Us Media

[Geoff332]

Still no evidence. Not even a hint of something beyond your own assertions to back up your claim?

You have referred to the liberal media. I asked what behaviour you would associate with the liberal media, which you gave me. I then asked you to give me something showing that these behaviours were common amoung media organisations.

I take it then that your 'liberal media' is a figment of your imagination (or rather a product of unsubstantiated right-wing rhetoric -- which, given that it is an unsubstantiated, right-wing and rhetorical claim, seems the best description of it), because that is the only place it seems to exist. If I am wrong, give me something to validate your position. Anything will do for a start. Given that I've asked for this about four times now (not counting the time we went through the same issue in another thread), it seems unlikely that anything substantial is likely to be forthcoming.

[RebelWithanAK]

Last I checked, CNN and ABC, which you have put under "Left" were in support of the war - a very non-left wing thing to do - and were quite favorable to bush during the election. You need only check lexis-nexis for how many positive references they have for him early on.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Geoff
Two points: First I was asked my opinion in this thread, not for damning proof. Two, you also have supplied no proof, other then your opinion.

I happen to live in the country in question, I know what the common man thinks, as well as what the right-winger and the left-winger think. I know how they live and what is important to them, and who they blame when things go wrong.

So when America goes to war the media blames the POTUS for everything that goes bad. But when California runs out of power due to not building a powerplant for 20 years, is it the fault of the governer who helped pass those laws against building power plants? No, it is somehow the owners of those plants, who have had to keep their prices frozen for over a decade.

It is, of course, Bush's fault when his daughters get in trouble, according to the media. But was it Clintons fault that six or more women claimed to have been sexually assualted by him, nope.

It was Bush's fault that the Florida count was a little weird, but was it Clintons fault that all the military votes in Florida were tossed because they did not bear a totally un-needed postmark?

It was Bush's fault that he is connected to big oil, and unfair for him to run with that kind of money, meanwhile Gore is using a Whitehouse phone to solicit funds and then gets caught at a Chinese delegation on land where they should not even be allowed security access to, but this is just dandy.

Yeah, they sure look right wing to me..

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@Sep 12 2003, 10:56 PM Last I checked, CNN and ABC, which you have put under "Left" were in support of the war - a very non-left wing thing to do - and were quite favorable to bush during the election. You need only check lexis-nexis for how many positive references they have for him early on.

No, it was not a non-left thing to do. First they got hate mail because they refused to where symbols of support for American troops. Second their ratings took a big hit evertime they attacked the war effort.

So, logicly, they supported the war effort to save their ass, but then used it as proof they are not liberal. A word that has grown a little too much like a term of slander.

Truth be known, I am a liberal in the old sense of the word. I take special offense because my sort of liberal would never give away his freedom to the state.

[Geoff332]

I still see no evidence of a liberal bias. I see a few issues that you don't like the reporting of, but your opinion of these issues could be easily off-set by other issues (why has the connection between Dick Cheney and Enron not been pursued in the courts? Why has Bush not been forced to account for untruths in the State of the Nation speech?) Of course, you know better -- which is why you don't need anything resembling evidence to back up your position.

You tell us you like logical debate. I would like to see you actually provide substantive evidence for your claims.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Do you only debate the low road approach? I have as yet to see a shred of evidence coming from you. All you seem to to is bitch about the validity of my evidence and utterly fail to present any of your own, that will pass the same test.

[Geoff332]

Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 12 2003, 01:19 AM The media is not dominated by liberals. Here's a fairly comprehensive survey of journalists. The key findings are summarised at the start, but basically say that the journalists are predominantly to the centre and more conservative than the general public. Those who do not adopt a central position are more likely to end up on the right economically and on the left socially. Here's another article, from the same site, on how to detect bias in the media. Elsewhere they comment that most newspapers, since 1932 have supported republican candidates, over their democratic opposition (with the exception of two elections). Here's another study that looks at how the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are used in the media. This one shows the reverse bias favouring conservatives. There is a lot of other evidence debunking the claim of liberal bias in the media -- usually based on economic positions reported, on people interviewed on labels attached to people. Most indicate a central position and those that don't indicate a conservative bias. There may have been some historical bias, but this claim is dubious at best -- based on one or two figures like Spiro Agnew.

Here is my evidence (posted a while ago), where is yours?

[RebelWithanAK]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 12 2003, 11:19 PM Geoff Two points: First I was asked my opinion in this thread, not for damning proof. Two, you also have supplied no proof, other then your opinion. I happen to live in the country in question, I know what the common man thinks, as well as what the right-winger and the left-winger think. I know how they live and what is important to them, and who they blame when things go wrong. So when America goes to war the media blames the POTUS for everything that goes bad. But when California runs out of power due to not building a powerplant for 20 years, is it the fault of the governer who helped pass those laws against building power plants? No, it is somehow the owners of those plants, who have had to keep their prices frozen for over a decade. It is, of course, Bush's fault when his daughters get in trouble, according to the media. But was it Clintons fault that six or more women claimed to have been sexually assualted by him, nope. It was Bush's fault that the Florida count was a little weird, but was it Clintons fault that all the military votes in Florida were tossed because they did not bear a totally un-needed postmark? It was Bush's fault that he is connected to big oil, and unfair for him to run with that kind of money, meanwhile Gore is using a Whitehouse phone to solicit funds and then gets caught at a Chinese delegation on land where they should not even be allowed security access to, but this is just dandy. Yeah, they sure look right wing to me..

The power didn't go out until Enron's "hiccup" in the deregulated market, which the Governor had no control over anyway. Now, who deregulated the market and allowed a Texan power company to buy up California plants?

Bush's daughters and the Clinton rape bandwagon - I fail to see the connection. Bush had control over his daughters. Clinton doesn't have control over random women looking for money from a celebrity - not that the Washington Times or the National Review did him any favors by granting each and every one of them ammunition so as to better bash Clinton. Yeah, you heard me. The president is not a serial rapist, no matter what the Talk Radio heads say.

More importantly about the military votes was that they were postmarked LATE, ie: AFTER the deadline; and had so many questionable issues as to feel seedy - including lack of postage, duplicated names, etc etc.

Bush and Cheney's business ties put them in a conflict of interest when it comes to issuing government contracts. Which is a whole lot worse than an uncorroborated accusation at Gore (soliciting funds) and a news story more rumor and speculation than fact (the '99 Chinese delegation to visit an Air Force base).

You sure do love rhetoric, do you?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@Sep 13 2003, 11:22 AM The power didn't go out until Enron's "hiccup" in the deregulated market, which the Governor had no control over anyway. Now, who deregulated the market and allowed a Texan power company to buy up California plants? Bush's daughters and the Clinton rape bandwagon - I fail to see the connection. Bush had control over his daughters. Clinton doesn't have control over random women looking for money from a celebrity - not that the Washington Times or the National Review did him any favors by granting each and every one of them ammunition so as to better bash Clinton. Yeah, you heard me. The president is not a serial rapist, no matter what the Talk Radio heads say. More importantly about the military votes was that they were postmarked LATE, ie: AFTER the deadline; and had so many questionable issues as to feel seedy - including lack of postage, duplicated names, etc etc. Bush and Cheney's business ties put them in a conflict of interest when it comes to issuing government contracts. Which is a whole lot worse than an uncorroborated accusation at Gore (soliciting funds) and a news story more rumor and speculation than fact (the '99 Chinese delegation to visit an Air Force base). You sure do love rhetoric, do you?

You might want to look into where most of ENRON's money came from, they got many more benefits for less campaign money during Clintons administration than they did during Bush's. They spent a lot of money on Bush's campaign, apparently on the hopes that they would be bailed out, but it did not work so what is the problem? And any idiot that wants to but California power plants ought to be allowed to take a hit, money cannot be made on them with California regulations. I suspect that was an excuse to let them die.

As far as Clinton, you are assuming he was a victum, which is funny. A president being super human enough to control teenagers is almost as funny, did your parents control you? If you wanted to play grown-up and had access to a fake ID would you have asked your parents first? Do you think it is unusual for teens to have a fake ID, go to a bar and order a drink just so they can have one in front of them? Hel, it is the boy's that buy the drinks to get drunk, girls usually only for image of being seen with it.

Late postmark, hel yes, they were out on manuevers for 6 months or more, does that mean they are not allowed to vote? They are always delivered late, and the Navy does not pay postage so you have been lied to on that very point. The rest of the BS was simply rumors, you assume Clinton innocent until proven guilty but not US Sailors? What do you think that the Democratic Party are innocent babes in the political game? Both sides lie, you just got to learn where...and silly technical details is the Democrat style of lie.

As far as the solicting thing, I was not speaking of the AFB visit. I was speaking of holding a fund raiser on a chunk of land that would make a great listening post on the Pentagon.



I can see by the way you argue that it takes some very damning evidence to convict a Democrat, while a rumor is good enough to convict a Republican. Ever consider renting yourself out as a magnet? I am sure that all your ions line up in the same direction...


No wonder everyone here thinks I reside on the right, I spend so much time dispelling BS from the left, and have no reason to bother to attack the right. Hel, I actually find myself defending people I do not like the views of, just to try and maintain balance. No wonder you folks think the Media is right-wing, you eat rumors and ask for seconds..

[Scribbler1]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)
No wonder everyone here thinks I reside on the right, I spend so much time dispelling BS from the left, and have no reason to bother to attack the right. Hel, I actually find myself defending people I do not like the views of, just to try and maintain balance. No wonder you folks think the Media is right-wing, you eat rumors and ask for seconds..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

GWB, I tend to agree with your point of view often, but I don't see you as a right-winger. I'm not posting to defend your POV (nobody here needs me to defend them) but to make a couple of observations.
One, with the exception of some small media outlets and others who actually boast of their political leanings (I once heard a California radio station which used the slogan "radio on the right"), I think most media go with the flow (and the dough). If the wave of conservatism slacks off most will appear more middle ground. For me, most of the negative information about left and right-wingers I get is from the mainstream media itself. But, if I spend a million dollars a year advertising in XYZ newspaper and I tell the editors they are way too far "right", you can be sure of an editorial slant to the left. The reality is that it's all about the money, and that drives most of the media.
Two, I think most of the sheep in this country get their news second hand. They listen to talk radio or "experts" on TV and think that's the news, not realizing it's filtered throuigh the speakers ideology. Pat Buchanan and Bill Press could read the exact same news story and make it sound like two different ones, but the average listener will only hear the speaker they already believe in.

[Scribbler1]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
My view, as someone not living inside the US, of the mainstream US media (CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC etc) has been steadily decreasing over the past few years (starting from an admitedly low point). I consider a strong (and free) media to be one of the most critical elements of a just society.

My main criticism at present is that there is a lack of criticism and critical analysis of the administration, particularly on issues of 'national security'. Compare this to the UK, where the biggest media institution is currently attacking the Government over the case for war with Iraq.

A critical press should be hounding the government on issues like this. I'm not suggesting Bush actually lied on these points, but it was his Government that delivered false information, and he should be forced to account for that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Geoff, I agree completely. In my trips to the U.K. I noticed in every pub from London to Esher (and I hit quite a few of them) what we would call "average joe" types were a lot more politically savvy then the bars in the U.S. (and I hit plenty of those too!) where I believe NASCAR is considered a religion.
As for your questions...

So, I have several questions:
1. For non-US people: what is your opinion of the quality of the major US media organisations?
2. For US people: do you feel that your media is doing the job it should in terms of holding the Government accountable to the public? A: Yes and No. Plenty of stories have come out in the U.S. Media showing (not just in Iraq, either) the screw-ups we have our government to thank for, but too many people ignore (or don't believe) these in favor of less thought-provoking fare.
3. For everyone:
a) What biases do you see in the US media? A: Money, and the desire for feel good news.
b) How do these biases compare to other media sources around the world? A: About the same, from what I can see, but some news sources do a better job. Germany and the U.K., for example.

[RebelWithanAK]

What, a former producer in Fox News doesn't think it's fair and balanced?

[Scribbler1]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)

How to spot 'liberal media':
#1 You can watch a news story and have no idea what actually happened, but intimately know the reporters opinion of it. (All testimonial, no facts).
#2 Entertainers are for some reason experts on political situations, like they even live in our world...
#3 Feelings and popularity are very important. Facts are pretty much ignored.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

#1 That goes for conservative media as well. It's up to us to try and get our news from more than one source. Personally, I like the way the BBC does it. They seem to pack a lot of news and very little opinion into a half-hour on TV. But Americans like to be told what to think, so they prefer the editorialized news, and the Media (print and TV) like to make money, so what else do you think they'll put on? Time magazine is a good example. It used to be "here is the news, and here is the opinion" but now it's morphed into an amalgam of both, from what I've been reading the last few years.

#2 Entertainers are entertainers because they can entertain, that's all. That doesn't mean they're all stupid or politically ignorant. I've always said I'd like to see a stand up comic in the White House, simply because a lot of the stuff they say is based on things we usually ignore. They notice and analyse things more than we do and we could use qualities like that in government right about now. And as for living in "our" world, the diversity of feelings on this one website alone proves there ain't no such thing as "our" world.

GEORGE CARLIN FOR PRESIDENT!

3# Feelings and popularity are not VERY important, they are are ALL important! Being percieved as young and handsome (with a good looking wife) helped JFK win the election. Nixon (regardless of whether you like or hate him) was a far more savvy politician, but up against Kennedy he looked like a weasel and that made a lot of difference. The same with Goldwater (the rumors that he would start a nuclear war killed his chances.) Mondale said we would probably have to raise taxes. He was DOA after that. Friendly, folksy George Bush or the Intellectual stiff Gore would have been no contest at all if people had noticed Bush was clearly out of his league when it came to the top job in the US, but if you put a more vibrant and slicker politician against him, Bush (if he hadn't come from wealth) would probably have been running a bar in Texas.

[Geoff332]

Don't you mean "lying under a bar in Texas"?