WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

See what I mean? Without any acknowledgement of what I wrote, you launch into a challenge that has no relation to what I wrote.

Show me where I claimed Jennings knowingly or unknowingly offered anything that was not factually accurate. ...

You can't. Because I never claimed he did. What I did do is offer a good example of what I consider to be the primary nature of bias in reporting. That you'd rather ignored what I did write and instead of responding to that, fabricate a straw man--attribute to me a claim I never made--so you can kick away at that, secure in the rectitude of your position.

Of course, this is you doing exactly what I attempted to point out you tend to do. Why you insist on expending your energy attempting to disprove things I and others clearly did not write, I can't say, though my instincts tell me it's because you don't think you can disprove what I--or they--did in fact write.

Please do me the courtesy of replying directly to what I have written, and refrain from attributing to me absurd statements I have not made. It seems to me to be just the kind of thing we all came here to A2K to get away from.

Lastly, since you are claiming that Fox News makes factual errors and does not retract them, I patiently await your citation of examples thereof. Thanks.

Your use of example merely prompted me to offer an opposing example. You can't slant the news unless you lie or perform the sin of omission. You can't come up with an example that's going to summarily proclaim that the broadcast media, for example, is and always has been biased towards the left. Spinning is a form of deceot and sin of omission. Forget Jennings -- give me a broadcast news journalist who consistently is deceitful and/or performing the sin of omission. Your generalities do not impress and I'm quite willing to continue to tap dance over the lawn of rhetorical nonsense you're planting.

(Most of your lawn needs watering as it's withered and dying).

And this has you taking your tendency to its silliest extreme. You alone assert that this is "brainwashing", then you argue against the claim only you have made. Do you really think this constitutes meaningful debate? It sure seems pointless to me.

Again you refuse to acknowledge anything I (or anyone else for that matter) actually wrote, so what's the point in even responding to you? I gave a clear, simple example of how what choices you make in covering a story can deliver an opinion without altering the facts.

No offense intended, but I really see no benefit to continuing to respond to you. You have no interest in what I am trying to articulate, you're too comfortable arguing with whatever nonsense you decide to make up out of whole cloth.

Disagree with what I wrote if you like, but from here on out, I have no intention of responding when you simply pretend I've written things I have not. I'll trust others can read and comprehend well enough to see when this is the case. Sorry to have to put it in those terms, but I can't see any other option that makes sense. After all, if you don't respond to what I actually wrote, you're not really responding to me at all, are you?

Now, you can get snippy and insulting as you have chosen to do with Lash, or you can think about what I've written. I would enjoy a meaningful debate with you on this or any issue, but you are making that impossible, and by definition, I would be a moron to waste any more time attempting the impossible.

I won't jump into this free-for-all, but I will suggest another view:

What if we just stopped assuming that media bias--liberal, conservative, or other--is bad or wrong?

When "media" began in this country, it was one man with a crank printing press expressing his viewpoints, none of which straddled the fence.

That phenomenon is being recreated with weblogs today.

The various media overseas is generally regarded to be favoring one side or the other.

Only in j-schools do they have lofty arguments about striving to eliminate bias.

Perhaps it simply can't be eradicated. After all, the 'media' is a bunch of human beings. (Except in the case of Google News, as I understand.)

Sidebar: In 1988 I moved to Midland, TX to work for the newspaper there, The Reporter-Telegram. There I found that there was this rather strange fellow being broadcast in the market who seemed to be espousing the views of the John Birch Society (IMO).

His name was, as many of you would guess, Rush Limbaugh.

The libs will have some strong voice on the airwaves before long.

Just stands to reason; the market can support it.

An excellent point, PDiddie. I do have some concerns that when reporting is predominantly biased in one direction and for a lengthy period it can lead to a less-than well informed electorate, but that's just my opinion, and not a point worth arguing.

As I understand it, newspapers used to have open party affiliations. Bias in reporting was taken for granted. Perhaps as you suggest we should all just expect bias and consume our news accordingly. To me this would make checking information on any issue with at least one liberal (NYTimes) and one conservative (WSJ) source before forming an opinion. Of course, that's probably not realistic.

Maybe the best we can do is realize that bias may be impossible to avoid, consider the possibility that any news we consume may be tinged by bias, and remember that we each bring our own biases to any information we consume as well.

Pdiddie and TresWill: both recent posts well put.

I got a little laugh when I read:


then I realized I had read it as "one crank with a printing press expressing his viewpoints......"

then I thought, "Wow. It's true both ways."

And it is certainly true today for several persons on this forum, myself included.

So i'm Changing my profile.

Okey dokey, Gentlemen!

You shall now, henceforth consider yourself all 'scolded' and 'chided' by a Crone!!!! Since the vast majority of this discussion has been aided and abetted by men (hello Phoenix, nice to seeya!) I can see that the questions at hand are truly handled in a rather heavy-handed and pontificating way, characteristic of intelligent and well-meaning but 'dense' men....

<cobalt says all this, knowing that she is about to become pedantic.... but then, heck, "let it all hang out"...>

I R a liberal. I also have respected many if not most posts that most of the contributors of this thread have shared in abuzz formerly, and now *here* in a2k. Fishin - you know that you and I have gone back and forth in various threads in abuzz, and I always appreciated your point of view, which made me think and while I still disagree with your POV many times, your sane voice is a good one for me to listen to when I will benefit from understanding the opposing POV to mine.

Setanta - shhhhhh! While you are most generally an outstanding poster, I can tell that you are actually 10+ years younger than some of the posters in this thread. I will count myself lucky to still have your acquaintance and hopefully, friendship in another 10 years. Much of the time you are "right on", sir!

Blatham - you and are are incredibly, often in sync with many opinions. But then, there are other Crones within abuzz and a2k who will also verify this same pleasant POV concerning you.

Joe? Joe, you have NEVER been less than thoughtful and eloquent in posts I've read in abuzz and in a2k. I, for one, will read everything you ever write in public, dear sir!

LW? You go, guy! While I may not always agree with your POV, I always respect the good intentions you have of contributing positively to any forum.

Ok, there are some men here I do not know, but I've heard of a few. Ready for some female input? Too bad if you are not, for here it comes:

I used to love Bill Maher on Comedy Central. When he 'sold out' (not a flip choice of words, either, and rarely used by moi) he became part of the Establishment to me. Ann Coulter? Ludicrous, barely stomachable in any context. Rush? Pardon me whilst I barf. Dennis Miller (who I used to enjoy way back on SNL) is now a has-been self-absorbed know-it-all. Oprah and Donahue? Bleeeech!

Finally, Bibliophile et al: It's hard for me, a 'liberal bleeding heart' to feel that there is any public media uncensored and unbeholding to corporate and political power. Money rules. Absolutely. Anarchy on the Internet? No way! I turned into a blogger a year ago. Blogging is the only public forum that is wild and unruly, difficult to disrupt and to censor. See, we bloggers can with the speed of light (or is that a flash and a....) "publish" our thoughts and the disseminations travels faster than any website or media source can imagine. If the CIA / FBI /Homeland Security really things that their 30,000 or so folks who watch the Net are productive, they must be missing the boat in a big way....)

So, now that I have both blasted and complimented you all, I shall go back into my hidey hole and think in terms of getting sleep and nourishment to "fight the good fight". Although I now live in Mormonland, I vote. I vote as an educated voter. And one person, just one, may be all it takes sometimes to make a change.

Goodnight, and bless you all,
Peace, Love and Hugs,
cobalt

Lash, if you can get your mind off of Bill Clinton's pants for a moment, and focus on the rest of scandal list that wingers like to reel off, or that is used to like to reel off until it became clear that none of the scandals were based on truth.
Let's list:
Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster death, Troopergate. Did I miss any, I'm sure I did.

Do any of these "scandals" have anything in common?
Yes, they all sprang from charges leveled first by conservatives, they were all investigated by as many as three IPs AND in the Press (American Spectator, LA Times, Washington Post, WSJ and NYTIMES) AND covered ad nauseum by NBC, CBS and ABC. (Dee Dee Myers was sure she was going to find something and maybe get the Pulitzer.)
Oh, and they all turned out to be well, about nothing.
Sixty two million Federal dollars, your money, Lash, went to finding out that Bill and Hillary lost money on a lake property, that people got their feelings hurt when they were let go by an incoming administration, that NO ONE's personal file had ever been mis-used, that V. Foster killed himself and that despite careful coaching and payments by Richard Scaife to three troopers, none of them could get their story straight enough to have any credence with anyone except for the people paying for the story.
What you had here was a barrage of charges, none of them true, leveled by the right wing in an attempted coupe d'etat. And it almost worked.
Despite these distractions, and without a single Republican vote, the Clinton administration passed a tax plan that resulted in the strongest economic growth in forty five years, they passed the most sweeping Welfare changes ever, passed the toughest environmental laws since Richard Nixon formed the EPA and did it all without a federal deficit.
Was he a jerk to mess around and lie about it? Yup
Was he a target of an organized effort of smears by right wingers?
yup.

I go on.
I'm waiting for the coffee to finish dripping.

Would someone please dust off Lash's quotes from Walter Cronkite, they must be musty by now. Didn't he say that in 1967? And I could be wrong but I think Evan Thomas is not just a bureau chief anymore I think he's one of the editors of Newsweek now, so when did he say that about the reporters, ten years ago, fifteen?
I loved Bernie Goldberg at CBS, now retired, five or six years, maybe more. Did you read his book BIAS ? Stories about the newsroom and the certain way some people laughed. Hoped it would pay for his retirement, I wish him well in his dotage.

I can't find a link to this survey. Who did it and when? It appears to be identical to something I read, I don't know, forty years ago, only the reporters said they were Democrats and voted for JFK.

Look, I've known lots of reporters, some of them were smart, but none of them were smart enough to get into a good business school and become corporate executives. They were for the most part, forgive me, regular men and women, middle class Joes, working stiffs, ink-stained wretchs, who had to come up with three stories a day for 40k a year. Most of them wanted to be reporters from the time they learned to read a newspaper, most of them wanted to be reporters because they thought it would be a good way to make a contribution to society. And see, that's how a liberal thinks, isn't it? It must have been their upbringing. When you are looking to define a conservative, making a contribution to society, isn't one of the leading characteristics, is it?
What they wanted most, above all, was to get the story right, to get the facts straight, and even better, get the story right with the facts straight and get it out first. So, despite their upbring, or maybe because of it, they must have done their jobs because, even being as liberal as Lash would have us believe they are, there are conservative Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court. How'd they do that with all that liberal bias standing in their way?
Joe Nation

I know I said this before, but I'm convinced that if Liberal TV programming sold advertisning, it would be rampant. As it is, however, commercial TV offers wrestling, police chases, and cookie-cutter news programs ...among other entertainments which do sell adverting. If THE PUBLIC were interested in buying "THE LIBERAL VIEWPOINT", great effort and inventiveness would be epended in the matter of selling it to them. By and large, "THE PUBLIC" does not wish to buy exclusive political agenda from either wing. Commercial TV confines its "Hard Political Commentary" to Sunday Mornings. This fulfills the spirit of "Meeting the public's need for information and commentary" while filling airtime of little advertising value. Far more folks watch "Big Brother" than "Meet The Press".

Television and Radio are essentially entertainment media. THE PUBLIC simply does not support Liberal Programming. The accountants control broadcasting, not politicians of any stripe. It is far easier to market a product which has a following than to attempt to create a following for a product. THE PUBLIC gets what it pays for. "THE LEFT" gets Public Broadcasting, which in a way, I suppose is a form of governmental welfare.

I do like Rukyser, though, and Frontline has its moments, but Garrison Keeler draws more Pubic Broadcasting viewers than would Michael Moore. "THE PUBLIC" likes broad strokes, rounded edges, and muted colors on its Political Canvas.



timber

Sorry if anyone thinks I insulted them and I'll have to admit that I was having a little fun. If it's an interpreted by anyone with no sense of humor, I guess they will feel insulted. I do withdraw the comment about rhetorical nonsense and replace it with rhetorical confusion. That's about as far as I'll budge.

Deleted by author.

Joe Nation and Timber both make solid points. Cronkite was correct about the '60's when the pervasive politic was liberal -- it began to change during Johnson's presidency, was fortified by Nixon's transgressions and became less popular during Jimmy Carter (likely not all his personal burden of fault). The fact that you really can't point out any factual discrepencies on the straight new shows, you can find them in the pundit, editorialized pontificating on the cable channels. Do liberal commentators use the same tactics as conservative commentators? Name the liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity. I don't believe there are any. That's the point of this post.

LW, I'm firmly convinced that if there were a market for a Liberal Limbaugh or a Happy News Hannity, great attention would be paid to absorbing that market's dollars. Bill Moyers and Mike Moore don't sell. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do.



timber

the oft times dictate of a power base is to kill the intellectuals.

The talking heads of the right are all old school salespeople. They used the hot button technique, the go for the doorknob, the bait-and-switch and every other trick in the book associated with the wily used car salesman. Instead of kick the tire, it's kick this outrageous idea. Should the left have a salesman? James Carville is certainly in that mold -- he's as glib as a porcupine throwing quills. Donahue could be but he's still trying to throw off the shackles of his old show with the obligatory group of drag queens front and center. What makes people listen to these pontificators and become hypnotized with their message? That question is, I'm sure, easy for anyone on this forum to answer.

A view from across the pond, which suggests (to me) that the time is ripe for someone to offer more alternatives from the left:

Indeed, there is hardly any such thing as the liberal press. Since Watergate, the Post has acquired a virtual monopoly over the Washington newspaper market, grown fat and - frankly - journalistically flabby. Its op-ed page is notable for its turgid prose, its conservative slant, and the apologetic tone of its more liberal contributors.

The rival page in the New York Times has far more spark, and - in the unfortunate absence of political opposition - has provided the only forum for serious national debate over the Iraq issue. But the Times' own editorials over Iraq, possibly reflecting internal tensions, have been uncertain. And the paper feels itself a little beleaguered, even marginalised, by the strategies employed by the Bush White House.

Bushwhacked

Whew! At least y'all are being a bit more friendly! Thank you, will continue reading...