WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Joe, your not intimating that there's some not-so-clever spinning within these forums? Astonishing. (They're just testing?)

Don Henley is a musician, and thus, likely to have a liberal bias.

Lash and Trespasser remain convinced that 'the media has a liberal bias'. After all which has preceded, I can see no possibility of dissuading either of them from their conviction.

The idea is so nebulous, generalized, and un-disprovable that it weathers showers of criticism with admirable facility - a GoreTex idea.

A bit more than a decade ago, when the 'Satanic child-abuse' notion was bouncing around like a lunatic on a pogo stick (that is, the notion that organized Satanic cults were hiding out in towns across America and that members were abusing children as a common element of their rituals) I saw an interview with the FBI chief who'd been in charge of investigating reports on this matter. He said that no physical evidence had ever been found to corroborate these claims and ideas. He added that when he reported back to believers and told them no physical evidence was to be found, their typical response was, "Well, of course Satan would remove it, wouldn't he?" As a relevant side point to this fine tale from the annals of logic, where social service groups were given workshops on Satanic Ritual Abuse and how to spot its effects on children, more than 50% of those workers went on to diagnose Satanic abuse in the children they later dealt with.

JoeN - Dress it up any way you like, it's still a pig.

Hillary is BIG NEWS. Airport security is (and was specifically in that time frame) BIG NEWS. News people like BIG NEWS.

Ask yourself this question; would the story have created a buzz around America's water coolers? The media like buzz, it makes them money. When they choose to ignore a story that would clearly generate a lot of buzz, it tells me something. Maybe it doesn't tell you something, but I think that's your bias.

Those with an open mind can contrast the dearth of coverage the Hillary incident received with the coverage J. C. Watts received for yelling at a policeman at an airport.
Watts story on CNN Website (Reuters)

Now, clearly JoeN, if the Hillary story is a non-event, the Watts story is even more so, so why did the latter receive coverage that the former did not? Double standard? I think so. What is at the core of any double standard? A bias.

Oh, and although the Daily News didn't run it, the Enquirer was in fact the other paper that did run the Hillary story.

Your example falls flat on its face. Both those occurrences were repeated ad nauseum on CNN and network TV news. Leno, Letterman, Maher and Jon Stewart had a blast with both of them.
Now you're mixing newspapers into a discussion about TV, unless you are someone who sees moving pictures and voices coming from your newspaper.

blatham said:

Lash and Trespasser remain convinced that 'the media has a liberal bias'. After all which has preceded, I can see no possibility of dissuading either of them from their conviction.


Things are evening up, now, blatham. For many years, I couldn't find a view opposing the liberal minded, Democrat-advocating media.

Now, I don't complain because the opposing view, and the unbiased view can be found with ease.

Tell me this, if you will. What is your opinion of Tim Russert? Before Fox came to my area, he was the only major news guy (I know, not an anchor), who I felt illuminated both sides of an issue. I've seen him take apart liberals and conservatives with equal vigor. Yet, on this thread, PDiddie stated he was almost considered Media Whore of the Year. Just interested in your perception of this man's political leanings, and if they affect his job.

To bring some specifics to the discussion, should we choose a news anchor and go through some on-air subjects with a fine tooth comb?

I nominate Dan Rather.

Dan Rather doesn't write the news, he recites it.

Try Lehrer.

LW, I know you are smarter than that. Rather is the managing editor, and every knuckleheaded word that he utters is written by him.

C'mon!

And, who gives him his questions during interviews? Some troll sitting on his knee? (Could it be...)

No, let's pick Bill O'Reilly. Fox News, now there is a true oxymoron.

Are we choosing an anchor, who is accused of having a liberal slant...
or are we AVOIDING choosing an anchor who is accused of having a liberal slant?

Slant isn't the question on Fox. there is no slant - it is blatant.

Slant isn't the question on Fox. there is no slant - it is blatant.


An example of dodging the issue. Do you just concede that Rather is a liberal news anchor, who slants his work in favor of his political party? If so, we can discuss another anchor.

Your just dodging the issue, I don't listen to either! All the news today is toadies for the Conservative agenda!

Deleted by author.

CBS is owned by GE -- can't get more capitalistic than GE. Is GE pro-liberal? If you think they don't have any control over the content of their news programs or who they hire and fire, that's one thing. If you believe they give all their creative people a totally free reign, that's another. Yes, Rather is the Managing Editor -- an editor edits, they don't write. Anchors still do not write what they are reciting. Difficult to prove if Rather is writing his newscast but I don't see that as being unbelievable -- it's just very unlikely. I don't see his reporting bending any conservative towards being a liberal -- I could see a liberal being bent by watching enough FOX, so I would feel encouraged. Whether he scissors out news that makes the conservatives look good would be a subject for a debate. I don't watch Rather that often, do you? How often do you watch Rather?

The mainstream media are no more liberal than the conglomerates that own them or the advertisers that pay their bills.

VIACOM could be characterized as being the most left with shows like "Queer As Folk" on Showtime -- but is this pandering to a market or an actual bend to the left? Maybe they want to appeal to Log Cabin Republicans?

FOX has "newsbreaks," otherwise that's it for the straight news -- the rest of it is commentary news that's obviously right wing propaganda. I'd say at least 80%. They disguise what one might think is a stright news reporting show. CNN does interject commentary into their mostly interview news shows but I've been unable to see it as particularly unbalanced. FOX advertizes that their "news" is balanced. A total joke of some Madison Avenue advertizing head. About as balanced as a scale with a feather on one side and a brick on the other.

Here's what media GE owns:

A & E (with Disney and Hearst)
American Movie Classics (25%)
Biography Channel (with Disney and Hearst)
Bravo (50%)
Bravo International
CNBC
Court TV (with Time Warner)
Fox Sports Net
History Channel (with Disney and Hearst)
Independent Film Channel
MSG Network
MSNBC (50%)
National Geographic Worldwide
News Sport
Prime
Prism (with Rainbow, a subsidiary of Cablevision, and Liberty Media, a subsidiary of TCI)
Romance Classics
Sports Channel Cincinnati, Chicago, Florida, New England, Pacific, Ohio, Philadelphia

If this response is intended for me (I can't tell for sure to whom you are responding) I would challenge you to find me a reference to the Hillary story on any major news site, TV or print, aside from the one I offered. (And for the record, Leno, Letterman, Maher and Jon Stewart are not newscasters.)

And please don't pretend that discussing newspapers in a discussion about the media somehow invalidates anything I've written.