Doesn't hating "main-stream media" mark you as one on the fringe?

Hating, probably.

I'm skeptical of the mainstream media though... I see bias of various types all the time. I get my news from a variety of sources for that reason.

Disenfranchised perhaps, but not fringe.

Ever watch CNN talk about the upcoming election with a "panel of experts" and they're all flaming liberals? Hell, hate FOX if you want but they at least always give airtime to the enemy.

You make my point. You're viewpoint is rather far right. (Or perhaps hyper-partisan would be a better phrase.)

To you, nearly everyone is a "flaming liberal." You're so far out of main stream that the stream is a dot to you.

Doubt is an admirable quality. But skepticism is not the same as someone who just doesn't listen to anything that challenges their pre-conceived notions.

Depends on what you mean by "mainstream media". I myself come pretty close to hating all the major TV networks in America. Liberal or conservative, their research is sloppy, their political discourse has sunk to the level of gossip, and their air time is wasted on superficial, self-absorbed talking heads. If people think these networks are a national disgrace, maybe it isn't because the people belong to the idiot fringe. Maybe it's because the networks are a disgrace.

Newspapers are another matter. In my opinion, the liberal New York Times, the conservative Wall Street Journal, and the agnostic USA Today are all superb, for example.

I'll agree with you about "news" on television. It has become nothing more than a ratings competition.

Hardly, I am the mainstream. You're the one out of touch.

no, it marks me as a person who actually realizes the place of the mainstream media in our current society, viz., that of a private instrument for shaping public consent for the benefit of an economic oligarchy.

The mainstream media is simply the way that conventional wisdom is broadcast akin to advertising. The product that is being sold is a form of reality.

I have a hard time buying the idea that everything on TV is a conspiracy to keep our corporate overlords in place.

The NYT pisses me off regularly, too.

It's still the only paper I have delivered. I think it's one of the best. But I frequently (usually at least once a day) scowl at biased or sloppy reporting there, too.

That's the difference though. You can reasonably expect quality from the New York Times, and can reasonably be disappointed when they don't deliver it. By contrast, there's just no point being disappointed in ABCNBCCBSCNNFOX anymore.

And who knew you're farther on the fringe than I am?

Good point.

I never really watch those though anyway... CNN is about it. They also piss me off pretty regularly.

yesterday, the Lady Diane cut and pasted into an email to me from The Nation (a left wing rag that I occasionally agree with), the article she sent me was so full of misleading innuendo and just plain shoddy journalism that the Lady and I took it line by line eventually disregarding every item in the article.

It's a sad statement about the land of Benjamin Franklin, but the only good news service in America seems to be BBC -- and NPR/PBS, which rely heavily on BBC, too.

When Kennedy was in the White House,
I hated his leftist,
soft on communism approach, with a passion.

That hatred was hard on me.

Its not worth the emotional investment.

I oppose hatred.

you don't need to broadcast blatant propaganda to convince people of something if the same perspective is reinforced elswhere.

as an example, in 2002- 2003 phil donaghue was the highest rated show on MSNBC, yet he was canceled. i think it was because that only his show was pronouncedly against the war in iraq, and the people who ran NBC, say General Electric were making a lot of money in the war. likewise with ABC not runniong negative repoerts on diseney or again, not having NBC investigating nuclear power due to General Electric's position in that particular business.

its the self-censorship that causes the concern

the networks are sloppy. cnn is fairly clean. i admit that msnbc is demo-leaning. and olberman has always been ga-ga over obama. matthews is tough and generally fair in his interviews, even if in only making sure he talks over guests equally.

david gregory is a total pro as far as i'm concerned.

fox has shepard smith, who i feel is fairly even most of the time. tony snow was excellent. but beyond the continuous parade of eye candy, i don't have much use for anything else about the channel. allan colmes is a hopeless milquetoast, hannity is a pompous and belligerent ass rivaled only by the shameless self promotion of bill o' loofah.

the one source i miss out of all of 'em is ted koppel. the dude was straight on and meticulous in his research and vetting. i know he still does some stuff, but it's just not the same.

guess we'll know more about what the mainstream is on wednesday morning.