Wed 27 Nov, 2002 04:45 pm
Every now and then accusations about what slant a news source tends toward is made. Often the alledged slant is the converse of another equally firm allegation.
Is the Guardian right or left? It seems obvious to me but I've heard as many opinions about their slant as there are writers for the paper.
So, without getting into stupid conspiracy theories, what slant do the news sources you read (or watch) have?
Remember that slant is by nature hard to quantify so let's not get pedantic about this. Also terms like right, left, conservative and liberal have different meanings to different peoples so let's take that into account as well.
My offhand opinions:
Fox :: heavy right/conservative, often sensationalist (mainly to be the "opposition" station)
The Guardian :: very left of center, far too much editorializing.
The New York Times :: center/liberal/left (pretty balanced but it is not too conservative). This is the most powerful newspaper on earth.
The Washington Post :: The second most powerful newspaper on earth is quite conservative IMO.
WSJ :: conservative.
TIME magazine :: liberal
Ha'aretz :: left of center, represents the center/dove camp in Israel
Jesrusalem Post :: right and hawkish
Drudge :: a glorified weblog and is sensationalist, right, and conservative but is varied enough to not make this too obvious (since 90% of the news it features is just a link to someone else)
CNN :: The site is centrist as far as US media is concerned, I never watch it.
I'll continue this later and if international media becgins to be discussed I'll opine on that as well.
Craven- You seem to know quite a bit more about this than I do, but my understanding was that the Washington Post is considered liberal. It is the Washington Times that is very conservative!
I consider the Post to be more conservative than the NYT but I'm sure it won't be the only opinion I stated above that will get challenged. I've never seen a major paper where everyone agrees on what leaning it has (except when it's slant is stated).
Hmmm.. Other than a few UK papers I don't know much of the International press. My view of the US News Media:
"IndyMedia" (these are scattered all over on the Web..)
Left of center:
Right of Center:
NY Daily News
Dallas Morning News
It's interesting that you point to Drudge as being on the "Conservative" or "Right". For the first few years Drudge was the poster child for the left. Once they stepped up to the plate and admitted that Gore wasn't as wonderful as he was being portrayed by his campaign handlers he was suddenly cast of by the left as right-wing extremism.
BUt, After just reading today's Boston Globe and this thread I have another thread in the making concerning a little larger scope.. Stay tuned! lol
Re Drudge, I didn't know much about his past image or any of that about Gore.
He is on the very bottom of the pecking order for me, I only read to see what sensationalist tid bit I missed in the other few hundred papers.
I think he is a populist and is only as right/conservative as the times (not the paper) are.
I don't know much about Drudge's past either, but am surprised to learn he was ever considered a lefty. I read some his "reports" through Abuzz, and those were all alarmist drivel. Only about 3 total, so maybe that happened to be the worst of what he has to say.
it is clearly a matter of perception, and where you're reading from. Most of the u.s. media listed by craven and fishin seem further right than either of them has defined them as. I suspect that's because there doesn't seem to be much balance on the other side available in the american mainstream - it's either middle or right, which makes the middle-ish stuff seem left-leaning to americans who don't follow world media.
My father has started reading a variety of middle-eastern/muslim papers on the web. Some of the articles he has forwarded have been very well-balanced - truly not what i would expect to read if i just followed american media.
Iraqis hail return of UN inspectors
Times Of India (þTuesday, þNovember þ26, þ2002) BAGHDAD: Iraqis in the bustling souqs of Baghdad hailed the UN arms inspectors' return on Monday but expressed fear the slightest incident could be used as a pretext for a US-led war on their sanctions-stricken country.
I agree that perception is everything in this. I also agree that international media tends to be "lefter" than does US media but IMO US media tends to be "lefter" than the average US citizen.
Most of the world is probably left of the average u.s. citizen. Which is why their media seems right or vaguely centrist to the rest of us.
To judge the 'left' or 'right' of a media has a lot to do, from where we look it.
And certainly the content may vary as well, e.g. different views on domestic and international affairs.
A lot of the international direction has to do, IMHO, if the media has own correspondants in foreign countries or uses news agencies.
(US-American daily paper's own correspendants in e.g. Germany are only by The Times (2), Los Angeles Times (2) and Washington Post (1).)
I am glad to see that conservative talk radio hosts -- Rush Limbaugh in particular -- are being taken on by Democrats such as Al Gore and Sen. Tom Daschle.
These hosts -- e.g., Mike Reagan, Sean Hannity, et al --
seem to think they have the only solution to any given situation and that those who disagree with them should be hounded from our midst as unfit to live with.
Fair commentary, from any end of the spectrum, is welcomed. The right-wing radio gurus, however, are very often hateful. Their attitudes of hate seem to validate many opinions from their listeners. These listeners, then, have their own cheerleaders for extremist and rightist views. These views are unbalanced from centrist-to-leftist commentators .
A citizen from another country would think our country a rabid society were talk radio the only form of media to which they are exposed.
The liberal and conservative viewpoints are now so muddled that it's difficult to tell them apart on a lot of issues. Are we talking a liberal interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to a conservative interpretation? Or liberal as in "live and let live" and conservative as in "everyone should live exactly like me.?" I think there are three viewpoints in politics that are easier to discern:
1. Progressive (new ideas and ways to make them work)
2. Stagnant (sit still just as you are and do not accept change that's out
of your control without a groan)
3. Regressive (get in a time machine and go back to 1500 AD or maybe
clear back to Biblical times?)
Or liberal as in "live and let live" and conservative as in "everyone should live exactly like me.?"
I'd actually reverse those two "definitions" (for lack of a better word) but your point is well taken. The whole concept of parties is skewed today in the US. The party allegiance is much like the national "patriotism" issue from the other thread.
fishin', you caught on immediately -- they are virtually interchangable and therefore really mean nothing.
Some in the media would have us believe "liberal" is a nasty word and vice-versa for "conservative."
With television and other newer technology, either side can plot their platforms without any input from voters.
Political conventions have become "staged" events, much like the Reagan presidency.
Labels have supplanted ideas for most people in the U.S., I think. If the parties switched platforms I'd be willing to bet that two-thirds of their members wouldn't switch parties. (Not that it'd be that big a switch once you got past a the handful of polarizing issues that they like make central to debate so that you can tell the difference.)
A Vote for Zachary Taylor is a vote for the future ! ! !
I'm wit you, Maxsdadeo . . .
A President Taylor could be no worse than a President Bush . . .