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.
Before Fox News, the conservatives pretty much only had Rush Limbaugh to listen to on the radio. Once Fox News came around, conservatives had an outlet to hear the stories that supported their opinions.
This is not to say that Fox was 100% conservative. Even if they are not fully 50-50 conservative/liberal, they do seem to offer a lot of liberal viewpoints, even on shows like Tucker Carlson. Of course Tucker often skewers the liberals he has on, because he tends to show how ridiculous their ideas often are. But, if you watch all the Fox shows where they are heavy on opinion versus hard news, they seem to have more liberals on to provide their side's views, than all the other networks considered MSM.
As of this date, the outlets considered MSM by conservatives have not learned a whole lot and still slant their coverage to some extent to favor the liberal viewpoint. There is a reason the liberals keep criticizing Fox and only Fox.
CNN has a good number of conservatives on to be fair though it does turn into the Tucker Carlson style of lampooning. I did watch it this morning and the conservative they had on was given far more time than "liberal" Ana Navarro.
Nobody with common sense can justify 90% of ALL the reporting on President trump in his 1st year in office being negative toward him by the big 3 networks ABC, NBC and CBS.
Of course you can. The man's an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
I used to do lot of traveling and have seen it a LOT, when a paper leans left and does report on a dem who was accused of doing something wrong, the party they belonged to was either way down in the article or NEVER mentioned but if a repub was involved it was in the headline.
You got any statistics on that? "A lot of traveling" doesn't mean squat.
Quote:
But they are "objective" and NOT politically motivated!
They "push" their own favorable issues and demean anybody who dares to disagree with them.
More hogwash. How many years have you worked in a newsroom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
The motive is profit
The motive always has been profit, save for non-profit news organizations such as NPR.
The first thing I learned in journalism school was the reason for newspapers to exist: To make money.
It's a sad state of our society that dumbing down the news to the point that shouting matches and pure bias are what brings in the viewers.
Quote:
The model of a free press is gone. The current model is a profit press.
"Free press" does not mean "free of charge press". Print and broadcast media, with a few exceptions, exist to make money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
Unbiased reporting never existed. Newspapers were always partisan.
False, and true. Most newspapers are partisan based on their ownership. But unbiased reporting always has and always will exist.
Quote:
Be aware, read different sources, don't believe everything you read or see and don't believe anything 100%
.
That is the best advice - don't rely on one source for news. Alas, that requires critical thinking, which is beyond the capability of an awful lot of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
The left press NEVER showed FDR in a wheel chair. Most people didn't even know he had polio and mostly wheelchair confined.
What about the conservative press? Did they show him in his wheelchair?
Nope.
Because if the conservative press had shown FDR in his wheelchair, then you wouldn't have been able to make the claim in your second sentence, that most people didn't know he used one.
ABC News has been forced, finally, to fire Brian Ross.
At least, though it took them 7 months, to do the right thing about it. A lot more of them need to go that do nothing but spin fake news. Opps. There would be none left.
You got any statistics on that? "A lot of traveling" doesn't mean squat.
More hogwash. How many years have you worked in a newsroom?
The motive always has been profit, save for non-profit news organizations such as NPR.
The first thing I learned in journalism school was the reason for newspapers to exist: To make money.
It's a sad state of our society that dumbing down the news to the point that shouting matches and pure bias are what brings in the viewers.
"Free press" does not mean "free of charge press". Print and broadcast media, with a few exceptions, exist to make money.
False, and true. Most newspapers are partisan based on their ownership. But unbiased reporting always has and always will exist.
.
That is the best advice - don't rely on one source for news. Alas, that requires critical thinking, which is beyond the capability of an awful lot of people.
What about the conservative press? Did they show him in his wheelchair?
Nope.
Because if the conservative press had shown FDR in his wheelchair, then you wouldn't have been able to make the claim in your second sentence, that most people didn't know he used one.
What about the conservative press? Did they show him in his wheelchair?
Nope.
Because if the conservative press had shown FDR in his wheelchair, then you wouldn't have been able to make the claim in your second sentence, that most people didn't know he used one.
Try again?
What conservative press was there, back then? Maybe Stars and Stripes, but I think FDR had some say in what they printed.
Plenty of conservative papers back then. But I think the average person had enough class not to parade pictures of someone's health problems around.
Plus, no paper, especially a conservative one, would ever post a picture like that at a time of war. I would never count on a liberal newspaper, these days, to have the same consideration if the disabled president were a Republican.
What conservative press was there, back then? Maybe Stars and Stripes, but I think FDR had some say in what they printed.
Are you kidding? More newspapers endorsed Wendell Wilkie in 1940 than endorsed Roosevelt. Conservative press has been around since the beginning of the printed word. In the first half of the 20th century:
Any of Hearst's newspapers
The Detroit News
The Wall Street Journal
The Los Angeles Times
The Arizona Republic
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The Dallas Morning News
Seattle Daily Times
That's just a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
Can you believe they are receiving more threats? People in this country are freakin sick.
It's more, from my perspective, that the reporter's political beliefs filter into the story. Sometimes with an outright opinion in the body of the story but more often by the language/vocabulary used and the way the reporting of the story is set up.
The above is very evident in the Washington Post. Not just in national stories but also in its local reporting.
A major problem, and you see it here constantly by who's quoted, is that many people can't, or won't, or don't understand the difference between reporting and editorial/opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
The media is biased in their coverage of politics.
They exacerbate the divide and ramp up discord. They contribute to the growing violence in the way they cover events and stories. They pit people of opposing views against each other who scream, yell, constantly interrupt and try to shout down the other side. Their programing is meant to enrage people and emotions and it works. The motive is profit and the arena is more like the Roman Coliseum where the blood letting plays out in the population. Then they cover the recent killings and villains and look for the political motive to create more viewers to enrage. More political bias ensues and the cycle continues and they profit without any real concern for anything but their profit.
The model of a free press is gone. The current model is a profit press. Facts don't matter. Bring in the gladiators and who are they ? Media people who write for one side or the other. Politicians who represent one side or the other.
It used to be - at least I thought - that the reporter/correspondent/journalist would be expected to only present the facts of the story. Anything beyond that would be considered opinion, or editorializing. Many news shows would have a place reserved for an anchor or someone to present their or the stations view on a topic, or the editorial page in a newspaper or magazine.
Today, virtually every story has a political bias. That's one more reason the media, and I'm speaking specifically of the television side of MSM (national and local), has lost my respect - and me as a viewer.
And to piggyback off of phma in addition, "news" isn't really the "news" any longer...it's entertainment. It's what's "trending". Sorry - not interested. If I want trending, I come here
Relative to print bias, I'd agree that's always been there. You knew then, as we do today which side they're on.
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.
More newspapers endorsed Wendell Wilkie in 1940 than endorsed Roosevelt. Conservative press has been around since the beginning of the printed word. In the first half of the 20th century:
