Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Oct 7, 2003.
So much for a liberal left-leaning media in the US.
so the "moderate" fox news is feeding propaganda, while the "liberal" NPR is simply reporting the truth.
good find, sir.
It's really funny to watch how the network personalities bash on the competitors networks. It even unites liberal and conservative! I was watching Crossfire, and both Carlson and Begala were raking Scarborough over the coals for some unflattering story he ran about a guy his law firm was suing. I've seen it happen with the Geraldo scandal, the Roger Ayers - White House non-story, and a few other embarrasments for one network or another. It's particularly obvious in the extreme-liberal vs extreme-conservative shows like crossfire, hannity and colmes, press and buchanan etc where the hosts that would normally be at each others throat unite to destroy the competition. Very amusing to see IMHO.
HANNITY and colmes, a case of an extreme conservative, and very moderate 'democrat'...
But still, the shows like crossfire are amusing if you watch them once in a while, but if you watch them too much, you'll get a head ache, and become really angry.
good find indeed
Whether Fox or NPR, anybody who depends mostly on one source for news is gonna have problems with understanding what's going on. Too much slanting, too much spin.
What I've found is that in general any news source is reasonably reliable in reporting that some event(s) happened. The problem lies in the given interpretations of the meanings of events.
For instance, Fox reported that some Army/Marine guys had found evidence of nuclear stuff. Okay, fine; I imagine the GIs did indeed believe what they said. Fox reported what they said, and then added their own editorial commentary. Bad on Fox.
Anyhow, I'll watch most any old news broadcast; check out a newspaper article or two, and browse around on the Net. After the usual delays in getting details, I generally figure I've got a handle on what did occur or not occur.
But I'm uninterested, generally, in some talking head's conclusions as to the meaning of the events. Not always, of course, but often enough...
And to me, it matters not if it was any of the alphabet newsies or Fox...
The problem with that notion is that the study showed that those getting info from public broadcasting knew the facts while those watching the commercial network news did not. So regardless of whether or not you get your facts from one source or many, it would be better to avoid the commercial news networks altogether.
I couldn't agree more. I wish the talking head shows would go away. Forever.
You'd figure a 24-hour cable news network could be doing feature stories and breaking news from all over the world. It's a big world with plenty of interesting things going on everyday.
Plus, there's three of them!
But I guarantee if I turn each one on right now, all I'll see is the inside of a news studio with someone (or several people, point and counterpoint) running their mouth(s) about Arnold or a white tiger.
They're not news reporters, but they're cheaper than paying real money for real journalists to dig up real stories all over the real world. It's easier and cheaper to stick a few artificial talking heads inside a studio and talk about something someone else did or wrote about.
I like a little analysis from people who aren't yelling at each other, but there is way to much of it. The big 3 cable networks are too profit-conscious to do anything more than they absolutely have to.
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the few truly business-independant news organizations around.
For way too many reporters, the end of objective reporting was the Watergate era. They all wanted to emulate Woodward and Bernstein. "Investigative reporters, that's what we wanna be when we grow up!" Way too many can't investigate, and the old 5-W stuff went down the toilet.
Look at the emotive language that's used. Objectivity, my left hind foot!
And I could go into a squalling fit rant about the lack of knowledge of anything technical/mechanical/scientific.
Well, according to this Gallup poll, almost half of Americans believe US TV news is too liberal.
Who are these people and why do they believe this?
All in all, I think I refer the word "Statist" to "Liberal". That is, a Statist is one who is pretty strong in believing the government should and can solve social problems. And/or a strong believer in government regulation, beyond what mostly-conservative types believe.
In reading newspapers or watching TV news, the way things are phrased is an indicator. To oversimplify, there is a regular tone of approval at new government regulations. Another clue--IMO--is the concept that a tax or fee foregone "costs" government money, and this I have noted in many articles.
And, polls tell us that some 86% of major newsfolks are registered Democrats.
I see it as a sort of human-nature thing. People who are inherently more conservative by nature tend toward the hard sciences in college. Those who are more liberal or statist by nature tend toward the Liberal Arts, which includes Journalism School. This is a "most" but definitely not "all" view...
My observations through the years have me believing that in general, people in the areas of fine arts, philosophy and political science tend toward comfort with a statist view--so long as their First Amendment rights are paramount.
And I imply no moral "good" or "bad" in all this viewpoint of mine.
While not a regular reader of cross-country newspapers, I've read a heckuva lot during my travels. I note that most editorials take what is usually called the liberal position on issues. The Orange County Register and the Las Vegas Review-Journal are rather uncommon for their editorial opinions.
there are different kinds of regulation. i know a lot of conservatives who want the gov't to regulate how people behave.
where can i see this poll?
my degree is in computer science, fyi.
And virtually 100% of them work for the huge multinational corporations who own increasingly lopsided shares of the world's media. "Liberal media" is a canard. Time to drive a stake through it's sorry heart. The only term that makes any sense anymore is "corporate media."
Heck, my degree's in architecture, which has a healthy dose of both hard science and fine arts. I guess I should wind up a moderate then huh?
And besides hard sciences, let's don't forget that the majority of our business leaders tend toward the republicans, yet I don't hear too much from conservatives complaining how unfair that is!
All of AM radio is hard core conservative.
56% of major newspapers endorsed bush.
Fox news is domonstratable conservative.
Other tv networks are centrist.
Most reporters are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues.
I do not see how that adds up to a liberal media.
Also the network with the most overseas corespondents is NPR. They spend and hour on the news with no commercials. They bring on knowledgable people from different sides of an issue and let them discuss it. It is how news should be but some people want rah rah politics as sport... and they watch fox.
This study shows if you want the facts you are going to have to watch "the liberal media". So, the truth is now "liberal"?
This link has a handy chart (scroll down about halfway) that makes it easy to see just how misinformed Fox viewers are versus NPR/PBS, with the other corporate networks also doing pretty badly.
We report. You decide. Incorrectly.
As far as a computer science person here, or an architect, please remember I said "most"; I specifically said NOT "all". I'd say that it would be a majority, but not an abnormal "90%" thing.
The 86% deal came from somebody who'd gone to the trouble to check voter registrations, and do interviews. There was a newspaper article about it which I believe I read in the Atlanta Constitution. If not there, then the Tallahassee Democrat. I believe this was not long after the 1996 elections. Could have been one of the weeklies; Time, etc.
It was just one of those little "bits" that sorta supported my notions about the type of folks who tend toward certain areas of education.
And, my notions of what's "liberal" is probably different from most here. It's an age thing. To me, what a lot of folks see as centrist is really more left than they realize. My comparing left/right began decades ago.
Today's "center" is very far left of the center of 1960, e.g. The main planks of "less taxes, get government off the back of business" were common to Kennedy's platform of 1960 and Reagan's platform of 1980. Yet, Reagan was thought to be so horribly conservative.
He said, ignoring all of the other points that have been made...
This 86% figure is urban legend. Produce some proof. It is highly doubtful that 86% of media people are registered to any party.
A majority of Washington media people did vote for Clinton in one self-reported study. Um, Dole was a dud who ran a crappy campaign.
I don't want to pick on you, but your assertions seem to be opposite of reality. Political debate in this country has skewed far to the right since the 60s. You know, back when (I'm not sure of the exact figures, but you like to throw unsubstantiated numbers around) CEOs made 400% more money than the corporation's lowest paid employee, as opposed to today's 10,000%. The Nixon administration was a boon to social programs and Walter Cronkite opposed the Vietnam war on the evening news. Today, Ann Coulter is on The Today Show.
There is now a major news network (Fox) that is so ideologically biased that it leads its viewers away from the truth. Look at the study, it's hard to argue that fact.
Hey 'Rat, you got any figures on what percentage of CEOs/heads of companies are registered or vote republican? My guess is that it is pretty heavily skewed toward them. But I never hear any complaining about how "conservative" the business community is, and how it is warping our poor young minds by exposing them to nothing but conservative philosophy. I'd be curious to know, if you can actually find any numbers.
On a nifty side note, I was walking around campus yesterday and happened to catch a glimpse of a flyer on the campus republican board advertising a talk on "Why the left hates America". Didn't see who was giving it (I was in a hurry) but I'll go back and see more info today. Yeah all colleges are liberal bastions.
Interesting. I may be dating myself again, but I remember when people on the left wrapped themselves in social justice issues and figured that they owned the debate over right and wrong. Now people on the right wrap themselves in the flag and claim to own love of country. I know pendulums are going to swing, but do they need to swing that far?
Yeah, IJ, I've used the pendulum analogy on more than just one issue. Seems to me in this country we can't get that sucker to hang around the middle. Way too much amplitude to the swings.
mac, I'd imagine a great majority of CEO types are conservative. But wouldn't that sorta come with the middle-aged territory for folks in that line of work? It's real easy to get into a "dance with who brung ya" mindset, so a successful businessman is not really wired up for change. Ergo, conservative to some degree or another. In general, the political party which caters to business is the Repubs. Isn't it proper for folks to vote for candidates who best represent their own interests?
Look: I'm not interested in "proving" anything about the political bias of any part of the media. I believe from observation that most editors are generally liberal. Most talk radio hosts I've ever heard are conservative. Most TV and newspaper reporters' commentaries or phrasings strike me as more statist than otherwise. Since I see statism as pretty much being a liberal position, well, there I am with my general opinion that there are more liberal-view reportings than otherwise.
This comes from input over a lengthy period of time, as opposed to a "snapshot" view of broad-spectrum media support of Bush's policies in the post-9/11 period. I don't assess the media by short-term reportings/editorializing...Bandwagons come and go.
As far as corporate ownership of media outlets, all the Big Guys give a tinker's dam about is the bottom line. Absent wild-eyed points of editorial view, few are concerned about political bias, other than maybe Murdoch. (I guess he's as good an example as there is, but he strikes me as anomalous.)
But this is exactly why many of us feel that corporate influence is, if anything, creating a more conservative media.
If all the media corporations care about is the bottom line, then they will try to influence their reporters/editors to report things which will help their bottom line, no? And as you admit, most CEO's/corporate types tend to be conservative and think that conservatism (which I'm equating to little government control over business) is good for business.
Assuming all of those things are true, wouldn't that mean that corporate influence is creating a more conservative media?
This is a bigger issue then I think you will allow. I happen to write for a largish local newspaper (freelance), so I have some experience here. The editorial policy for local issues comes from the paper's in-house editorial committee, but where national issues are concerned, such as presidential elections, the editorials are written in the paper's corporate offices 2,000 miles away. Corporate is reliably conservative, and I would say much more so then the paper's audience here in California. Corporate media consolidation causes news outlets to be less responsive to local concerns, and I have yet to find a large multinational corporation that I could call "liberally minded."
Then why complain about the "liberal media" and the "liberal education system" if they are simply a reflection of the culture at the top levels? And if, as you say, it's not a bad thing in the business world, why would it be any different in academia? Why do so many conservatives like to tee off on the press and the schools? Is it possibly politically motivated?