Why are there so many more liberal news networks compared to conservative news networks?

[raildogg]

Dude, liberal or conservative, it's all part of the same system that you've had for a long, long time.

It is designed so people can pick sides and bicker and argue among each other. Pick your little petty little political position, identify with it, choose news based on said political side and only view content that reaffirms your political viewpoints. And repeat.

This keeps the people pacified and content while the bigger picture eludes them.

So forget about NY Times vs Washington Times. It's all part of the game.

 

[werepossum]

The OP's labeling of liberal vs conservative news sources is complete bullshit.

The liberal NYT broke the Hillary email story
Liberal CNN broke the treatment of Vets in the VA hospital system.

When was the last time Fox News broke a story that was highly damaging to a Republican?? I can't recall one single time.

Why on Earth would you assume that breaking the VA's abysmal treatment of vets indicates that CNN is not liberal? While much of the left hates the American military as an institution, only a very small minority actually hate the Americans who serve. Likewise, there are plenty of liberals who are not in favor of even leftwing politicians blatantly abusing their power, whether or not they are actively BernieBros. Liberal means liberal, not some criminal cabal.

To answer the OP's question, Vietnam changed journalism. The left took as a cause changing America by "properly" controlling our information. Even today journalism is not a particularly attractive vocation on the right, and the main conservative outlet, FoxNews (like the British SkyNews) exists only because Rupert Murdoch saw an untapped market of conservatives who would like to see what's happening in the world without being told that they are bigoted idiots. If you doubt this and consider Murdoch some sort of far right crusader, look at his donations to the Clintons over the last couple decades. When the Wall Street Journal compiled the list of big political donors, Murdoch's corporations and employees were in the Clinton's top ten.

 

[Jhhnn]

When the Wall Street Journal compiled the list of big political donors, Murdoch's corporations and employees were in the Clinton's top ten.

Post-truth assertions of fact, huh?

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/elections/2016/million-donors/

 

[werepossum]

Post-truth assertions of fact, huh?

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/elections/2016/million-donors/

Yours is behind a pay wall. Here's a couple which aren't.

Ninth since 1992:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_CLINTONvOBAMA20140702.html

News Corporation Foundation - Contributing between $500k and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=$500,001 to $1,000,000&page=1

James Rupert Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch's son and COO of 21st Century Fox) - Contributing between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Family Foundation
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=$1,000,001 to $5,000,000&page=1

 

[MrSquished]

In response to the OP, there is no massive left wing media. That's mythology, propagated primarily by right wingers so they can get away with whatever they want. Just blame the media! And it works for the most part.

If the liberal media was so left - why did Sanders get no coverage for so long? You would think a good part of your so-called left media would have been drooling to put him on the map. Not only didn't they put him on the map, they practically ignored him. You know who got all the coverage? Trump. Sure sounds leftie to me. Ignore Sanders - the only true leftist running that had a shot. Stein had no shot, she didn't get coverage anyways.

Sounds like for many many months your left wing media failed to act that way. During a presidential election. The most important time to bring out your big guns.

 

[werepossum]

In response to the OP, there is no massive left wing media. That's mythology, propagated primarily by right wingers so they can get away with whatever they want. Just blame the media! And it works for the most part.

If the liberal media was so left - why did Sanders get no coverage for so long? You would think a good part of your so-called left media would have been drooling to put him on the map. Not only didn't they put him on the map, they practically ignored him. You know who got all the coverage? Trump. Sure sounds leftie to me. Ignore Sanders - the only true leftist running that had a shot. Stein had no shot, she didn't get coverage anyways.

Sounds like for many many months your left wing media failed to act that way. During a presidential election. The most important time to bring out your big guns.

Because the mainstream media tends to be monolithic and decided early on that Hillary was to be crowned. Whether it was because she was their favorite left winger, because "she can win", or just because it was "her turn", the entire mainstream press corps was behind her, sometimes to an embarrassing degree.

 

[HomerJS]

Why on Earth would you assume that breaking the VA's abysmal treatment of vets indicates that CNN is not liberal? While much of the left hates the American military as an institution, only a very small minority actually hate the Americans who serve. Likewise, there are plenty of liberals who are not in favor of even leftwing politicians blatantly abusing their power, whether or not they are actively BernieBros. Liberal means liberal, not some criminal cabal.

To answer the OP's question, Vietnam changed journalism. The left took as a cause changing America by "properly" controlling our information. Even today journalism is not a particularly attractive vocation on the right, and the main conservative outlet, FoxNews (like the British SkyNews) exists only because Rupert Murdoch saw an untapped market of conservatives who would like to see what's happening in the world without being told that they are bigoted idiots. If you doubt this and consider Murdoch some sort of far right crusader, look at his donations to the Clintons over the last couple decades. When the Wall Street Journal compiled the list of big political donors, Murdoch's corporations and employees were in the Clinton's top ten.

Fox News exists because that "untapped market" loves self affirmation and is ok being lied to in order to boost the SA. Facts to them are outdated and don't matter

 

[Blue_Max]

The reason CNN or MSNBC appear "liberal" to FOX adherents is that they adhere to objective journalism standards.

*snerk* *pbbst* BWAAAHAAHAHAHAAA!!!

These are the people who interview their own cameraman when they can't get the preferred response from around them. The same people that interview BLM members and place the 'nice parts' on TV about not torching their own neighbourhoods and (oops!) cut off the second half where the same interviewee continues on with "torch the WHITE neighbourhoods! Hurt the WHITE people!"
and on and on and on...

This is what you call "objective journalism standards"???

 

[MrSquished]

Because the mainstream media tends to be monolithic and decided early on that Hillary was to be crowned. Whether it was because she was their favorite left winger, because "she can win", or just because it was "her turn", the entire mainstream press corps was behind her, sometimes to an embarrassing degree.

Hillary is not a left winger. She is a centrist corporatist. She is leftist to you because you are so far right that looking up your own ass feels moderate. Strike one.

It would not be in the leftist media's interest to ignore the only true left winger with a chance in the race. Which they did. Strike two.

And the mainstream media did not ignore Hillary's negatives. All I saw online from them was EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS mixed in with TRUMP SAID WHAT (because you know, Trump said a lot of stupid shit - that's your boy). Little about Hillary's positions. Strike three.

Insert quarter, try again. If you have a quarter, I look forward to your response.

 

[sandorski]

Conservatives merely labelled the Media "Liberal". They did this because they wanted justification to start "Conservative Media" and not be laughed at. Once enough people bought into the "Liberal Media" myth, they started their "alternative".

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Conservatives merely labelled the Media "Liberal". They did this because they wanted justification to start "Conservative Media" and not be laughed at. Once enough people bought into the "Liberal Media" myth, they started their "alternative".

You live in Canada where they actually force you to pay for an "Official" Canadian network that is biased to the left side of your political landscape. You're happy with it because it favors the political side you favor and screws over opposing viewpoints giving them short shrift and air time.

 

[sandorski]

You live in Canada where they actually force you to pay for an "Official" Canadian network that is biased to the left side of your political landscape. You're happy with it because it favors the political side you favor and screws over opposing viewpoints giving them short shrift and air time.

You are ill informed.

 

[mikeymikec]

CNN, NY Times, HuffPo, Wa Post, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, LA Times, and many more news networks all swing to the left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case#Public_reaction

Criticism has also been placed upon media outlets themselves, especially CNN, for their biased coverage of the case.[9] During the course of the delinquent verdict on March 17, 2013, CNN's Poppy Harlow stated that it was "Incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart...when that sentence came down, [Ma'lik] collapsed in the arms of his attorney...He said to him, 'My life is over. No one is going to want me now.'" Candy Crowley and Paul Callan were also criticized for their lack of focus on the victim and their sympathy for the rapists.[10][11][12][13][14]

Yeah, that sounds very liberal! <facepalm>

 

[ivwshane]

Why on Earth would you assume that breaking the VA's abysmal treatment of vets indicates that CNN is not liberal? While much of the left hates the American military as an institution, only a very small minority actually hate the Americans who serve. Likewise, there are plenty of liberals who are not in favor of even leftwing politicians blatantly abusing their power, whether or not they are actively BernieBros. Liberal means liberal, not some criminal cabal.

To answer the OP's question, Vietnam changed journalism. The left took as a cause changing America by "properly" controlling our information. Even today journalism is not a particularly attractive vocation on the right, and the main conservative outlet, FoxNews (like the British SkyNews) exists only because Rupert Murdoch saw an untapped market of conservatives who would like to see what's happening in the world without being told that they are bigoted idiots. If you doubt this and consider Murdoch some sort of far right crusader, look at his donations to the Clintons over the last couple decades. When the Wall Street Journal compiled the list of big political donors, Murdoch's corporations and employees were in the Clinton's top ten.

Here's the lame steam media doing all they can to elect the anointed one, Hillary Clinton.

/s

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13872580/media-coverage-presidential-election


Stupid facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the mainstream media tends to be monolithic and decided early on that Hillary was to be crowned. Whether it was because she was their favorite left winger, because "she can win", or just because it was "her turn", the entire mainstream press corps was behind her, sometimes to an embarrassing degree.

This is a great example of the sort of rationalization conservatives make to convince themselves that the media is part of a conspiracy against them.

They declare the media is part of a liberal conspiracy. Then when people point out the uncomfortable fact that the media wasn't very friendly to the liberal candidate they declare it was part of a larger strategy where they decided to get behind a more mainstream candidate.

If you really want to see werepossum melt down and start accusing us all of being liars and terrible people maybe you should mention how the supposedly liberal media trashed Clinton the whole election based on basically nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's the lame steam media doing all they can to elect the anointed one, Hillary Clinton.

/s

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13872580/media-coverage-presidential-election


Stupid facts.

He doesn't care about facts and pointing them out is just going to make him rant about how you're a liar and the meanest person ever.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

On a scale of -100 (left) to 100 (right) most mainstream media are between -50 to +50 . Fox is around +9999999, and tells its viewers that anyone that is not as fascist as they are is a liberal leftist loony.

I rank Fox and Trump as about as much a danger to mankind as Putin and his followers, IS/Al Qaida, the current Israeli government, Modi, Kim Jong-Un and other such freaks.

 

[werepossum]

Here's the lame steam media doing all they can to elect the anointed one, Hillary Clinton.

/s

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13872580/media-coverage-presidential-election


Stupid facts.

Sorry, dude, I don't ever go to Vox. They are one of the sites that openly prefer social justice to journalistic ethics, and I'm not giving them any page views, ever.

This is a great example of the sort of rationalization conservatives make to convince themselves that the media is part of a conspiracy against them.

They declare the media is part of a liberal conspiracy. Then when people point out the uncomfortable fact that the media wasn't very friendly to the liberal candidate they declare it was part of a larger strategy where they decided to get behind a more mainstream candidate.

If you really want to see werepossum melt down and start accusing us all of being liars and terrible people maybe you should mention how the supposedly liberal media trashed Clinton the whole election based on basically nothing.

The "supposedly liberal media" "trashed" Clinton only by pointing out where she openly broke the law and by reporting on the resulting FBI investigations. If you wish to think- sorry, that was mean of me. If you wish to feel that maintaining her own private server for official government business, wrongly denying Freedom of Information Act requests, destroying official government records, and giving up some documents strategically edited is "basically nothing", at least no one here will be surprised. But I will point out that there were no breathless speculations on whether this particular revelation will mean the end of Hillary's campaign. Those were daily occurrences for Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

The "supposedly liberal media" "trashed" Clinton only by pointing out where she openly broke the law and by reporting on the resulting FBI investigations. If you wish to think- sorry, that was mean of me. If you wish to feel that maintaining her own private server for official government business, wrongly denying Freedom of Information Act requests, destroying official government records, and giving up some documents strategically edited is "basically nothing", at least no one here will be surprised. But I will point out that there were no breathless speculations on whether this particular revelation will mean the end of Hillary's campaign. Those were daily occurrences for Trump.

Ah yes, when the news publishes information damaging Clinton they are just reporting the facts, when they publish information damaging to conservatives it's because they are part of a conspiracy.

You've proven my post right more than I ever could have, so thanks for that.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry, dude, I don't ever go to Vox. They are one of the sites that openly prefer social justice to journalistic ethics, and I'm not giving them any page views, ever.


The "supposedly liberal media" "trashed" Clinton only by pointing out where she openly broke the law and by reporting on the resulting FBI investigations. If you wish to think- sorry, that was mean of me. If you wish to feel that maintaining her own private server for official government business, wrongly denying Freedom of Information Act requests, destroying official government records, and giving up some documents strategically edited is "basically nothing", at least no one here will be surprised. But I will point out that there were no breathless speculations on whether this particular revelation will mean the end of Hillary's campaign. Those were daily occurrences for Trump.

Lol and here is where you start preemptively explaining away data you haven't even read yet but are threatened by it. We call that bubble reinforcement.

My first link was to show a trend, the second link was to an actual study.

Here is a link to the actual study.

http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/?platform=hootsuite

 

[Muse]

Could it be because when people research what's going on, get the facts, their outlook becomes liberal? IMO, the informed investigator is not for the status quo, but wants change. That person sees what needs to be done and advocates for it. That's not the strict duty of a reporter, however any human being in possession of real information cannot help but form attitudes, opinions, and yes, agendas. Jesus himself was political and an advocate.

 

[John Connor]

Why are there so many more liberal news networks compared to conservative news networks?

The democrat party isn't the democrat party of yesteryear. They have morphed into a quasi-Socialist party. Lets face it, if we had a Kennedy running against Trump, Kennedy would win. Not because he's a Democrat, but because he's a more known real leader that can play nice on both sides. I think the reason why Democrats out weigh the Republicans in media is because this country was mostly left leaning I thought and was afraid that this country would spin more and more left as the 21st century rolls along into the future mainly due to this so-called "progress." But with Trump winning I have new hope with the people. I think they figured out that shit ain't working right after so many long years of Democrat control. Just look at your inner cities; Chicago, Detroit (what a fucking slum), San Fran, New York, you name it. California is a perfect example of a mid size microcosm of what happens on Democrat rule. They now what Calexit. Hopefully, with any luck the place will just crack off.

But I digress. Who was the biggest go to news anchor of yesteryear that damn near EVERY American tuned into? Walter Cronkite. And he was a Democrat.

 

[werepossum]

Ah yes, when the news publishes information damaging Clinton they are just reporting the facts, when they publish information damaging to conservatives it's because they are part of a conspiracy.

You've proven my post right more than I ever could have, so thanks for that.

For it to be a conspiracy, it would have to be hidden.

Lol and here is where you start preemptively explaining away data you haven't even read yet but are threatened by it. We call that bubble reinforcement.

My first link was to show a trend, the second link was to an actual study.

Here is a link to the actual study.

http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/?platform=hootsuite

Might want to read what I actually wrote, pal. I did not criticise the data, I said I do not visit Vox, period.

Thanks for the study. I don't have the time to properly read it, but this immediately pops out at me.

Introduction: The Media’s Negative Bias
Criticism dogged Hillary Clinton at every step of the general election. Her “bad press” outpaced her “good press” by 64 percent to 36 percent. She was criticized for everything from her speaking style to her use of emails.

As Clinton was being attacked in the press, Donald Trump was attacking the press, claiming that it was trying to “rig” the election in her favor. If that’s true, journalists had a peculiar way of going about it. Trump’s coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton’s, running 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive. But over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Figure 1). Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive.

Aside from a typical looseness of numbers - was Hillary's positive to negative press rate 64 to 36 (first paragraph) or 62 to 38 (second paragraph) - what we immediately see is that Trump was attacked more often in the general election. His negative percentage was 77%; hers was 64%. So the very most you could hope to prove with this study was that Trump got off light in the primary compared to Hillary. That's entirely possible. Many in the mainstream media were Bernie supporters; absolutely none in the mainstream media were supporters of any Republican candidate, and there were a whole clown car full of them to draw negative stories. Of course, that misses one other important point; although a story bashing Hillary's lackluster speaking style and a story bashing Trump for being a racist misogynistic bastard are both negative, they are hardly equal in either effect or in tone. It also misses that Hillary was under investigation by the FBI. That's . . . pretty unique among the two parties' eventual Presidential nominees.

More specifically, Hillary's general election coverage varied from 6% positive to 70% negative, while Trump's varied from 65% negative to a whopping 94% negative. Among the mainstream media outlets logged here, his coverage overall ranges from 80% negative (Wall Street Journal) to 89% negative (CBS.) Even Fox News had him at 73% negative. Conversely, Hillary's overall rates range from only 53% negative (LA Times) to 61% negative (CBS & New York Times) to 70% negative (US Today) while she was openly under FBI investigation. Only WaPo (77%) and Fox News (81%) were outliers.

Given that the mainstream media outlets (minus WaPo) were running a third more negative stories about Trump than about Hillary while she was openly under FBI investigation, pretty hard to conclude they are not left wing.

 

[ivwshane]

I suggest you re read my response buddy, I made no comment about your concern for the source which is why I obliged with a direct link.

You should probably read the study before you comment on it. Lol! Thanks for proving my point though!

For it to be a conspiracy, it would have to be hidden.


Might want to read what I actually wrote, pal. I did not criticise the data, I said I do not visit Vox, period.

Thanks for the study. I don't have the time to properly read it, but this immediately pops out at me.

Aside from a typical looseness of numbers - was Hillary's positive to negative press rate 64 to 36 (first paragraph) or 62 to 38 (second paragraph) - what we immediately see is that Trump was attacked more often in the general election. His negative percentage was 77%; hers was 64%. So the very most you could hope to prove with this study was that Trump got off light in the primary compared to Hillary. That's entirely possible. Many in the mainstream media were Bernie supporters; absolutely none in the mainstream media were supporters of any Republican candidate, and there were a whole clown car full of them to draw negative stories. Of course, that misses one other important point; although a story bashing Hillary's lackluster speaking style and a story bashing Trump for being a racist misogynistic bastard are both negative, they are hardly equal in either effect or in tone. It also misses that Hillary was under investigation by the FBI. That's . . . pretty unique among the two parties' eventual Presidential nominees.

More specifically, Hillary's general election coverage varied from 6% positive to 70% negative, while Trump's varied from 65% negative to a whopping 94% negative. Among the mainstream media outlets logged here, his coverage overall ranges from 80% negative (Wall Street Journal) to 89% negative (CBS.) Even Fox News had him at 73% negative. Conversely, Hillary's overall rates range from only 53% negative (LA Times) to 61% negative (CBS & New York Times) to 70% negative (US Today) while she was openly under FBI investigation. Only WaPo (77%) and Fox News (81%) were outliers.

Given that the mainstream media outlets (minus WaPo) were running a third more negative stories about Trump than about Hillary while she was openly under FBI investigation, pretty hard to conclude they are not left wing.

 

[Kazukian]

Election night CNN: https://mobile.twitter.com/bwv_54/status/809114055759826948/video/1

"We" X 2.