WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

blatham--

Do you get Oprah in Canada? I take offense to your sexist characterization that women are only interested in child-care issues. That's very dismissive of women as a group. I thought liberals were supposed to have cornered the market on treating people with equality.

Had one of Bush's appointees (or a Republican) made such a sexist gaffe, people like you would be calling for his head.

Are you an American?

0 Replies

george

It's very pleasing to find common ground with you. May I throw out two ideas to address a couple of your points. Please give me any feedback you think relevant.

First, as regards a liberal bias in entertainment...I think so too. But I believe this is the nature of the artist and the artistic project. Few endeavors that we humans engage in are more needful of freedom, and creation of new ideas. Scientific R and D might be the best comparison. This is bound to bump up against the 'conservative' or the 'established'. The birth control pill was not a cultural change without friction, because it altered older ideas and values. Much art directs itself precisely at exploding old ideas to see what lies beneath.

Second, on Rush and commentary of the sort...his notions and speech are not just dramatic (as opposed to cautiously academic) they are also simple - white hat, black hat stuff. I'm afraid that too many people too often look for or need an easy answer for psychological comfort.

0 Replies

blatham - I believe that perhaps both Joe and yourself have taken my words out of context and blown them into something that was never said. You are reading thihngs into the words that don't exist.

Joe's assertion that my post was somehow a direct comparison of Oprah to Rush is so far off base it's laughable.

I asserted, and maintain, that the 4 specific people I listed have/had political leanings that were/are visable to their audience. Those people's very own biographies which I'm quite certain they or their agents had a hand in writing mention some of the politcial topics that have been discussed on their shows. If people chose to ignore or play off the influence of several hours of TV programming that is on the 3 major networks in the US every weekday afternoon as irrelevant that's their choice but it is burying their head in the sand and a refusal to accept the reailty of what is and has been going on.

Regardless of who their audience is it is foolish to believe that those who watch these shows day in and day out aren't influenced by the views of the host and the guests they bring onto their shows. While none of them are/were as "in your face" as Rush is the influence still exists. Can you identify ANY politcial commentary the was EVER discusssed on Rosie's show where she didn't push the view espoused by, or voiced disagreement with, the Democratic National Party?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Which would seem to suggest that people are more interested in listening to conservative point of view than liberal ones.

Now it puzzles me that the response to this among the Democrat party leadership has been to discuss how they might fabricate a market for a message that apparently few people want to hear. Seems to me it would be more logical to take a step back and ask "what's wrong with our message?".

===

By the way, I assume you are writing of a "prevalence of conservative political programming" on talk radio and to some extent, Fox news. I think you'd find it hard to sell the notion that the rest of the media features a predominantly conservative message.

0 Replies

I've seldom read so much blather about what is basically a paranoia amongst those on the right and left. A commentary on TV is feared to be changing someone's political bent? I really doubt that -- I don't think liberal Democrats en masse are flocking to FOX and are being "changed." People generally turn on what they are entertained by, not like many of us here who will turn on something just to see how much we disagree. This fantasy that the media is controlled by the right or left is an interesting premise but totally unprovable. How can Peter Jenning's reporting of the news be construed to convince anyone to become a liberal Democrat? I certainly haven't perceive any subliminal message. It's known he is a liberal Democrat but if he's hypnotized his audience like a TV Svengali to change their political positions, that's a neat trick. Perhaps he should be on one of those magic shows like David Copperfield.

0 Replies

BTW, don't have to remind anyone here that Rush is no longer on TV. Anyone know the reason why?

0 Replies

I shall now exclaim, if not 'ditto', something of similar meaning to Lightwizard's last post.

fishin...I really do think that LW has it closer to the truth of things than anyone else, including myself, has stated the case on this issue.

Lash...I was speaking to the demographics of day time TV which networks and advertisers have figured out pretty well for decades, and how programming and advertising gets targeted. I was making no suggestion that women are only interested in doing dishes spotlessly clean.

0 Replies

its the yellow waxy build-up that bothers me.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

fishin...I really do think that LW has it closer to the truth of things than anyone else, including myself, has stated the case on this issue.

Well, I also agree with his statements concerning an overall bias one way or the other in the media as a whole but I disagree that no one is influenced by what they see on TV or hear on the radio (and Sentana has a thread that hits on that very issue..). I chuckle every time I see someone point to CNN as a Bush patsy. Just a few years ago there were claims that "CNN" stood for "Clinton News Network".

And yes, to the majority extent most of these programs on either side are entertainment. But how many times have you seen people quote Television/Radio sources as "proof" of positions? Whether the views expressed are subtle or in your face, people pick up on "facts" from them and many DO believe those to be "fact" - whether those "facts" are true or just spin (or flat out lies..).

0 Replies

fishin

Yes, one's wishes for both more education and more discernment in the audience generally. It is one of the sadnesses of my life that universal education has, though making some certain if immeasurable progress, still left us with such a proportion of our populations (your country and mine) really quite uncurious and incautious.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

This fantasy that the media is controlled by the right or left is an interesting premise but totally unprovable. How can Peter Jenning's reporting of the news be construed to convince anyone to become a liberal Democrat?

With respect, LW, this is a good example with what I think is wrong with a lot of your responses in these discussions. You take a premise; the media has a liberal bias, and imbue it with a meaning no one else has suggested; that it constitutes an effort to turn people into liberal Democrats, then you argue that this notion you alone have fabricated is absurd, which it often is since you crafted precisely for its absurdity.

Peter Jennings doesn't try to turn people into liberal Democrats, though I firmly believe that any person given the wrong information often enough and long enough will make the wrong decision. Biased reporting can and does influence how people vote, but that's a whole other discussion.

The bias in the media and in people like Jennings is evident in what he reports and how he reports it. But rather than go down a road that I have no reason to believe will end with you seeing that point, let me make a more general point instead.

Consider a news story regarding the two stimulus packages currently being floated. They bring in economists to discuss which package is best. Would the background of the economists chosen to comment be likely to influence his or her opinion of the two packages?

First, suppose they chose to interview four economists, two who support package A and two who support package B. Let's also assume that all four are equally able to sway a listener (they're all good speakers and come across well). In this scenario a viewer would probably come away with some good information, pro and con, on each package, and would then decide what he or she thinks.

Now, suppose they choose to interview 3 who support A and 1 who supports B. Right away the viewer is given the impression that more people support A than B, before any information has even been imparted. Both sides are still being given, but we've started tilting already.

Now, what if they only have time for one sound-bite from one economist? The choice they make is going to have a big influence on how their report comes across. Now, how often do you think they call someone who supports the opposite point of view they themselves hold?

Try this test. Watch the network news and keep an eye out for a story involving women's issues, then look at what groups they go to for the woman's point of view. Consider how often this is a liberal group as opposed to a conservative group. Does NOW represent all women in this country? Then why are they invariably asked to represent the woman's perspective on issues? Where's the group to balance them?

0 Replies

A cite, please, for anytime Peter Jennings has delivered the wrong information and whether or not he apologized for having done so. You unlkely to find it because his newscasts are screened for accuracy and if there even a mild misstatement, there are on-the-air retractions. Now try to find that on FOX.

0 Replies

What's being alluded to here is brainwashing. Since brainwashing requires some form of torture, that must mean that TV is a form of torture. I can't say I disagree on the level of levity but I don't see it any other way. The ad which subliminally came out as reading "DemocRATS" is a meager attempt at pressing someone to change sides. It is more of a fortification of the dirty tricks associated with Richard Nixon.

0 Replies

LW

Re your second last post...you can say that again.

0 Replies

When Bush 41 went back on his Read My Lips, the Today Show replayed the tape of his 'promise' ad nauseum a couple of times every morning for about a week.

When Hilary came in to declare that her poor wayward husband, finger-wagger-while-lying, was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, we were not regaled with his lying on tape AT ALL. And they patiently bought her ridiculous conspiracy theory.

This is an example of the liberal slant in the big three networks. It is not that they outright lie. It is that they pick and choose their topics, and their wording to promote the Democrat party--of which most of them are a member--and they slant the stories they cover, and the wording they employ to give a negative view of the GOP.

0 Replies

Oh, come on, Lash -- the Hillary right wing conspiracy clip has been shown ad nauseum by the right wing commentators, pushed in her face like Cagney holding a grapefruit. Ditto, the Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman." I got no "patiently bought" the "ridiculous" conspiracy theory. In fact, if you don't believe the whole thing was not driven by a coalition of right wing zealots, what kind of drugs were you on? Can I have some? Very Happy

More concrete examples of how the networks pick and choose what they want to report as news and how they slant it would be appreciated. I think you have a very vivid imagination or need some rehab? The GOP can successfully make their own bad image and ditto for the Democrats and I see and hear both reported with delighted frequency despite what the personal politics of the reporter happens to be -- that's their job. Saying the whole network is run by liberals, well you might as well fantasize that they're run by gays. Both parties made huge blunders in the past and I believe they will continue to do so. That these blunders are ignored anywhere in the news or pushed into the background for political agendas is ridiculous. I've watched FOX enough to know that's even exagerrated that they push right wing agendas. Hannity is popular, in my opinion, more for his looks than his talent and Colmes often gets the best of him, prompting the comment, "Look what I have to live with." They're entertainers, too. So are the network news commentators. Anyone can selective pull out an example here and there but trying to say it supports their premise of bias in the news is shooting arrows at a target that doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Lash

Quote:

ridiculous conspiracy theory.

The quality of your arguments will continue to suffer if you refuse to educate yourself.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Oh, come on, Lash -- the Hillary right wing conspiracy clip has been shown ad nauseum by the right wing commentators,
by right wing commentators, not the big three networks. You deflect the issue at question.
Ditto, the Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman."
Again, not by the big three networks. You are off topic. I got no "patiently bought" the "ridiculous" conspiracy theory. In fact, if you don't believe the whole thing was not driven by a coalition of right wing zealots, what kind of drugs were you on?So, you buy that Clinton was an innocent pawn of the right wing? Which one of them pulled his pants down?
Can I have some? If you can get your head out of the sand long enough to take a toot, yes. You keep jerking your head away from the issue at hand. I stated an example of how the major news networks choose what images and words they do, largely to benefit the party of their choice. If you engage me in debate, have the courtesy to address the matter at hand. Your constant, predictable deflections of the issues causes your credibility, at least with me, to plummet. Meaningful dialogue is impossible due to your tap dancing.

More concrete examples of how the networks pick and choose what they want to report as news and how they slant it would be appreciated. I think you have a very vivid imagination or need some rehab?If you continue to dish out personal insults and ad hominems, don't go crying to mama when you recieve some of the same.
The GOP can successfully make their own bad image and ditto for the Democrats and I see and hear both reported with delighted frequency despite what the personal politics of the reporter happens to be -- that's their job. Saying the whole network is run by liberals, well you might as well fantasize that they're run by gays. Party affiliations are a matter of public record. They are overwhelmingly liberal.
Both parties made huge blunders in the past and I believe they will continue to do so. That these blunders are ignored anywhere in the news or pushed into the background for political agendas is ridiculous. I've watched FOX enough to know that's even exagerrated that they push right wing agendas. Hannity is popular, in my opinion, more for his looks than his talent and Colmes often gets the best of him, prompting the comment, "Look what I have to live with." They're entertainers, too. So are the network news commentators. The news anchors of the major news networks are not entertainers--or they aren't supposed to be. Anyone can selective pull out an example here and there but trying to say it supports their premise of bias in the news is shooting arrows at a target that doesn't exist.Says you.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Lash
Quote:
ridiculous conspiracy theory.
The quality of your arguments will continue to suffer if you refuse to educate yourself.

I don't buy that Clinton was forced into a relationship with Monica Lewinski by the GOP. Do you?
Educate me on this point, please.

0 Replies

Liberal slant of popular news skews public's view of issues
ZEAL: Reporting often reflects personal biases of journalists; neutrality needed in coverage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journalists are supposed to be unbiased. They are taught to report events as they happen without slanting the reporting toward one side or the other. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
Many journalists have obvious biases, specifically reflecting ideologies of the left. To find out whether there is a bias and what it is, there is no better source than to ask journalists themselves.

Walter Cronkite has stated: "Everybody knows that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."

For example, when asked if there is liberal bias in the press, Evan Thomas, Washington Bureau News Chief for Newsweek Magazine, said, "This is true. There is liberal bias. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic. They have for a long time. Particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for."

Bernard Goldberg, a CBS News correspondent, once wrote, "There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."

In a survey done of Washington-based Bureau chiefs and correspondents, 91 percent of those surveyed claimed to be either liberal or liberal to moderate in their political orientation, with 89 percent of them voting for Bill Clinton in the last election.

This bias became more than obvious in recent coverage of President Clinton. First, one can go back to the1996 election, and see that basically the only coverage afforded Bob Dole was the fact that he was old.

And look at how the press treated Paula Jones. From the beginning, instead of focusing on her story, the press belittled her, referring to her as white trash or as physically unappealing. Did Anita Hill receive the same treatment? Less so than did Jones. Their situations were not too different, but the press had to defend their boy Clinton.

Then there was the impeachment trial, in which no matter what transgression Clinton committed, the main point that the press made was how high his approval rating was. The worst case of the press taking idiotic pro-liberal stances was with last year's California Proposition 10.

In case you do not remember what this was about, it proposed raising taxes on tobacco products in order to create government programs that would give jobs to Rob Reiner's friends.

Here is a sampling of what Conservatives believes is proof of the liberal slant of the news media. Not punditry, but major news outlets.

0 Replies

WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know