adopted the ideology deny it's being spread.