Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone that thinks the liberals control the News Media have never read or watched the Manchester New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper or WMUR television. Neither are even remotely liberal or even centrist. Almost all of AM Talk Radio is far right propaganda or pseudo religious blather.
The only "centrist" television is on MSNBC. I really enjoy "Morning Joe". He makes sense some of the time. I only watch FOX often enough to refresh my profound disrespect for their RW propaganda.
Come on....even when I was a far, far left activist, I would never have tried to sell MSNBC as "centrist". You are either trying to be sneaky (the old propaganda trick of redefining terms), or you are categorically unable to see beyond your filters.
Let's talk about TV. There was a time before cable when it was okay to be ugly, old and a journalist and be on TV. It was a badge of honor to tell your story without anyone knowing which way you voted. The goal was to get the story right and be believable/trustworthy not blonde, loud, a stud muffin or a short skirted former model/Miss America with 500 pounds of make-up (and that make-up part goes for men, too). They spoke for more than two seconds on a subject and everyone pretty much thought they knew what they were talking about. They came to do national news after serving time in the trenches of hard news. Almost everyone says, back then, those TV journalists were also liberal but it never seeped into their newscasts BECAUSE THEY WERE TAUGHT THAT WAS A NO-NO. The news shows were "allowed" not to be ratings getters by their broadcast networks. The universe of people who were on camera in a studio was miniscule. There were no elaborate sets. The anchormen weren't props. Families watched the nightly news.
In another universe, there were people like Morton Downey Jr who were opinionated and highly entertaining with a live audience. No one mistook him for a journalist. William Buckley debated Gore Vidal, elitist pretty-boy narcissistic intellectuals who liked to smell their own farts, figuratively-speaking, BUT it was equal time and there was no doubt about the position of either side before they opened their respective mouths with their opinions. They weren't sitting at some news anchor type desk trying to put one over on people that they were newsmen.
60 Minutes had an opinion segment that was clearly labeled as such - Point/Counterpoint (Shana Alexander and James Kilpatrick) at the end of 60 Minutes.
Then, as others have said, Cable News came along and had to fill a lot of hours. The hippies had grown up. CNN hired them. Their boss was a flaming liberal. They did pretty good too because they had no competition in the beginning. If you think Fox News is such a ratings bonanza, wait until they get some conservative competition.
Now there are viewers who don't know the difference between opinion and news. You have the cable news anchors also doing opinion shows which is totally ridiculous because they opine during both. Who even knows what is taught in journalism school these days. Every jerk with a cell phone thinks he's a news photographer. The skirts are short, the heels are high, the hair is pouffier, the make-up is shoveled on, you have to be loud and if you can't spit out what you have to say in twenty seconds, you don't work on TV or you get cut off by the opinionated "host" before you finish even if you are the brightest bulb on the planet in a subject area and people want to hear what you have to say not what the host has to say. There are so many commercial breaks, it makes your head spin. They think their competition is sitcoms, reality shows and dramas in addition to their news counterparts so they brag about it.
The goal is to get young men to watch, by advertisers, because they are the hardest segment to reach. You better believe ESPN gets to charge a lot for advertising. Cable News companies can charge more for their advertising if they can get that group to watch hence we have a parade of loud mouth bimbos with short skirts pretending they are news people to attract them and there isn't a single Walter Cronkite on cable these days.
Why are they liberals? They were always liberals but they didn't let it bleed into their news. They work in the NYC - DC corridor where liberals live and they infect each other. If you live in Middle America they treat your ideas like space aliens because they don't know anyone else like you...because they never leave their cities except when they visit other big cities.
Interesting post. Even Cronkite was liberal and tried to spin the news in that direction (as we now know). But he HAD to do it subtly. Today, the old media does it BRAZENLY and that's the big difference.
Interesting you mention "Firing Line". I have been tussling with PBS staff and directors for many years.....on the state and national level. It's my own little pet crusade.....their hardcore bias upsets me, as a matter of principle. They almost always say, 'but what about Firing Line??" And then I am always forced to point out, "ummmm, that was FORTY years ago!!" (Pure tokenism).
It started a long time ago when Hearse ran the news. Watch Citizen Kane. Newspapers, like TV news, are generally privately owned in the USA. So, its agenda driven.
Thats why people should read, watch several news outlets so you can actually figure out what really happened.
Think how naive people are, ie War of the Worlds radio show
Now there are viewers who don't know the difference between opinion and news. You have the cable news anchors also doing opinion shows which is totally ridiculous because they opine during both. Who even knows what is taught in journalism school these days. Every jerk with a cell phone thinks he's a news photographer. The skirts are short, the heels are high, the hair is pouffier, the make-up is shoveled on, you have to be loud and if you can't spit out what you have to say in twenty seconds, you don't work on TV or you get cut off by the opinionated "host" before you finish even if you are the brightest bulb on the planet in a subject area and people want to hear what you have to say not what the host has to say. There are so many commercial breaks, it makes your head spin. They think their competition is sitcoms, reality shows and dramas in addition to their news counterparts so they brag about it.
The goal is to get young men to watch, by advertisers, because they are the hardest segment to reach. You better believe ESPN gets to charge a lot for advertising. Cable News companies can charge more for their advertising if they can get that group to watch hence we have a parade of loud mouth bimbos with short skirts pretending they are news people to attract them and there isn't a single Walter Cronkite on cable these days.
You realize that is a description of Fox News, the most right wing of news sources, right?
"So why don't you apply for a job at a news media outlet and show these silly kiddie liberals how it's done?"
Well excuse me for having lived through it. My father was a NY newspaper sports editor in the '60s and i saw and experienced it first hand. When the 3 NY papers folded from the strike (look it up) dad worked for Armed Forces Radio and then was hired as the NY sports editor for UPI. I worked occasionally as a stringer, when I was home on leave and still on crutches, covering the US Open Tennis Tournament in Forest Hills, NY. When I was discharged (still on crutches) dad put in a word at the wire service to pick me up full time. The answer was "we can't, he doesn't have a journalism degree, but can he cover Forest Hills for us next month?" all in the same breath. Yeah, dad was pissed!
Or was it always this way? As someone that is almost 40, I don't ever remember the mainstream news not being biased, but I've only been really paying attention for about the last 15 years.
What I've noticed is that it's getting worse. It seems crazy that if one was to watch the mainstream news or read the paper these days, that individual would be led to believe that one political idiology is good/correct, while the other one is bad/wrong. When you consider that this country is almost split 50/50 in regards to these political ideologies with a good chunk right in the middle like myself, it really is pretty mind blowing that one ideology has almost complete control over these entities.
What was it like during the 50's -90's?
How and when did this happen?
As millennials begin to come into power do you see it getting worse?
Also, I have no dog on this fight, as I'm an independent who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I will be voting for Trump this November, but it's only because I can't stand Hillary Clinton.
The media has grown ever more liberal and I think it must come from the top....the big money in media wants to and has been fundamentally changing America to a more liberal ideology. But after living most of the last 15 years abroad, the US at least has an alternative conservative media which most of the rest of the world does not.
90% of the mainstream media is owned by only five corporations and that those five corporations are controlled by the global elite, and they use this outlet to control and manipulate the American population.
The same thing in Europe. Think about Brexit. I hear the young voted to stay in the EU, they are very much like our own young. With a steady diet of media propaganda the globalist thought for sure that the people would vote to stay in the EU. Unlike the young, the elders have been through much more and know the history of socialism. The elite didn't count on people thinking for themselves. Oh well, maybe once the elder generation dies off, the young will get to give up their freedoms.
Tell me about it. I asked a question in another thread and this guy actually responded that someone else needed to do his thinking for him. "that is a question, for a constitutional lawyer"
and it was a simple question about 2 words used in different amendments to declare who had the right.
Typically the less actual life experience a person has....the more liberal they are. They work and think under ideas....not reality.
Journalists...even old ones...have little actual experience. They simply cover and comment on others actions and lives.
Thus....a 50 or 40 yr old journalist never grows past their college mind.
Less actual life experience, even 40 or 50 year olds. So in your opinion, what constitutes actual life experience and how is it possible a 50 year old can't have actual life experience?
I've been through my phases with watching TV and the news for the past 56 years (well, I don't really remember the crib days). In my current stage, I find the entire world sort of comical, and the various media outlets with bias's all over the place. I don't even bother to think which news I trust, or agree with, or whatever. I watch various stations, and read the newspapers, and web search, all before I even think I know what I'm talking about. Politics and religion, two of the most hotly debated things in life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
