Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-26-2007, 11:12 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,159,747 times
Reputation: 3696

Advertisements

Good lord, the greatest myth of the 21st century is that the media is left winged bias... That fooey ended back during the Carter administration.

Where was all this alleged liberal left wing bias during the lead up to the Iraq war? Anything today that isn't a nanometer to the right of Fox is communist? In case people haven't noticed, because I certainly have, CNN of late has been every bit as big of a promoter of military confrontation with Iran, and let us not forget ole Lou Dobbs, I've been sleeping around with Judith Miller...


Thing is, I love Fox and MSNBC for at least distinguishing themselves with an obvious position. I guess those that do watch Fox and bless your souls... would think Der Stuermer or Volkischer Beobachter are liberal rags

Besides, whats the big deal if media is biased, since it isn't even news anymore it is ENTERTAINMENT, a product to be sold for profit!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2007, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Coming soon to a town near YOU!
989 posts, read 2,757,948 times
Reputation: 1526
Default Media just has a pro-profit bias

The only real goal of any news network/newspaper is to sell advertising. Everything else is just the path they take to get the $$$.

As to the Liberal/Conservative bias.... that is something that is very difficult to quantify because the news folks don't glow blue or red depending on what they say, and the simple labeling of something brings biases into question.

I remember a few years ago when [the Bush appointee] in charge of PBS released a study that showed the overwhelming liberal bias of PBS. The problem was that when you looked at how he determined what was liberal, his standard was if they agreed or disagreed with the President. That meant that Pat Buchanan was, according to him, a liberal. Pat diagrees with the President on the Iraq war (although it is for mostly different reasons than most liberals). Obviously that is a more extreme example of a guy trying to defend his boss, but the same standard still applies to everyone at some level... no matter how hard you try to stamp it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 12:13 AM
 
1,011 posts, read 3,088,207 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evlevo View Post
The only real goal of any news network/newspaper is to sell advertising. Everything else is just the path they take to get the $$$.
This is so, so true.

I once worked for a local "independent" weekly newspaper, one that prided itself on being the unbiased, un-corporate alternative news source.

Yeah...being a free weekly, they're perhaps even more beholden to their advertisers.

It is really sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 03:23 AM
 
Location: Turn right at the stop sign
4,487 posts, read 3,990,283 times
Reputation: 4826
So people that watch Fox News would consider Volkischer Beobachter (the official newpaper of the Nazi party) and Der Sturmer (a mainly anti-Semitic tabloid) to be liberal rags? Is the implication that the average Fox News watcher holds political views even more extremely right wing than your average Nazi? I don't get it.

In any case, I happened to run across a transcript and edited audio clip of a speech that Vice President Spiro Agnew gave in Des Moines, November 13, 1969. The speech dealt with the news media and bias.

Before anyone dismisses it out of hand just because the speech was given by Agnew, I ask you to read the text of what he said. Some of the subject matter is obviously dated but the basis of what he spoke about I personally found to be relevant to the subject of this thread.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just offering up a tidbit from the past. Judge for yourself whether what he said makes sense or not.

American Rhetoric: Spiro Agnew -- Television News Coverage (Nov 13, 1969)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 08:50 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,159,747 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
So people that watch Fox News would consider Volkischer Beobachter (the official newpaper of the Nazi party) and Der Sturmer (a mainly anti-Semitic tabloid) to be liberal rags? Is the implication that the average Fox News watcher holds political views even more extremely right wing than your average Nazi? I don't get it.[/url]
I have heard espoused by the larger portion of Fox News viewers things such as calling CNN the Communist News Networks and other like metaphor. My contention is that there is not much difference between CNN and Fox as many Fox viewers might think but lets be frank, Fox News has cornered the market on the right, and good for them.

As to using those two examples, mostly out of pure shock value, but also because they too once appealed to those authoritarian types hell bent on taking their nation on a given direction.

Keep in mind, I am not Dan Rather, or Walter Cronkite nor Rupert Murdoch, I am the guy at the water cooler in the office asking his co-worker what they think. Although I have written extensively on the media's role in public discourse and what direction media has taken, it has been a rather sharp rebuke of the mainstream media in general. My critique of the media is wholesale and applies every bit as equally to MSNBC as it does Fox. I have been an advocate of citizen journalism since it was first scoffed at by big media and to this day thank the fact for the mere existence of the internet for finally providing open, no holds bar attitude that was once beholden to our press but left the building when it became more important to make money and entertain than it was to inform.

P.S. I thought it was an excellent piece (from Sprio) and saved it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 08:56 AM
 
5,110 posts, read 7,120,196 times
Reputation: 3116
6 Corporations own the media. These large companies are first motivated by $$$ and with respect to that anything that helps them gain more control and more money, so there is an inherent conservative bias in the media.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,758 posts, read 40,857,426 times
Reputation: 62051
I'm curious why they would use Britt Hume's show on Fox instead of the Fox Report (Shepard Smith anchor) at 7PM ET. Smith's 7PM show is the regular news reporting show. I don't know who does the regular news show on MSNBC or CNN to comment on them.

I would exclude Britt Hume's show from the study the same way they excluded editorials in a newspaper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 09:19 AM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,552,905 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
6 Corporations own the media. These large companies are first motivated by $$$ and with respect to that anything that helps them gain more control and more money, so there is an inherent conservative bias in the media.
Anyone motivated by money and control is a conservative? Are you kidding me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 09:59 AM
 
5,110 posts, read 7,120,196 times
Reputation: 3116
Quote:
Anyone motivated by money and control is a conservative? Are you kidding me?
That's not what I said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2007, 10:17 AM
 
8,425 posts, read 12,142,733 times
Reputation: 4882
I really did not listen to the Agnew tape. Was that the famous one on "nattering nabobs of negativism"? I think William Safire in the white House is the one who wrote the speech.

What many people don't understand about Agnew is that he was a creation of this biased media. The media reports of him standing up to the stunned black folks after the assassination of Dr. King in 1968 (He demanded, somewhat misleadingly, that they disown the statements of black militants, as if that had something to do with the price of fish) so impressed Nixon that Tricky Dick chose to add Spiro to the ticket. This is a true and verified story of what happened.

So when Nixon talked about "law and order" in '68 were these code words? What kind of message was he sending out through the media to white folks through his choice of
Agnew and his promise to restore order?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top