Liberal media? I’m shocked!

ah, yet more specious arguments from the knuckleheads on the far right.

will wonders never cease?

let's 'splain it nicely so even you yahoos can understand it:

the right winger premise is that a poll indicating that on the whole, professional news journalists are more liberal in their personal philosophy than the average person, and that this is prima fascia evidence that the "media" is liberal.

there has been no documentation that stands muster from any cited source on this thread that such a personal philosophy leads to a massive skewing of the news reported towards the left. on the contrary, liberals, unlike their bete noirs on the right show more than a modicum of the objectivity which is surely lacking from right wing journalists.

journalists can only publish and broadcast that which has been passed thru the corporate filters of editors, publishers, news program directors or station owners. thus, these journalists are part of large corporations and have achieved their station in life by playing by the same corporate rules that are widespread in america. no journalist is going to get a promotion or raise by rocking the boat, and that boat is called corporate capitalism.

the right wingers erroneously shout that these journalists who describe themselves as liberals are going to undermine their own professional careers by promoting some sort of bolshevik propaganda.

what horse$hit.

it is a false syllogism to point to an aggregate of journalists who call themselves liberal and say it proves that the "media" is itself liberal. disregarding the mere fact that 90% of the media is controlled by 7 multinational corporations, the "media" also includes far more than the journalists who actually wield the least power in deciding what is printed or aired. the real power is in the hands of editors and publishers and broadcast directors and station owners, yet no mention has been made of the political bent of these people at all in the Pew report.

Yet, listening here, the far right insists that the "media" is liberal because one component, journalists, the weakest component is philosopically liberal? what about the editors, publishers, news directors and station owners? are they liberals too, those men and women who actually control the news? or are they typical american capitalist businessmen who care only about the bottom line?

what next from you clowns? micky mouse coming to get your guns? after all disney owns ABC and could broadcast a bunch of liberal hooey about how bad guns are? Or NBC could do a program on the dangers of nuclear power, all the while being itself ownd by general electric which happens to run numerous nuclear power plants?

think you'll ever see that on NBC? neither do i.

but, the case has been put by the far right that journalists who tend to be liberal can miraculously force their opinions on their bosses and brainwash multinational corporations into printing and broadcasting items that will undermine corporate bottom line.

and one can righteously ask just what the fukk planet do you folks live on?

i stated chomsky's analysis earlier and I shall let pass without comment that none of the denizens of darkness from the far right challenged his remarks; because they are so true.

Ya just gotta love it when, in response to background information on townhall (a site expressly and explicitly designed to forward conservative views, and which carries NO OTHER 'writers' - such journalistic balance!) setembri heads over to mediaresearch.org for backup. That's funny.

"Strawman" is misused here, by the way.

To understand where we are in journalism today in the US, you only have to look at how Judith Miller reported the events and facts leading this country to war with Iraq.

Joe

joe

That is a very interesting case, isn't it? A writer with a Pulitzer and some past accomplishments screwing up that badly, and her editors too. The Times editorial last week was a move in the right direction, but it wasn't really enough. The ombudsman piece published just after was very much better.

I'm less than optimistic. Continued concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few corporate entities doesn't suggest a happy consequence for informed electorates.

Well said, Blatham.

I think the toughest journalist out there is Jon Stewart, from the Daily Show. He manages to express a sense of shock on a daily basis at how incompetent our government is.

I love their tagline 'The Daily Show - where more people get their news, than should.'

Cycloptichorn

cyclo

Stewart is a funny guy, and clearly has a great team of writers. Good satire is such a lovely way of addressing political and social dumbnesses. One can't rely just on satire - at some point, the nitty gritty of policy has to be detailed - but satire and humor work really well to remind us that seriousness can head in the direction of pathology and obsession.

I think Stewart is a great guy, personally.

I remember after 9/11, he had 3 straight months of government officials, scientists, and experts on foriegn relations as guests on his show, with the intent of calming people down. He specifically said over and over that the best way to let the terrorists win is to change our ways of life because of them.

I'm sure you could point out the idiocies of any president the same way, but writing for his show must be the easiest job in the world - the admin gives him SO much material to work with.

The other day he had John McCain on, who had some great comments about our current work in Iraq. It was nice to see a conservative (not a neo-conservative) weigh in on events. I sure wish that guy would run as VP for Kerry...

Cycloptichorn

Maybe Kerry should run as McCain's VP. That might actually encouraqge Mccain to run.

[quote="blatham]No, I haven't read it (Bernie Goldberg's book) yet. But I know I have to, so I guess I better pick it up tomorrow.[/quote]

That's our courageous blatham!

BTW - You don't get your medal until you actually read it.

"Debunked?"

By whom, and how?

If the press were overwhelmingly liberal, isn't this exactly what you would expect them believe?

To borrow a previously used phrase "It's great to see a Liberal score on his own goal."

finn

Thank you kindly. Shall we have a race to see whether I complete Goldman's book before you finish Alterman's?

Can this possibly be the generally civil gentleman kuvasz I knew and liked on Abuzz?

Say it ain't so Kuv.

CHOMSKY SPEAKS: 90% of what americans see from the print news and airwaves is run by 7 multinational companies whose ceos would be boiled in oil for advocating anything but the bottom line to their stockholders.

The major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger corporations, they sell a product to a market. The product they sell is the popular viewer, their customers are the corporations that buy advertising, and the picture of the world represented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Profits and the issues drive the media and items reported are for the financial benefit of the companies that own these enterprises. The fact that the posing of the information delivered is not for the benefit of the people, as we would define the presses role is obvious. No issues will be debated or given much play that make the audience, advertisers or press them uncomfortable, regardless of its value to the nation and its people.


This is a good explanation for why the quality of journalism (print and TV) is eroding, but it proves nothing relative to whether or not there is, generally, a liberal bias running through the news media.

There are at least two flawed premises to the conclusion of Chomsky's argument:

That an "uncomfortable" viewer will cease to watch a particular program, or that an "uncomfortable advertiser" will cease to sponsor it.

I'm sure Chomsky chose the term "uncomfortable" to underscore how timid media corporation may be when it comes to even possibly putting their profits in peril, but the truth is that simple discomfort is not enough to drive away viewers or advertisers.

The second flawed premise is that a liberal bias in the media creates something more than simple annoyance in viewers - assuming they even perceive it. His argument is that since a liberal bias would drive viewers and advertisers away in droves, the media corporations would never allow it, and thus there is no liberal bias.

When a liberally biased product is the only one available, does the viewer/reader who is not content swear off news? Of course not. As long as the product is not obvious propaganda, they'll grit their teeth and accept it as the only easily available source.

For example: There is only one 'major' newspaper in the city of Charlotte NC. It has a liberal bias. Are there more balanced sources of press news out there? Of course. Are there more conservative sources of press news out there? Of course. But for the average Joe and Jane who wants a reasonably priced newspaper delivered to the door in the early AM so that it can be read while reading the first cup of coffee in the morning -- in Charlotte, there is only the Charlotte Observer. I venture to say that it is much the same throughout the country.

If you don't have cable, where are you getting your TV news?

Local stations are good for quantity of local news and fancy Weather reports, but not much else.

For national and world news the viewer is left with ABC, CBS, and NBC. All liberally biased. Don't like it? Don't watch TV News.

"Liberal Bias" is usually subtle, but this doesn't mean its not effective, simply that it's not going to ring bells in corporate headquarters.

As for the associated argument that editors don't allow everything and anything to get published or aired, there's plenty of truth there, however the argument seems to ignore the fact that the editors usually come from the ranks of reporters. There isn't some process going on that selects the rare conservative reporter and puts him or her is an editor's spot so that the overwhelmingly liberal reporters can be held in check.

If reporters are allowing their bias to color their reporting, why wouldn't editors allow their bias to color their editing?

I don't know why liberals won't just honestly exult that they have engineered remarkable victories by establishing a controlling influence if not direct control over the new media in general, public education in total, social services of every stripe, the movie industry, and the Methodist and Episcopalian churches.

How will we know who won?

I know I can be trusted, but.....you are a liberal, afterall.

finn

I don't think it likely there will be any dilemma in this for you. If I were to win, that would mean I'd read a right-wing book. If I were to lose, you could brag to your mom how you'd whupped me. In either case, you end up flat on the mat. I will only become smarter, and your mom still won't be impressed.

My mom (God rest her soul) would have had to be sober to be much impressed by anything and that would have provided me with but a narrow window of opportunity.

In any case, wouldn't bragging about whupping you be something akin to bragging about making it through another day?

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that a right-wing book will make you smarter. I've resisted Alterman's book because I'm sure it will only make me more bored.

At your apparent age, perhaps so.

Again, and despite Kuvasz' put down.

The Pew Report stated that 34% of the reporters identified themselves as liberal while only 7% identified themselves as conservative.

Kuvasz pointed out( and he is correct) that there is no documentation( no empirical evidence) that such a personal philosophy would lead to a massive skewing of the news. Kuvasz is demanding proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.

He may certainly do so.

I, likewise, demand, empirical proof. I demand empirical proof that President Bush told lies when he commented on the presence of WMD's in Iraq. Of course, I define a lie as defined in Black's Law Dictionary.

Now, those who demand proof beyond the shadow of a doubt are hoist on their own petard when they accuse the media of a conservative bias.

Those of us who read the news and the Pew Report who do not demand proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, come to the common sense conclusion that people( who, after all, earn their living writing) are very likely to infuse their writing with their personal philosophies if only in the adjectives, adverbs and verbs they use.

Kuvasz excoriates the corporations for not allowing stories about the dangers of "nuclear power".

I am very much afraid that the last movie Kuvasz viewed was the scary one about nuclear power with Jane Fonda( of all people). Nuclear power is much much safer today and contributes to far less pollution than coal burners( even if they are scrubbed) and automobiles.

None of Kuvasz' complaints about the allegedly conservative corporations that own the airwaves will ever convince me that The New York Times and the Washington Post( arguably the most imporatant and influential newspapers in the country) are conservative leaning instead of liberal leaning

And, of course, everyone knows that Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw are conservatives.

Sure.

Blatham cites the misuse of "Strawman".

My dictionary says that "strawman" means " a weak or unimportant argument or theory".

Blatham's citation of Townhall is certainly a "weak or unimportant argument" since the original citation was from the Pew Report--not Townhall.

Kuvasz' comment concerning journalists "miraculously forcing their opinions on their bosses and brainwashing multinational corporations" reveals that he does not believe that journalists make subjective decisions their entire working lives. They decide what to cover and what not to cover; what sources to use and which not to use; what quotes to use in a story and what quotes not to use in a story.

When I read a story about Baghdad and am assailed with a quote from one " Ali Baba Baba" , I wonder why a quote from this man?

How did the reporter select the person? How many quotes did he gather? Why did he choose that particular quote.

I must really state that I really do not know how to evaluate the following type of comment that appears in almost every NEWS story about Iraq.

The controversy concerning the elections is echoed by MANY Iraqis.

Really? How MANY?