WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Blatham: thanks, I think I've got the gist of what you mean.

You've been surfing, fishin' and yes, there are some anti-Bush sites that go out on a limb and fall off. Those that are swamped with conspiracy theories (at least those that cannot be proven) are also fodder for small minded people. The right wing sites have only Tom Daschel to zero in on, or at least they had him in their sites -- he was a lackluster politician whose spirit may have been in a good place but wasn't able to articulate it within the Washington political structure. Ditto, Dick Gebhardt. However, I'd like you to come up with one objective right wing site that doesn't indulge in sensationalistic tabloid style news reporting. Internet only, not mirror sites of periodicals (I do admit there are some conventional publications like the Wall Street Journal who are more objective and less furtive and volatile). The internet being an anarchy, anything goes.

I don't have to surf LW. I've seen the standard references posted on Abuzz as 'proof' of most everything! lol

Ah, blueflame and company -- well, they've dug into the Interent and dredged up the same tired old sites that have been around since Al Gore invented the Internet! I'm just saying that perhaps it's not good that liberal sites on the internet are generally low key and don't endulge in editorializing the news to a fault and blasting everything out in "sound bite" headlines. It's garbage bag journalism on both sides and the fact that there's so much on the Internet that's uncooberated sound bites.

Better to be dredged up than drudged up?

One of the things the vast majority of political commentators are guilty of is spin. Rush Limbaugh is no exception. To me, he is a pretentious windbag, with a large dose of megalomania. Despite that, I will tune him in, usually in my car when I am driving somewhere.

Why? If I strip through the horse manure, sometimes I find that he has a decent idea or two. For that reason also I read newspapers and periodicals from both the left and the right.

I think what happens in politics, that people become so polarized, that there is this feeling that they are committing treason if they dare espouse a view from "the other side".

Since I am not emotionally connected to either political party, I attempt to keep an open mind, and search for the positive, no matter where in the political spectrum it resides!

Rush is an entertainer -- the ringmaster of the scatter brained far right. There's barely any difference between him and Jerry Falwell except Fallwell is lurking in the Old Testament with Yahweh. The cable shows put Falwell on like a circus sends out the dancing bear. However, there are those who think the dancing bear has brains.

Clearly, as fishin suggested earlier, there is a tendency with most/all of us to see extremism or bias in the opposing camp. That is the main reason I do rah rah for reasoned and cautious debate and why I despise trite party slogans and folks who aren't careful in reflecting on their own assumptions. How do we make any progress just insisting on how right our own ideas are?

My fundamental criterion for judging the worth of what exits from a person's mouth is whether he/she avoids the trite, offers up the opposing arguments and acknowledges what strength they carry, and who now and again says "Damn, I was wrong".

These are fairly objective tools for measuring bias and it is the case that Rush and Coulter fail them miserably.

As to why folks buy into such inane stuff (from either side) seems quite likely to be simply a part of our social animal heritage. Confidence and certainty are comforting. Politicians are usually quite aware of this, thus, for example, the statement from one of Bush's aides two or three months ago that falling back from the 'get Iraq' position would do damage to Bush's reputation.

A counterweight to Limbaugh -- with probably much larger viewing numbers: Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." Like Rush, they've got no set agenda except to lambast folks at the other (right) end of the spectrum (in addition to mean-spirited but often hysterical segments on, you know, whatever).

As for Moore, the reasons in the article point to a lot of why he's not asked on T.V. much, I'd think. Another big one may be that he tends to come off as a pedant. He's always got something to teach, to expose; most people are more comfortable being confirmed and galvanized in what they already think and (think they) know about.

(He's also got a tendency to get overexcited and exaggerate or misrepresent some of his material which, to those who notice, undercuts his argument, however valid it may be.)

Jon Stewart is also an entertainer and he is highly effective with his rolled eyes and deadpan delivery. It's satire and when Clinton was in, he got just as much flak from the show.

I don't know how Ann Coulter can be dumb enough to show up on Bill Maher's show. He is very cordial toward her until she comes up with one of her extremist views and then she gets it with both barrels. She stutters and falters at the counter attack and Maher always guides the group away or break to a commercial. No commercials on HBO! The confrontation is fun and I think it's more planned in advance that Coulter goes with the flow of the humorous part. I still think it makes her look even dumber than she usually appears.

I thought Maher faltered a lot with the move to the network (from when the show was on the nascent Comedy Central). It'll be interesting to see how the show changes on the anything-goes network. Certainly opened up a lot of material for Dennis Miller.

I did like the show better when it was on Comedy Central -- it got increasingly more uptight as Bill tested the waters. I equate the whole thing to the precedent set by the Smother's Brothers cancellation. It's that corporate boardroom mentality! Remember, those are the same people who get together to decide if there should be another setting on a blender.

I am anxiously awaiting what Bill will do on HBO -- I'm sure it will be sassy, funny and invigorating.

Huh? This is as close to a comparison of apples and orangutans as I've ever read. The right has always mewled about the pervasive liberalism in the media, but they can't ever really point it out. The left is so so clever. Those sneaky radicals, Oprah and Rosie, hid their political leanings pretty well, I must have missed their programs on Tax Policy and Federal Appointees to Federal Bench.
Their programs are mostly about the personal empowerment of people, and in particular, women. Is that political? Is the right against such talk? I would think they would be for such talk.
Rivera and Donahue, who haven't had a regular TV gig since the Reagan Administration, weren't known for the kind of righteous advancement of an idealogy that Rush spews forth each afternoon. It must have been their subtle hints at social ills that got them branded as pervasively liberal, because when they tore into the ills of Welfare programs they didn't get any credit from the right, I guess they were just having a bad day.
Is it just that Limbaugh brays that he has a political agenda and the others don't that makes them somehow suspect?
The Fox Network now generates more GOP spin stories than the RNC public relations desk, but that's supposed to be okay because we supposedly had so many years of liberal bias in the media, but when you ask where the comparable network news show was, the Rights mutter about CBS and the Viet Nam war and how Cronkite and his team treated the Watergate story.
Um...they broadcast facts, not spin. That's not liberal, that's journalism.

And where was this liberal media during the Carter Administration, or better, during the Clinton Administration? Answer:they were never there because there never was a liberal bias in the media. It's just something that the Conservatives liked to say over and over again and now it seems to have taken the form of fact, but it was never true.
The American tv and radio news mediums have for the better part of the last seventy years been staunchly conservative. (Ask the Smothers) Prior to cable, the three networks were so conservative in their views that it took both the Red Lion and the Equal Time decisions and the introduction of PBS to get any slightly liberal ideas on the air. With the advent of cable the hew and cry of Conservatives was that we would soon be awash with Green Party and Pinko/Commie propaganda, instead we got an even more conservative network CNN, followed by the aforementioned FOX. I would like to hear a voice opposing the dismantling of our Constitutional rights under this administration, where should I tune in?

Joe Nation

Great, another one that can't friggin' read. What part of "what was seen as" and "while not specificlly political talk shows" didn't register with you?

You missed their political discussions? Apparently the rest of the world didn't.

Oprah: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/winfreyopra/winfreyopra.htm

"The centrepiece of both her wealth and public presence continues to be her daily talk show which is also broadcast successfully internationally. Borrowing the "run and microphone thrust" device from Phil Donahue she makes the television audience part of the performance. With this and other techniques, Oprah has managed to create both an interesting public forum that transforms the feminist position that "the personal is political" into a vaguely political television program."

Phil: http://www.msnbc.com/news/755973.asp

"During the 1992 presidential campaign, "Donahue" presented a unique and unprecedented television debate between then-candidates Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown. This forum ?- with no moderator, audience or viewer calls ?- allowed the candidates to discuss issues without interruption, prior to the New York primary in April, 1992. The "Donahue" debate was carried live by C-Span.
In 1985 and 1986, before Glasnost, Mr. Donahue introduced satellite "spacebridge" telecasts between the United States and the then-Soviet Union, co-hosted by Russian political commentator and journalist Vladimir Pozner. In 1987, Donahue brought his talk show to Russia for a week of programs. He was the first Western journalist to visit Chernobyl after the nuclear accident.
In 1984, Donahue and Ted Koppel of ABC News moderated the Democratic Presidential Debate, sponsored by the house Democratic Caucus and Dartmouth College, and broadcast nationally on PBS. The segment hosted by Donahue featured eight Democratic presidential candidates in a town hall meeting format, responding to questions from the moderator and a studio audience.
Donahue has also appeared on such programs as ABC News "Nightline" and "Crossfire" on CNN. He is a frequent contributor to newspaper editorial pages, having written op-ed articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and Newsday. His subjects have included the presidency and the media, interviews with New York City's mayoral candidates and reflections on his Catholic school education. Donahue is the author of a best-selling 1979 autobiography, "Donahue: My Own Story" and "The Human Animal" (1985), which examines the complexities of human behavior.
The "Donahue" show has also enjoyed worldwide success, recognized from Russia to Australia. "Donahue" was the first talk show to air on a regular basis in Russia. Donahue has interviewed many prominent international figures from Nelson and Winnie Mandela to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to Israel's Ariel Sharon."

Geraldo: http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/bio/celeb/1673836 (this one doesn't even mention his whimpering run for Mayor of NYC..)

"Though his crusading approach to TV journalism recalled his earlier activism, he did not escape criticism for what many perceived as an increasingly egotistical and abrasive manner. Some resented his political stances on various issues, while others felt that his flashy, angry style needlessly sensationalized his reporting."

Rosie: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/entertainment/DailyNews/rosieodonnell112000.html

"O'Donnell has become more politically active in Democratic causes and last year engaged in a tense on-air debate on gun control with Tom Selleck. A day before the election this month, she gave Barbra Streisand a platform to promote Gore's candidacy. Streisand said O'Donnell's syndicators didn't like the idea.
Some stations have been concerned about O'Donnell's political activism, Carroll said. "No one wants her to not express her feelings, but at the same time, that's not necessarily the best format for it," he said."

Maybe it's time you woke up and smelled the coffee..

Did anyone else see the interview when Rosie O'Donnell went on Bill O'Reilly's show? It was incredible. I came away with a lot of respect for Rosie. She stepped up, spoke her mind, and--most importantly--acknowledged where she thought she had been wrong.

When Bill challenged her on her statement that anyone who owns a gun should go to jail, she said straight out that she was wrong when she said it, that it was the day after Columbine and she was reacting out of emotion as a mother. She showed herself to be someone willing to consider her points of view and alter them when she found them wanting.

I respect that. I don't agree with her on a lot of stuff, but I respect her nonetheless. (And it's nice to know that she's moving a little in my direction on some issues too!)

I had liked Rosie, previously. When I saw her slash Tom Selleck over the gun issue, I got mad. When I heard that she was a disgusting hypocrite- yelling from her bully pulpit about the evils of gun ownership-- all the while employing a gun-toting bodyguard for her child, I turned completely off on her. She'd lost all credibility with me.

And, I was very proud of her when she had the guts to go on O'Reilly and be truthful. It was rare and noble.

Hope she doesn't flip again. I'm running out of emotions.

The bottom line for the prevalence of conservative political programming is the bottom line. Something which doesn't sell advertising doesn't get much airtime. The only charity in broadcasting is to be found on PBS and NPR. That is also mainly where "The Liberals" are found. I suspect that is not coincidence.



timber

My problem is solved.
Yep. That's my problem. I can't read and I can't write, it must be the fault of those teacher's unions. :wink:

And this guy is wrong too. Conservatives have no advantage, in fact, liberalism is pervasive in the media.
No wait, sorry, it's not pervasive,
it's subtle,
it's not specific.
it's vague.
it's there if you look for it,
and it's everywhere where someone is being allowed to speak their own mind rather than the conservative rant.
Especially if they are embarassing GM or GE. Shame on those liberal bullies for picking on corporations that are only a hundred thousand times their size!
Excuse me, here comes my coffee. Hmmmmm Oh, now I see (I'm playing a tape of the liberals on TV, .... Here's a live debate on ! C-Span! Wow. Those pervasive liberals!) (And look it's two, TWO actors being interviewed about what they think. No wait, one of them is Tom and he can't think of what to say and the other ought to be singing instead of speaking, so I don't know if that's pervasive subtle or vague.) (Okay, I'm watching the Oprah show now, wait I have to fast forward through all this stuff about Finding your Spirit, ...nope nothing here, oh wait, she's plugging a bunch of sappy books, sappy is liberal, isn't it? YES! I see it. I see the vast left wing conspriscy.

So the question should be how can we provide the American audience with more of the Conservative view on public and monetary policy? Why can't the corporations who control the programming get rid of the liberal bias and provide more time for those of us who want fewer controls on pollution, larger, HUGE tax cuts, less focus on Enronish mis-deeds and the freedom to withhold freedom from whoever we want, for whatever reason?
Please can't someone tell where the anti-liberal pundits are? I need someone to tell me what to think.....
Joe Nation

I doubt that the question as to whether news & commentary in the media contains more liberal or conservative bias has a knowable answer. Certainly there's plenty of bias on both sides, and most of us are a bit more sensitive to the bias we don't like than to the stuff we favor. Like Blatham, most of us (myself included) treat as axiomatic that our own views are centrist, reasonable and balanced, while others are "trite" and filled with contradiction or other elements of bad form. We can't all be right.

I believe much of the debate can be explained by the observation that Rush Limbaugh is an unusually gifted commentator and phrasemaker which makes him engaging to people who agree with him as well as others. I suspect his appeal has something, but not much, to do with his politics.

While the picture in the area of news & commentary may be a bit confused it is interesting to me that in most aspects of entertsainment there is indeed (in my view at least) a very decided liberqal bias.

fishin

I'm quite clearly with Joe Nation on this, and think his tongue in cheek descriptions of the content of Oprah and such are more correct than your portrayal. Daytime TV has, greatly, a female audience, so issues such as child care for example are entirely relevant.

And an address to corporate malfeasance and misbehavior isn't left wing, it is responsible citizenship (Love Canal).

Bill Bennett wouldn't agree with me, but Bill is a suspect voice for me as he fits in that category of people who feel justified in over-riding my own wishes and stated opinions about how I ought to live my life because he undertands better than I what really makes me happy and free.