[BRussell]

Originally posted by nana2:
<STRONG>The media is not biased towards the Democrats? I must have been watching a different CNN the night of the election as the votes were counted.</STRONG>

But if I remember, they had partisans on. Mary Matlin was very upset and swearing that Bush hadn't REALLY lost Florida, that the exit polls could be wrong , and Clinton's former press secretary (can't remember his name right now) was obviously very happy due to the unexpected win.

The media in general were biased in favor of Bush in 2000. Gore was always "losing his footing," "remaking himself," exaggerating the facts, the spectre of Clinton, blah blah. There was very little consistent criticism of Bush like there was of Gore. The only thing the media did that was anti-Bush was be pro-McCain during the primaries.

There were only two periods when the media were pro-Gore during the general election:

1. The RATS ad period (about a week), and

2. the very end when it came out Bush had a DUI, and some reporters claimed he had lied about it to them (2 or 3 days).

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by zigzag:

Gee, no one has mentioned the relatively "conservative" slant of U.S. News. Throw in USAToday, The Wall Street Journal, FoxNews, and the vast majority of local media outlets, and it looks like we should start worrying about the pervasive influence of the "conservative media". After all, the Republicans have practically owned the White House for over 30 years. Maybe we're debating the wrong question.

You have some evidence that the local media is conservative? It isn't here and from my visits in Florida it isn't there either. (This is admittedly anecdotal but you did say the "vast majority" of local outlets were conservative.) USAToday is conservative? Some examples please. The WSJ editorial page is certainly conservative but the news division definitely is not. (I'm a regular reader too.)

However, scott et al. appear to believe that the NYT and Dan Rather have people "brainwashed"...

Only in your bizarre insistence that there isn't a liberal bias in the media.

Since this debate appears to be going in circles, I'd like to pose some direct questions to those who insist on employing the "liberal media" cliche. Maybe this will narrow the focus of the debate and introduce more of what mr. natural refers to as "critical thinking"...

I'd really like to see some of that here but you guys haven't been doing too well on that score. Think about this for a minute. Why did you choose FoxNews and not CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC as an example of the conservative voice in TV news? Perhaps because it's the only place that could credibly be so labeled just as all the other TV news operations can be credibly labeled as left-leaning?

I'll not argue the existence of a conservative media - just your examples. The conservative media does exist. It has grown up in response to the left-wing bias of the major media outlets. I'd just like to see a little truth in labeling. I'm capable of reading a leftist paper and filtering out the bias.

How do you reconcile the "liberalness" of the major media outlets with the fact that they are mostly controlled by large, publicly-owned corporations and supported by corporate advertising? If they don't generally reflect the values of the largest segments of the population, why are they "major" in the first place?

The NY Times and The Washington Post are based in Republican towns? News to me. CBS, NBC and ABC News have been losing viewers for years as has CNN recently. FoxNews is obviously a rising star. Your premise is faulty.

[maxelson]

With all of this discussion of bias in the news, I am a little weirded that no one here seems to be appalled by this. I mean, is this not one of the journalistic cardinal sins? Slant has it's place... we call it op ed. Bias is not somehing we SHOULD be seeing in the mainstream media. Of course it is there. Did we not go through some big rebellion in the earlier part of the century? Yellow Journalism? Yes, I know there is a difference, but the ends and intent are the same- to tell the viewer/ reader what and how to think. I also think that while it may unethical (rather unethical in my view), intelligent people will recognize it when they see it- from BOTH angles.
It does, however, amuse the hell out of me to watch the various White House press secs do their little dances. Deception, word play, spin, spin, spin, manipulation... I will only give mr Fleisher as an example because he is the current press guy... and a slimy slick gollum at that. The grease that comes out of this guy's mouth is unreal. Remember the horrific things that the previous administration did to the incoming group? Porn, Ws, weeping West WIng IS manager, oh, the cruelty.... while most of it was untrue, Mr. Fleisher rode that wave... never truly confirmed or denied anything, just let it all run wild. And it worked. Of course, we have to assume that was all condoned action on his part.

edited for lousy spelling- and will probably need to be again.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>...

Remember the horrific things that the previous administration did to the incoming group? Porn, Ws, weeping West WIng IS manager, oh, the cruelty.... while most of it was untrue, Mr. Fleisher rode that wave... never truly confirmed or denied anything, just let it all run wild. And it worked. Of course, we have to assume that was all condoned action on his part.</STRONG>

beep beep beep News Flash beep beep beep

Most of that was true. You may be thinking of the GSA report that came out saying that there was no damage to the "real property" of the whitehouse. "Real property" being the office space and maybe the desk and chairs... Many a liberal commentator held it up a proof that the whitehouse was full of it. But the report was limited to the real property of the whitehouse. Fact is there was porn in the copier, there were rude out going messages on the phone, the "W"s were ripped off the keyboards. Also remember much of the damage was said to have been in the VeePees office which the report did not cover. Also remember that Bush said early on that there was nothing wrong with Air Force One.

The whitehouse was more than happy to let it go but so many used the GSA report to try to nail Bush. The Press Sec was ready to release tapes of the out going messages and photocopier pron if anyone needed more proof. Dan Rather was nowhere to be found.

So you see (or maybe you can't) you've been lied to again and you were so willing to believe the whitehouse lied.

Bush Aide Details Alleged Clinton Staff Vandalism

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95000572
bold is mine

So it looks as if the White House vandalism story was true after all. The Bush White House has finally come forward with details of how outgoing Clinton administration staffers vandalized the executive offices. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tells the Washington Post that the damage included "obscene graffiti in six offices, a 20-inch-wide presidential seal ripped off a wall, 10 sliced telephone lines and 100 inoperable computer keyboards." Also, pornographic or obscene greetings were left on 15 telephone lines in the offices of the vice president and White House counsel and in the scheduling and advance offices.

Most of the damage was in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next door to the White House. "The only incident Fleischer described in the White House itself was a photocopier in the West Wing that had pictures of naked people interspersed with blank photocopy paper so deep in the tray that they were still popping out weeks after the inauguration," the Post says.

So what about that report in the Kansas City Star that there was "no truth" in the scandal? The Post explains that the General Services Administration, which was the source of the Star's report, found only that "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." In other words, the Clinton staff managed not to do any serious damage to the buildings. We're embarrassed to admit that we fell for the Star report--but at least no one can ever accuse us of harboring an anti-Clinton bias.

The Clinton White House "alumni"--as the Post puts it in a follow-up story this morning, perhaps alluding to that administration's frat-house atmosphere--are demanding proof. Maybe they want to look at those naked pictures again.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>

(1) You have some evidence that the local media is conservative? It isn't here and from my visits in Florida it isn't there either. (This is admittedly anecdotal but you did say the "vast majority" of local outlets were conservative.) USAToday is conservative? Some examples please. The WSJ editorial page is certainly conservative but the news division definitely is not. (I'm a regular reader too.)

(2) Only in your bizarre insistence that there isn't a liberal bias in the media.

(3) I'd really like to see some of that [critical thinking] here but you guys haven't been doing too well on that score. Think about this for a minute. Why did you choose FoxNews and not CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC as an example of the conservative voice in TV news? Perhaps because it's the only place that could credibly be so labeled just as all the other TV news operations can be credibly labeled as left-leaning?
I'll not argue the existence of a conservative media - just your examples. The conservative media does exist. It has grown up in response to the left-wing bias of the major media outlets. I'd just like to see a little truth in labeling. I'm capable of reading a leftist paper and filtering out the bias.

(4) The NY Times and The Washington Post are based in Republican towns? News to me. CBS, NBC and ABC News have been losing viewers for years as has CNN recently. FoxNews is obviously a rising star. Your premise is faulty.</STRONG>

Neither you nor anyone else has responded directly to the various specific questions I put forth. This indicates to me that, for all of the whining about "the liberal media", no one can demonstrate that it is monolithic, or unduly powerful or influential. The best you can do is argue that some outlets are more liberal than others. Big deal. Some are also more conservative than others.

I don't think it's bias that bothers you - it's just liberal bias that bothers you. I repeat: when's the last time you complained about "the conservative media"?

As to your specific points:

(1) My viewing and reading of local media (TV, radio, daily newspapers) all over the country indicates to me that the vast majority of it is relatively conservative. Local media is mostly interested in doing what's safe, which to my mind, rightly or wrongly, is a conservative trait. They do an occasional sensationalistic story, but I don't see local media rocking any serious political boats.

When's the last time you saw a local TV anchor admit to being a "Liberal"? It's considered a dirty word in most places.

That's one reason most medium-to-large cities have what are known as "alternative weeklies", which are unabashedly liberal/leftist and have about as much political power as a gnat. Judging from the quality of the writing and reporting in most of them, that's all they deserve. Either way, they regard all other local media (whether they endorse Democrats or Republicans) as hopelessly mainstream.

Local media varies depending on the market served, so I'm not going to argue with someone who would characterize it differently than I do - as with anything, it's a matter of political (and cultural) perspective. It doesn't really matter - my overriding point is that no one seems to be able to demonstrate that the supposedly liberal-leftist views of the NYT et al. make that much difference. Most people have never even read an issue of the NYT. They mostly rely on the media that already reflects their views. A lot of that is local, and if the Presidential elections of the last 30 years are any indication, local media is not exactly furthering the Liberal cause.

As for USAToday and the WSJ, if you think that the editorial choices (stories, headlines, etc.) that they make are completely bias-free, then so be it. I'm not here to convince you otherwise - my goal is to address the myth of the monolithic entity referred to as "the liberal media".

(2) No, scott made the "brainwashed" comment in reference to people who kept calling Bush a "moron". It was after that that the debate about "the liberal media" started.

I've never said that there are no media outlets with a liberal bias. I've only tried to demonstrate that it's not as pervasive, as monolithic, as powerful or as influential as you and others seem to think, that blaming "the liberal media" isn't very useful or meaningful. Yet you persist in doing it.

I also hope to remind people that you can find bias and misinformation wherever you look. It's not a "liberal" or a "conservative" trait, it's a human trait. Politics just tends to magnify it.

(3) I think that "critical thinking" would entail making direct answers to the questions that I posed earlier. It seems to me that this would go a long way towards proving that "the liberal media" is a distinct, pervasive, monolithic power, as you and others seem to think. No one seems to be able to do it.

I picked Fox as an example because everyone seems to agree that it has a comparatively conservative tone. If you want to characterize all of the rest as "left-leaning", that's OK - it doesn't really matter. Believe it or not, there are people who regard the NYT and CBS News as hopelessly conservative, and people who regard the WSJ and FoxNews as hopelessly liberal. It's all a matter of perspective.

(4) Again, you're avoiding the questions posed - how did the "major media" become "major" other than by more or less reflecting mainstream values?

I didn't say that things never change. If FoxNews is a rising star, that's fine - there's obviously a market for it. But by your own description, CBS et al. are still "major" outlets. They didn't get that way by accident. They got there by more or less catering to mainstream markets and values.

Is Fox "unbiased", and CBS "liberal? Or is CBS "unbiased", and Fox "conservative"? Or is CBS "liberal", and Fox "conservative"? Does it depend on which issue is being discussed? Is any media outlet truly "unbiased"? I doubt we could ever determine that with any finality. I don't even think they care that much - they are mostly interested in what sells. Meanwhile, people will always tend to assume that their medium of choice is "unbiased", and complain about the rest.

By the way, NY has a fairly popular Republican mayor. But whether NY or DC is Republican or Democrat wasn't really my point. My point was that for the "major media" that you're so worried about to become "major" in the first place, they can't afford to stray very far from the mainstream.

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Do you regard "the liberal media" as a "problem"? If so, what exactly is the nature of the "problem"?

Well, this question might get us somewhere if anyone here who faults "the liberal media" (*cough* Scott_H, gwrjr33, anyone? *cough*) would care to address zigzag's queestion & define "what exactly is the nature of this problem."

Also, which media are we refering to? Are there any relevant differences among them? Or are they all just some amorphous blob of blatant liberal bias.

Having defined them (major, minor, print, TV, whatever), perhaps then someone can answer the following:

Is it that "the liberal media" are skeptical of all politicians, or just republican/conservative ones? And how does this bias manifest itself? (Dan Rather daring to refrain from reporting on every psuedo revelation of the Gary Condit media affair?)

What of the real issues that politicians traffic in? Is it that "the liberal media" give biased coverage of all these issues too? Which ones? What about the "conservative media" bias? Or are they paragons of objectivity no matter the issue?

Are the issues like stones, some given a quick toss into the lake with nary a ripple left to show for it, some which are used as flogging stones no matter how trivial, and some stones better left unturned because they would upset the conservative media owners, board members, stock holders, sponsors, and advertisers? What does this suggest? (I don't watch TV, but for anyone who does, I'd be curious to know if any major station has done an in-depth examination on say, universal health care coverage as it is practised in all other indutrialized countries, citing pros and cons versus our private health insurance system? And if not, why not?)

What about "the liberal media's" coverage of corporate issues? Good old fashioned muck-racking of corporate malfesance? Corporate welfare versus wefare moms? How much play, either on air or in print, does this sort of stuff get? And if not much, why not?

What I am trying to suggest is that this debate misses the forest as a whole for getting caught up in an accounting of which trees belong to which camp. Just about "all the media," are in fact part of a monopoly, and like the wizard of Oz, these media powers orchestrate an array of bedazzlement for our supposed enlightenment & entertainment, while certain other and more revealing aspects of the big picture remain hidden behind the curtain.

Our media monoploy induced stupor about this other reality is made apparent by Scott_H with his flogging stones (Bush's IQ hoax, whitehouse vandalism, etc), gwrjr33's apparent inability to answer any worthwhile question raised without resorting to lawyerly "gotcha" side-tracking (Geez, couldn't you even bother to dare try to answer zigzag's questions - No), and the now obvious inability of any of the rest of us to move this debate beyond such two-step backwards and sideways toe-stubbing over stones of no real consequence.

Let's try this from a slightly different angle. Bill Moyers wrote an incisive cover article for "The Nation" (may 7, 2001), which you all can read here.

As to bias, he confronts his head on: "I need to declare a bias here. It's true that I worked for two Democratic Presidents, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But I did so more for reasons of opportunity than ideology. My worldview was really shaped by Theodore Roosevelt, who got it right about power in America. Roosevelt thought the central fact of his era was that economic power had become so centralized and dominant it could chew up democracy and spit it out. The power of corporations, he said, had to be balanced in the interest of the general public. Otherwise, America would undergo a class war, the rich would win it, and we wouldn't recognize our country anymore. Shades of d�j� vu. Big money and big business, corporations and commerce, are again the undisputed overlords of politics and government. The White House, the Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary reflect their interests. We appear to have a government run by remote control from the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute. To hell with everyone else."

He goes on to ask: "What's the role of journalism in all this? The founders of our nation were pretty explicit on this point. The First Amendment is the first for a reason. It's needed to keep our leaders honest and to arm the powerless with the information they need to protect themselves against the tyranny of the powerful, whether that tyranny is political or commercial. At least that's my bias."

He reveals of his passion for "journalism": "what's important in journalism is not how close you are to power but how close you are to reality."

And he cites examples of this type of journalism which he is passionate about, his documentaries: "the very first documentary ever about political action committees. I can still see the final scene in that film--yard after yard of computer printout listing campaign contributions unfurled like toilet paper stretching all the way across the Capitol grounds.
That one infuriated just about everyone, including friends of public television. PBS took the heat and didn't melt. When Sherry and I reported the truth behind the news of the Iran/contra scandal for a Frontline documentary called "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," the right-wing Taliban in town went running to their ayatollahs in Congress, who decried the fact that public television was committing--horrors--journalism. The Clinton White House didn't like it a bit, either, when Sherry and I reported on Washington's Other Scandal, about the Democrats' unbridled and illegal fundraising of 1996."

So, having established that Bill Moyers is indeed biased, but in favor of journalism's true role as "being a public nuisance" against the "tyranny" of politicians both left & right, AND rampant corporate tyranny, what if anything can we learn from Moyers of this latter concern?

He details his documentary: "'Free Speech For Sale' It was about the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when some of America's most powerful corporations were picking the taxpayers' pocket of $70 billion. That's the estimated value of the digital spectrum that Congress was giving away to the big media giants.
Senator McCain said on the Senate floor during the debate, referring to the major media, "You will not see this story on any television or hear it on any radio broadcast because it directly affects them." (snip) "Sure enough, the Telecommunications Act was introduced around May of 1995 and was finally passed in early February of 1996. During those nine months, the three major network news shows aired a sum total of only nineteen minutes on the legislation, and none of the nineteen minutes included a single mention of debate over whether the broadcasters should pay for use of the digital spectrum."

And about the unreported corporate power to influence journalists and what stories they do think to report on, Moyers has this to say: "According to a recent study done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press for the Columbia Journalism Review, more than a quarter of journalists polled said they had avoided pursuing some newsworthy stories that might conflict with the financial interests of their news organizations or advertisers.'

He wonders (as do I): "Does it matter? Well, as we learned in the 1960s but seem to have forgotten, government is about who wins and who loses in the vast bazaar of democracy. Government can send us to war, pick our pockets, slap us in jail, run a highway through our garden, look the other way as polluters do their dirty work, take care of the people who are already well cared for at the expense of those who can't afford lawyers, lobbyists or time to be vigilant. It matters who's pulling the strings. It also matters who defines the news and decides what to cover. It matters whether we're over at the Puffy Combs trial, checking out what Jennifer Lopez was wearing the night she ditched him, or whether we're on the Hill, seeing who's writing the new bankruptcy law, or overturning workplace safety rules, or buying back standards for allowable levels of arsenic in our drinking water." (One could just as easily insert "Gary Condit's front lawn" in place of Puffy Combs trial too.)

Moyers also details two other documentaries about corporate malfesance and how the big business powers reported on mount "sophisticated and expensive campaign(s) to discredit the documentary(s) before (they) aired." (He specifically details for one documentary how) "They flooded television reviewers and the editorial pages of newspapers with propaganda. A Washington Post columnist took a dig at the broadcast on the morning of the day it aired--without even having seen it--and later admitted to me that the dig had been supplied to him by a top lobbyist in town. Some station managers were so unnerved that they protested the documentary with letters that had been prepared by industry. Several station managers later apologized to me for having been suckered."

But does any of the above matter to Scott_H or gwrjr33? Apparently not, seeing as it is a reality of the conservatively biased corporate media monopoly, and thus it is way beyond their radar screens, so mesmerized by this ridiculous argument over "liberal media" bias that they are content to keep flogging on - and without sticking their necks out too far lest they get chopped off. (Although Scott_H has already hung himself out to dry with his "You're sounding like crazed conservatives when they spout off about the 'liberal media'" quote posted in another thread earlier in the month. Cat got your tongue, Scott?)

The media (the wizards and a lot of their well-paid power hungry court toady journalists - along with several other factors not germaine to this particular argument as I am trying to make it), are like the three card monte street hustlers, in that they do a great job of confusing us alI; keeping us preoccupied with trite side shows while the real work of their power goes on unseen behind the curtain.

And like Bill Moyers wrote: "I have learned that the job of trying to tell the truth about people whose job it is to hide the truth is almost as complicated and difficult as trying to hide it in the first place. Unless you're willing to fight and refight the same battles until you go blue in the face, to drive the people you work with nuts going over every last detail to make certain you've got it right, and then to take hit after unfair hit accusing you of having a "bias," or these days even a point of view, there's no use even in trying." So too I'm begining to wonder with this debate, what's the point?

For if there is a media bias that we should all be worried about it, IMHO it is the ever increasing concentration of media into the hands of the corporate few.

[zigzag: Glad to see you stepping up to the plate and wacking their curve balls over the fences! But when it comes to the fast balls thrown right down their plates, they either bunt or pop up foul balls. Now, if only we had an impartial referee to call this game on account of the lopsided score, eh? ; - ) ]

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
<STRONG>

Well, this question might get us somewhere if anyone here who faults "the liberal media" (*cough* Scott_H, gwrjr33, anyone? *cough*) would care to address zigzag's queestion & define "what exactly is the nature of this problem." </STRONG>

*cough* *COUGH* I already have. *COUGH*

[mr. natural]

*Hack* Oh yeah, i forgot, we're brainwashed. *Homerun!*

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

*cough* *COUGH* I already have. *COUGH*</STRONG>

Huh? Where? I even numbered them for you guys. I even allowed that you might convince me through your responses that "the liberal media" is really a problem worth worrying about. I haven't seen any direct responses, or even any implied responses.

OK, I'll try again. Answer just this one question, which I've posed 3 or 4 times: how do you reconcile the alleged pervasiveness/influence/power/etc. of the entity known as "the liberal media" with Republican occupation of the White House for 24 of the 36 years from 1968-2004?

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>...
how do you reconcile the alleged pervasiveness/influence/power/etc. of the entity known as "the liberal media" with Republican occupation of the White House for 24 of the 36 years from 1968-2004?</STRONG>

What would that prove? How do you reconcile the Democrats control of the Congress for 40 years?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

What would that prove? How do you reconcile the Democrats control of the Congress for 40 years?</STRONG>

What would it prove? You're kidding, right? You don't see a negative correlation between the alleged power and pervasiveness of "the liberal media" and 36 years of Republican domination of the White House?

I think my point's been made. Cheers.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>

What would it prove? You're kidding, right? You don't see a negative correlation between the alleged power and pervasiveness of "the liberal media" and 36 years of Republican domination of the White House?

I think my point's been made. Cheers. </STRONG>

Not at all. How does this "prove" anything. 1+2=3 Now that's a proof Also if you count back to 1961 it's more like 20 years each.

But please look at the Congress. Solidly Democrat for 40 years until the "republican Revolution" that was a back lash to the Clinton Whitehouse. All the major cites are Democrat strong holds.

Also add to it that "media" is more than just news and such. Include all the brain trusts in Hollywood and the media bias is clear.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by zigzag:

Neither you nor anyone else has responded directly to the various specific questions I put forth.

I didn't because you are working from a faulty premise. According to you USAToday is a conservative newspaper and New York is really not an overwhelmingly Democratic city. After all they elected Giuliani, right? BTW, do you remember when Rudy endorsed Cuomo over Pataki?

And I didn't say that the news division of the WSJ is bias-free. I just said that it wasn't conservative.

This indicates to me that, for all of the whining about "the liberal media", no one can demonstrate that it is monolithic, or unduly powerful or influential. The best you can do is argue that some outlets are more liberal than others. Big deal. Some are also more conservative than others.

I don't think it's bias that bothers you - it's just liberal bias that bothers you.

Bias doesn't bother me. I think I made that pretty clear in my previous post. All I want is truth in labeling. Stop expecting me to pretend that everyone is so objective. It just ain't so.

My viewing and reading of local media (TV, radio, daily newspapers) all over the country indicates to me that the vast majority of it is relatively conservative. Local media is mostly interested in doing what's safe, which to my mind, rightly or wrongly, is a conservative trait. They do an occasional sensationalistic story, but I don't see local media rocking any serious political boats.

I guess that's why we don't see too many local news stories that champion the pro-life perspective or an end to racial preferences or the extension of supply-side theory to the tax code at the state & local level. You can rock political boats from the right side too. And you can play it safe and serve leftist interests. This doen't exactly make your point.

That's one reason most medium-to-large cities have what are known as "alternative weeklies", which are unabashedly liberal/leftist and have about as much political power as a gnat.

And? We got one of them too. So? The major daily here endorsed Clinton twice.

... my goal is to address the myth of the monolithic entity referred to as "the liberal media".

Did I say it was monolithic? No I did not. I acknowledged the existence of a conservative media. If 80% in that poll cited earlier voted for Clinton, then the rest must have voted for someone else - obviously there's no monolith. All I've said is that the media tilts strongly to the left.

I think that "critical thinking" would entail making direct answers to the questions that I posed earlier.

Then pose questions that have something to do with what I've actually said and not what you've projected onto to me.

... how did the "major media" become "major" other than by more or less reflecting mainstream values?

You are assuming mainstream values to be conservative values. Why?

And where do you get 36 years of Republican domination of the Whitehouse? If you start with Eisenhower (1952), you only get 28 years of Republican "domination". During that same period Democrats held the Whitehouse for 20 years. And as Scott has pointed out the Democratic advantage in Congress is 40 years to 8 years for the Republicans. This doesn't make your point at all.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: gwrjr33 ]

[Scott_H]

Read this every day for a year. Then you'll get it.

Smarter Times

Founded in June 2000, Smartertimes.com is dedicated to the proposition that New York's dominant daily has grown complacent, slow and inaccurate. Even an ordinary semi-intelligent guy in Brooklyn who reads the newspaper carefully early each morning can regularly notice errors of fact and of logic. Smartertimes.com is dedicated to assembling a community of readers to support a new newspaper that would offer an alternative to the dominant daily.

Smartertimes.com � "Smarter than the Times, and almost as arrogant, but with only a tiny fraction of the circulation."

[BRussell]

Just for argument let's start with the premise that the media are liberal.

First, it's a relative statement - the premise is really that the news media are, on average, more liberal than Americans, on average.

So it could be either because a) the media are very liberal, or b) Americans are very conservative.

I think you can make a good case that it's b) more so than a).

If you look at social policies like death penalty, or economic issues like tax policy, the US is the most conservative country compared to its peers. If you look at a country like Canada, which arguably more closely resembles the US culture than any other country, their debate is quite to the liberal side of the US. Same with Great Britain.

The "conservatives" in those countries would be Democrats in the US. American liberals are centrists in the context of the rest of the world, and conservatives are pretty far right.

You could argue that the media should just parrot back the dominant views of the culture, but I don't think anyone wants that - we want an independent, critical press.

So I think think the bias is in you extreme right-wingers, not the press. :razz:

[TNproud2b]

please don't pretend there are similarities between Canada and the USA - that HAS to be humiliating for Canadians.

Please let them live in peace north of our border. Until we decide what to do with their country...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>

(1) I didn't because you are working from a faulty premise.

(2) According to you USAToday is a conservative newspaper and New York is really not an overwhelmingly Democratic city. After all they elected Guliani, right? BTW, do you remember when Rudy endorsed Cuomo over Pataki?
And I didn't say that the news division of the WSJ is bias-free. I just said that it wasn't conservative.

(3) Bias doesn't bother me. I think I made that pretty clear in my previous post. All I want is truth in labeling. Stop expecting me to pretend that everyone is so objective. It just ain't so.

(4) I guess that's why we don't see too many local news stories that champion the pro-life perspective or an end to racial preferences or the extension of supply-side theory to the state's tax code. You can rock political boats from the right side too. And you can play it safe and serve leftist interests. This doen't exactly make your point.

(5) And? We got one of them too. So? The major daily here endorsed Clinton twice.

(6) Did I say it was monolithic? No I did not. I acknowledged the existence of a conservative media. If 80% in that poll cited earlier voted for Clinton, then the rest must have voted for someone else - obviously there's no monolith. All I've said is that the media tilts strongly to the left.

(7) Then pose questions that have something to do with what I've actually said and not what you've projected onto to me.

(8) You are assuming mainstream values to be conservative values. Why?

(9) And where do you get 36 years of Republican domination of the Whitehouse? If you start with Eisenhower (1952), you only get 28 years of Republican "domination". During that same period Democrats held the Whitehouse for 20 years. And as Scott has pointed out the Democratic advantage in Congress is 40 years to 8 years for the Republicans. This doesn't make your point at all.

</STRONG>

(1) I'll let others decide of this is a dodge or not.

"Dad, how old are you?" "Son, I can't answer that. You're premise is faulty. I'm not really your Dad."

(2) Yes, I do believe that USAToday is a comparatively conservative paper, culturally as well as politically, but I also said that I don't particularly care how you characterize it, because these characterizations depend so much on personal perspective. As for the WSJ, if you think that the bias, if any, of its news division isn't conservative, that's fine. To Al Sharpton, everything appears conservative. To Rush Limbaugh, everything appears liberal. This has been my overriding point all along - to conservatives, the media is too liberal. To liberals, the media is too conservative. Take your pick.

As for New York, I never said whether it was Democratic or Republican, nor do I care - you're the one who raised that issue, for reasons that remain unknown to me. I explained this in my last post. I don't care. It doesn't matter. They could elect Howdy Doody and it wouldn't affect my argument.

(3) I don't claim that anyone is "objective", nor do I want to convince you of same. I've said that whether "the media" (whatever that means) appears liberal or conservative depends largely on the perspective of the viewer.

You're the one who makes the generalized assertion that "the media leans strongly to the left". I think that says more about your particular political leanings than it does about "the media".

(4) Agreed that the boat can be rocked from either side, and that local media isn't much interested in doing so. As I said, because it is interested in maintaining the status quo, I regard this as a predominately "conservative" trait, but I'll re-characterize it as "inert", since we may have different ideas about what "conservative" means.

When's the last time you saw local (or national, for that matter) media stick its neck out for the decriminalization of narcotics? Or portray NAFTA protestors as anything other than goofy hippies? Or question "welfare reform"? Or any number of other "liberal" causes?

This serves to reinforce my point about the perspective of the viewer. The variables are infinite. You might think that until the media gives more attention to the pro-life cause, it is unremittingly "liberal". Someone else might think that until the media gives more attention to the anti-NAFTA/WTO cause, it is unremittingly "conservative." It cuts both ways.

(5) Voters also endorsed Clinton, twice. Thus, your major daily is well within the mainstream, even if it isn't your idea of "conservative". I wouldn't be surprised if your alternative weekly thinks that your major daily is downright fascist, Clinton endorsement or not. And I suspect that you won't be happy with your major daily until it changes its masthead to read "Republican and Proud of It".

The fact that you can't always get what you want doesn't mean that media "tilts strongly to the left." Do you think the liberals in Muskogee (all 3 of them) are happy with their local daily? Probably not.

(6) It might be a poor choice, but by "monolithic", I mean a definable, unified, consistent, domineering, if not exclusive, entity. Many people who complain about "the liberal media" obviously perceive it as such. If you don't, fine. But I suspect that you do.

(7) See (1) above. I'm supposed to pose questions that cater to what you already believe? What's the point? I thought questions were supposed to challenge assumptions.

(8) As I said earlier, I tend to view "status quo" as a more conservative than liberal trait, so in that sense I guess I might equate "mainstream" with "conservative". You might equate "mainstream" with "liberal", which is fine. Again, it's a matter of perspective, and partly semantics. "Conservative" and "liberal" can mean different things to different people, and change according to context. If you assume "conservative" to mean "anti-abortion" or whatever, that's fine - I don't always equate the two. Most people I know are all over the map politically, to the point where labels like "conservative" and "liberal" lose their meaning. I know people who are anti-abortion and pro-environment and pro-this and anti-that - they don't fit a category, and at any given time they will be pissed off at one or another media outlet that opposes one or another of their views. Which goes to my basic point - bias in the media depends mostly on the viewer's perspective.

(9) Duh . . . 1968-2004 = 36 years. Republicans occupied the White House for 24 of those. That's 2 out of 3 years. It ain't rocket science. You guys really look silly when you try to dodge this one. The fact is that if the "liberal media" were as predominant and influential as you claim, this wouldn't have happened, and you know it.

I knew one of you would say "Well, if you go back to [whatever year], the equation changes", and "What about Congress?". It's a dodge. Pick any year you want. You don't get Republican domination of the White House for 36 (or 44, or 52) years with a "liberal media". The fact is that while some outlets are left or right of center, the media more or less reflects mainstream values. Whether it's predominately "liberal" or "conservative" is mostly in the eye of the beholder.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>....
(9) Duh . . . 1968-2004 = 36 years. Republicans occupied the White House for 24 of those. That's 2 out of 3 years. It ain't rocket science. You guys really look silly when you try to dodge this one. The fact is that if the "liberal media" were as predominant and influential as you claim, this wouldn't have happened, and you know it.

I knew one of you would say "Well, if you go back to [whatever year], the equation changes", and "What about Congress?". It's a dodge. Pick any year you want. You don't get Republican domination of the White House for 36 (or 44, or 52) years with a "liberal media". The fact is that while some outlets are left or right of center, the media more or less reflects mainstream values. Whether it's predominately "liberal" or "conservative" is mostly in the eye of the beholder.</STRONG>

Why is it a dodge? Why can't we count back to 1961 when Kennedy was elected? I guess because it contradicts your faulty premise? Why do you dodge the fact that Democrats ruled the Congress for over 40 years? Now that was real control. Tip O'Neal was the king! Did you ever see him on TeeVee back then or are you too young for that bit of history?

How about this then. The real reason Republicans have dominated the Whitehouse is because the Democrats have put up such weak candidates. Dukakis? Tsongas? Please? How could they ever win? Carter got the boot for the same reason Bush did. So maybe they lost despite the media spin on events. Add to that the fact that Republicans were ready to take on the spread of the Soviet Union head on.

http://www.smartertimes.com &lt;- Read it

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]

[Demonhood]

funniest things about this thread:

1) The "hoax" that started this thread was simply an email joke masquerading as a news item. No big liberal conspiracy in that.

2) Both sides will argue which papers/channels are liberal or conservative until you're blue in the face. Hard to prove. You know what's even harder to prove? What affect that perceived bias has. You don't know. You can't prove how much it sways things one way or another, if at all. You can't.

3) There are no bias-free reporters.

4) Each side will argue that there are a lot of conservative/liberal media outlets because it makes them out to be the underdog fighting against the powerful establishment. Lame.

5) When a news outlet reports on something you don't like, many people label it as a tool of the opposing "team". And we all know what I think about that team mentality (and hopefully one day you'll think the same thing too. just have to work the kinks out of my mind control ray gun.....).

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>funniest things about this thread:

1) The "hoax" that started this thread was simply an email joke masquerading as a news item. No big liberal conspiracy in that.
...
</STRONG>

I never said it was a "big liberal conspiracy". Just that it was a lie from the left and pointed out how happy many people made big deal out it. Some called Bush a "moron" based on it but it makes you wonder who the real morons are?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

Why is it a dodge? Why can't we count back to 1961 when Kennedy was elected? I guess because it contradicts your faulty premise? Why do you dodge the fact that Democrats ruled the Congress for over 40 years? Now that was real control. Tip O'Neal was the king! Did you ever see him on TeeVee back then or are you too young for that bit of history?

How about this then. The real reason Republicans have dominated the Whitehouse is because the Democrats have put up such weak candidates. Dukakis? Tsongas? Please? How could they ever win? Carter got the boot for the same reason Bush did. So maybe they lost despite the media spin on events. Add to that the fact that Republicans were ready to take on the spread of the Soviet Union head on.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott_H ]</STRONG>

I'm confident that everyone here with any sense understands that if "the liberal media" were as powerful as you seem to think, it would tend to have observable consequences in the single most important political election in our country. Instead, we see not just an indifferent result, but the OPPOSITE result. I think you and gw understand this as well, but you're too stubborn to concede the point. So you keep trying to talk around it.

OK, let's count back to 1960. Republicans are still ahead, 24-20. You're saying that this contradicts my "faulty premise"? What arithmetical method are you using? Or should I say, what are you smoking? Can I have some?

Go back to 1952 if you want. Republicans are way ahead, 32-20. You have to go all the way back to FDR's second term just to even the score. It's sorta pointless because both the political and journalistic landscapes have changed substantially since then, but I might as well demonstrate why the time frame argument doesn't help you. Pick any time frame you want.

Yes, Congress has been predominately Democrat for 40 years. If BOTH the Presidency and Congress had been dominated by liberal Democrats during that time, then I could say, "Gee, looks like the "liberal media" might be having a significant effect." But it isn't so.

"Weaker candidates" - right, that explains everything. The Republicans never put up weak candidates, only Democrats. You're really stretching now.

How about this then. How about just conceding that actual election results don't say much for the influence of "the liberal media"?

By the way, could you remind me when Paul Tsongas was the Democratic Presidential nominee? I guess I'm "too young for that bit of history."

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>funniest things about this thread:

1) The "hoax" that started this thread was simply an email joke masquerading as a news item. No big liberal conspiracy in that.

2) Both sides will argue which papers/channels are liberal or conservative until you're blue in the face. Hard to prove. You know what's even harder to prove? What affect that perceived bias has. You don't know. You can't prove how much it sways things one way or another, if at all. You can't.

3) There are no bias-free reporters.

4) Each side will argue that there are a lot of conservative/liberal media outlets because it makes them out to be the underdog fighting against the powerful establishment. Lame.

5) When a news outlet reports on something you don't like, many people label it as a tool of the opposing "team". And we all know what I think about that team mentality (and hopefully one day you'll think the same thing too. just have to work the kinks out of my mind control ray gun.....). </STRONG>

Exactly. One big yawner... page after page. Lame.

The mainstream media is driven by one thing: Profits. Call that liberal or conservative if you want. I just call it big business. Whatever.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>
By the way, could you remind me when Paul Tsongas was the Democratic Presidential nominee? I guess I'm "too young for that bit of history." </STRONG>

Okay so Taxsongas was not the nominee but he ran. But how could I forget Mondale? Oh I know. He's very forgettable! QED

Face facts dude. You have proven nothing. There for there is nothing to concede. I have provided a method for you to see the bias in the NYT, for example, and at least one news article that states how the NYT sets the tone for much of the news coverage in the country. So open your mind just a tiny bit. Read the site I've linked to. Read the NYT and then you'll start to see. Or maybe not?

[Fran441]

So Republicans can dish it out but they can't take it?

Am I surprised? No. Conservatives can make all of the Clinton jokes they want, but when someone makes an obvious joke about Golly Gee Dubya Bush, they get offended.

Scott, you are obviously a loser who has nothing better to do then sit around and watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. I really feel sorry for you.

You obviously think that you are the only one who is right and are so paranoid that you think that the media is run by the Democratic party. You think that Liberals tried to 'steal' the election of 2000, you think that Liberals are to blame for the loss of the surplus, and you obviously think that Bush is the best President ever.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I feel that I have a moral obligation to help people who are less fortunate than me. My tax dollars (as well as other money) go to help the less fortunate. As a Catholic, I feel that is what is morally right. You, on the other hand, feel that you owe the rest of humanity nothing, and that you should get every measily little cent that you earn back from a government that you think is cheating you. I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm sure you feel that I'm some bleeding heart liberal who wants to steal your money and give it to some 'fat loser on welfare'.

But posting things like: "More lies of the Left" is ridiculous. Yes, you have proven you can start a flame war over what was probably a joke to begin with.

Maybe for your next great thread, you can say: "More lies of the Left: Bush not really a Monkey", or "More lies of the Left: Cheney not in Charge".

Oh, and btw, thank god that idiot Helms is out of the Senate next time around. The last thing the Congress needs is the old Southern boys with their WASP 'values' and greedy attitudes. Now if we could only get Strom to retire, we can put that ugly chapter of American History behind us as well.

I hope this stirs up the Republican Reich like I think it will. Republikkkans like to make 3 page long responses to posts like these.

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
You're sounding like crazed conservatives when they spout off about the "liberal media"

guess it takes one to know one, eh

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

Okay so Taxsongas was not the nominee but he ran. But how could I forget Mondale? Oh I know. He's very forgettable! QED

Face facts dude. You have proven nothing. There for there is nothing to concede. I have provided a method for you to see the bias in the NYT, for example, and at least one news article that states how the NYT sets the tone for much of the news coverage in the country. So open your mind just a tiny bit. Read the site I've linked to. Read the NYT and then you'll start to see. Or maybe not?</STRONG>

Maybe not. I've read your precious site, and while I'm glad it exists (I'm for anything that challenges assumptions), it's clearly just a mouthpiece for conservatives who don't like the NYT. That's fine - the NYT does have biases (sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative) and often deserves to be skewered (what paper doesn't?) - but since the site has little depth or objectivity itself, it's of limited use. It's no less partisan than the NYT. Show me a site that offers in-depth analysis, that takes a broader view of things, and I'll care more.

Those people are just hitting a rhetorical ball back and forth, keeping score. That's fine, but on this issue, I'm more interested in people who want to stop and examine the ball.

The concern some of us have is not so much that you think the NYT has biases, but that you only see the bias in one direction ("the liberal media"). Some of us think it's prudent to take a broader view of things.

I said all I really needed to say in my first post - now I'm just repeating myself. Enjoyed it. Cheers.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>So Republicans can dish it out but they can't take it?

Am I surprised? No. Conservatives can make all of the Clinton jokes they want, but when someone makes an obvious joke about Golly Gee Dubya Bush, they get offended. </STRONG>

Oh please? I love bush jokes. I loved all that **** SNL did. They're Bush stuff was crap loads better than the Gore stuff. I think you haven't been around for all the crap your brethren have been posting here. Joke is one thing but to get simple facts wrong? Talk to your people Fran.

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>Scott, you are obviously a loser who has nothing better to do then sit around and watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. I really feel sorry for you. </STRONG>

Fox news yes, Rush no. But I think I already told you that. I guess as soon as they report how many farms could fail due to the Sucker Fish scare you flip away. But i do read the NYT (in earnest) and watch CNN and the local news.

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>You obviously think that you are the only one who is right and are so paranoid that you think that the media is run by the Democratic party. You think that Liberals tried to 'steal' the election of 2000, you think that Liberals are to blame for the loss of the surplus, and you obviously think that Bush is the best President ever.</STRONG>

If I didn't think I was right I'd change what I was thinking People do change my mind. Gore and the Unions tried to steel the election. The liberal Nader voters handed to to Bush like Perot handed it to Clinton. Loss of the surplus? Blame the tax rebate that the Democrats fought for as well as the sag in the economy. Either way it's no matter. Cut the pork and we'll all be better off.

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I feel that I have a moral obligation to help people who are less fortunate than me. My tax dollars (as well as other money) go to help the less fortunate. As a Catholic, I feel that is what is morally right. You, on the other hand, feel that you owe the rest of humanity nothing, and that you should get every measily little cent that you earn back from a government that you think is cheating you. I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm sure you feel that I'm some bleeding heart liberal who wants to steal your money and give it to some 'fat loser on welfare'.</STRONG>

Sure I want to help people. I just don't think the federal government is the best way. I have to laugh when I read what liberals say they are spending their tax cut on..."Help pay for my parents health insurance", "donate it to the local school" Crap! Good from them! It's better than having Uncle Sam take his 50% before maybe thinking about using it for that stuff.

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>But posting things like: "More lies of the Left" is ridiculous. Yes, you have proven you can start a flame war over what was probably a joke to begin with.

Maybe for your next great thread, you can say: "More lies of the Left: Bush not really a Monkey", or "More lies of the Left: Cheney not in Charge". </STRONG>

I've also pointed out how many were made fools by a hoax. Bush not a monkey? I think you can tell for yourself. Cheney in charge? I guess that's more debatable but why would I think that to begin with?

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>Oh, and btw, thank god that idiot Helms is out of the Senate next time around. The last thing the Congress needs is the old Southern boys with their WASP 'values' and greedy attitudes. Now if we could only get Strom to retire, we can put that ugly chapter of American History behind us as well.</STRONG>

That Helms guy was rather "old school" for my taste. I'm looking forward to the day that the ugly chapter of the Chicago Housing Projects is behind us. To me, when I drive past them (on the street mind you not the highway) they look empty. Please God end that horrible liberal experiment and free the minority people from the liberal internment camps! Some old fool on the Senate floor is far less dangerous than a liberal Congress with money and a strong desire to �do something�.

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>I hope this stirs up the Republican Reich like I think it will. Republikkkans like to make 3 page long responses to posts like these.</STRONG>

That's right. A bunch of goose stepping Nazis! Our plan is to make people free and prosperous so they don't vote for a bunch of liberals that promise a free lunch and more dependency. We are evil!

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by zigzag:

As for New York, I never said whether it was Democratic or Republican, nor do I care - you're the one who raised that issue, for reasons that remain unknown to me.

Actually, you raised the issue. You asked "If they don't generally reflect the values of the largest segments of the population, why are they 'major' in the first place?"

If the NY Times and the Washington Post are from a liberal towns, which they are, then, that's how they got to be 'major' in the first place. They do reflect the values of their respective communities and those communities are "liberal".

I explained this in my last post. I don't care. It doesn't matter. They could elect Howdy Doody and it wouldn't affect my argument.

No, it wouldn't.

You're the one who makes the generalized assertion that "the media leans strongly to the left". I think that says more about your particular political leanings than it does about "the media".

You insist it doesn't. This says more about your political leanings than it does about "the media".

Agreed that the boat can be rocked from either side, and that local media isn't much interested in doing so. As I said, because it is interested in maintaining the status quo, I regard this as a predominately "conservative" trait, but I'll re-characterize it as "inert", since we may have different ideas about what "conservative" means.

When's the last time you saw local (or national, for that matter) media stick its neck out for the decriminalization of narcotics? Or portray NAFTA protestors as anything other than goofy hippies? Or question "welfare reform"? Or any number of other "liberal" causes?

This serves to reinforce my point about the perspective of the viewer.

But your original point was that the local media was overwhelmingly conservative. That point isn't reinforced at all. BTW, there are plenty of conservatives who favor decriminalization of narcotics. That's not just a "liberal" cause.

I'm supposed to pose questions that cater to what you already believe?

This is what I wrote, "Then pose questions that have something to do with what I've actually said and not what you've projected onto to me."

What's the big deal here? I'm not asking you to "cater" to anything. Just stick to the facts. Challenge away but challenge me on what I've written not what you "suspect" I really believe.

Duh... 1968-2004 = 36 years. Republicans occupied the White House for 24 of those. That's 2 out of 3 years. It ain't rocket science.

You're right it ain't rocket science. If it was, that rocket would crash. According to you it's 36 years of Republican "dominance". The Republicans apparently "dominated" even during those years when they weren't in power! How did they do that? Do you realize that the Republicans were so "dominant" during Jimmy Carter's Presidency that they held a 144-291 disadvantage during the 94th Congress and a 143- 292 disadvantage during the 95th? It wasn't any better in the Senate either where they held only 38 seats from 1975 to 1979. Also part of your calculation includes the second Bush presidency which is the result of a victory only you see as dominant.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Fran441:
<STRONG>
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I feel that I have a moral obligation to help people who are less fortunate than me. My tax dollars (as well as other money) go to help the less fortunate. As a Catholic, I feel that is what is morally right.</STRONG>

As a Catholic, I would hope you've heard of the principle of subsidiarity. Which is to say we are required to look to the government last when meeting the needs of our neighbor. The response starts with the individual, then the family, then the church, then the larger community, then the state government and lastly, when all the intervening social institutions have fallen short, does the federal government get involved.

<STRONG>I hope this stirs up the Republican Reich like I think it will. Republikkkans...</STRONG>

As a Catholic, you should be ashamed of yourself. Such casual slander doesn't bother you?

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: gwrjr33 ]