I am not making any statement about the doctrine (or the recent failed efforts to revive), but I found this video by an advocate amusing. Is it any surprise who this guy will be voting for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8yEPlyOrzw
Well, the gentleman in the video does make some good points. Specifically, media ownership. It's true that there are many TV and radio outlets, but these are owned by only a few companies. For instance, look at Clear Channel, Entercom, and Sinclair (among others), and how it owns something in just about every market.
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
^ What IP said.. :)
Don't you think that those corporations would put more liberal talk shows on the market if they thought anyone would listen? It's all market driven and the market doesn't want liberal talk radio. Liberal talk radio would go belly up from lack of profit. We get fed all of that liberal crap from the tv networks anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
No problems here with capitalism-just that media independence is quite rare these days, and that media ownership is more concentrated and micromanaged than in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
No problems here with capitalism-just that media independence is quite rare these days, and that media ownership is more concentrated and micromanaged than in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
We get fed all of that liberal crap from the tv networks anyway.
Liberal media? Yeah, OK, right. That canard never stops being funny.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
No problems here with capitalism-just that media independence is quite rare these days, and that media ownership is more concentrated and micromanaged than in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
We get fed all of that liberal crap from the tv networks anyway.
Liberal media? Yeah, OK, right. That canard never stops being funny.
I agree! I think the liberal media is funny as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
No problems here with capitalism-just that media independence is quite rare these days, and that media ownership is more concentrated and micromanaged than in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
We get fed all of that liberal crap from the tv networks anyway.
Liberal media? Yeah, OK, right. That canard never stops being funny.
I agree! I think the liberal media is funny as well.
The notion of a liberal bias in the mainstream media is obviously a tactic certain conservatives (not all of them, just some) like to use when they can't get the media to play ball with their agenda. Really, Lister, I expected so much better of you.
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties. -- MSNBC (//%22http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485%22)
You could say that their party affiliation doesn't affect their reporting, but that would be pretty foolish.
Yeah, the whole "media bias" thing is probably over played, but it really is there. Even when I am in a conversation with someone that I do not want to debate with my opinion comes through. When I am selecting articles for research I instinctively grab the one that supports my view.
Media personnel are opinionated and outspoken by their nature. I can only assume that, try as they might, a similar situation occurs.
So at best, it seeps in. At worst, it is intentionally injected. Assuming both liberals and democrats suffer from this flaw at various levels to the same degree - that's a 7 to 1 media bias in favor of liberals. An internal investigation at the BBC called themselves too liberal. A couple years back NPR acknowledged a "perceived liberal bias" and has pledged to change its ways.
CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC and NPR are unbiased - just like Fox. [;)] If the story is important glean the facts from a couple different wires and see what you can put together.
quote:
If the story is important glean the facts from a couple different wires and see what you can put together.
Possibly too complex or difficult for our instant microwave society?
Any of you guys like the new Doctor Who?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY4ipwKH8ts
That's a great use for Youtube.
I am no fan of corporate-owned broadcast stations, but here is one instance where I have to take their side.
The "fairness doctrine" didn't work in the 70's and 80's, and it won't work now. Why? People won't listen to liberal-based programming; advertising dollars won't be spent, and the broadcasters will lose money. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with liberals, I'm just saying that when it comes to attracting an audience, they do seem to have a poor track record. If broadcast stations could make a buck by airing Air America, they would put it on the air in a heartbeat. The irony is that even though the large corporate-owned broadcast chains (e.g., Fox, Clear Channel, Cox, etc.) tend to be predominantly liberal, the programming which earns them their money is predominantly conservative.
When I was in broadcasting in the 70's, the station I worked for was asked to air some PSA's for the NAACP. According to the law at the time, we would have had to have sought out and offered an equal amount of time to groups like the KKK to offer opposition to the respective PSA's from the NAACP. In light of this unhappy duty, the legal counsel for the station I worked for advised us to not air the originally requested announcements.
In my opinion, I find nothing "fair" about such a policy.
quote:
Originally posted by billintulsa
People won't listen to liberal-based programming; advertising dollars won't be spent, and the broadcasters will lose money.
I figure, put it out there and let it find the audience, be it locally or on the net. You'll get a few bites. Nice thing about radio: something for everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by billintulsa
The irony is that even though the large corporate-owned broadcast chains (e.g., Fox, Clear Channel, Cox, etc.) tend to be predominantly liberal, the programming which earns them their money is predominantly conservative.
I don't know about that. May want to see what Clear Channel spent on political contributions before we mislabel them as adherents to any ideology.
Those that claim that the media is "liberal", are only doing so because the media doesn't fit their definition of "conservative." You can't really blame the media for being the media, it'll on go so far. So, they make stuff up call it liberal and hang on to that as long as they can.
People should be happy that there isn't a neocon on every channel screaming at you, carrying their beliefs out in public, pumping you full of fear, and fictionalizing events. People should be happy that conspiracy nuts and neocons have an outlet to turn to for their daily brainwashing, in AM radio and Fox News.
Yap all you want, but the donations speak for themselves. Be thankful that you have such a iron grip on the mainstream media. Denying that predisposition that everyone sees just makes you look foolish.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of working journalists and they found 144 that donated to democrats (mind you, not liberals, but democratic candidates) OMG!! Every body panic. How many donated to the Bushies?
Please -- think the airwaves are owned by liberals? It wasn't liberals censoring the Dixie Chicks' music. It was the conservative ownership that demanded it. Clear Channel, Cox -- conservative owned.
Predisposition, as in they aren't pumping terrorism all the time. As in, they aren't violently opposed to abortion. As in, they don't automatically tow the Presidential line. As in, they don't thump their bibles and preach evils of Islam. As in, they don't automatically slam Democrats by default, or any other party.
You want predisposition. If it isn't automatically slanted to fit your preferred media stylings, you call it liberal. If you don't see predisposition, you'll find a way to make it up.
Most of your media, besides the Fox/News Corp clan, has it's own automatic "fairness doctrine." Most of them are exercising that more now, because of the "contributions" you protest so mightily.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
There are literally hundreds of thousands of working journalists and they found 144 that donated to democrats (mind you, not liberals, but democratic candidates) OMG!! Every body panic. How many donated to the Bushies?
Please -- think the airwaves are owned by liberals? It wasn't liberals censoring the Dixie Chicks' music. It was the conservative ownership that demanded it. Clear Channel, Cox -- conservative owned.
Yeah, that's the standard line taken by most libs when they read this story. This is not the only story that backs up this position. Google is your friend.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Predisposition, as in they aren't pumping terrorism all the time. As in, they aren't violently opposed to abortion. As in, they don't automatically tow the Presidential line. As in, they don't thump their bibles and preach evils of Islam. As in, they don't automatically slam Democrats by default, or any other party.
You want predisposition. If it isn't automatically slanted to fit your preferred media stylings, you call it liberal. If you don't see predisposition, you'll find a way to make it up.
Most of your media, besides the Fox/News Corp clan, has it's own automatic "fairness doctrine." Most of them are exercising that more now, because of the "contributions" you protest so mightily.
No, predisposition as in predisposed to being liberal. Paging Dan Rather.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No, predisposition as in predisposed to being liberal. Paging Dan Rather.
Bad journalism can plague all media. News
Corp almost isn't news at all, because of bad journalism.
That it doesn't spew what you want it to spew, makes it liberal.
I disagree generally with gov't issued fairness doctrine. Most news outlets have it anyway. If AM radio listeners and their Fox News/News Corp relatives are so stupid as to believe that what they listen to is true, you can't fix stupid. And if there's a market for stupid, somebody's gotta take up the space.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That it doesn't spew what you want it to spew, makes it liberal.
I disagree generally with gov't issued fairness doctrine. Most news outlets have it anyway. If AM radio listeners and their Fox News/News Corp relatives are so stupid as to believe that what they listen to is true, you can't fix stupid. And if there's a market for stupid, somebody's gotta take up the space.
Funny, I could say the same for you. It looks middle of the road to you because it aligns with your POV. Foxnews only appears conservative to you because the other outlets are truly not middle of the road.
Mainstream media spews what you want spewed, so therefore they are reasonable to you. Unless you're somehow above the partisan fray, but a quick read of your posts makes that thought as rediculous as saying I'm unpartisan. IOW, everyone is partisan, except you...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Mainstream media spews what you want spewed, so therefore they are reasonable to you. Unless you're somehow above the partisan fray, but a quick read of your posts makes that thought as rediculous as saying I'm unpartisan. IOW, everyone is partisan, except you...
Before "conservative" media existed, you guys just decided one day that everything else was "liberal". It was this so-called "liberal" media that brought down LBJ, Nixon, showed the Ford was kind of slow, pounded inflation during Carter and Reagan, sent Clinton to impeachment, and unveiled much of the inter-workings of Bush II.
The only president the "liberal media" didn't really touch much was Bush I. He kind of hung himself with his own party.
Yes, you fictionalized "liberal media". The true "liberal media" barely exists at all. You want indoctrination. You want pro-Republican propaganda. You want anti-Islam, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-taxes. You aren't looking for fair, you're looking for propaganda. And you found it, and again, I'm cool with that. Go get you some.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Mainstream media spews what you want spewed, so therefore they are reasonable to you. Unless you're somehow above the partisan fray, but a quick read of your posts makes that thought as rediculous as saying I'm unpartisan. IOW, everyone is partisan, except you...
Before "conservative" media existed, you guys just decided one day that everything else was "liberal". It was this so-called "liberal" media that brought down LBJ, Nixon, showed the Ford was kind of slow, pounded inflation during Carter and Reagan, sent Clinton to impeachment, and unveiled much of the inter-workings of Bush II.
The only president the "liberal media" didn't really touch much was Bush I. He kind of hung himself with his own party.
Yes, you fictionalized "liberal media". The true "liberal media" barely exists at all. You want indoctrination. You want pro-Republican propaganda. You want anti-Islam, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-taxes. You aren't looking for fair, you're looking for propaganda. And you found it, and again, I'm cool with that. Go get you some.
You're funny!
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Yes, you fictionalized "liberal media". The true "liberal media" barely exists at all. You want indoctrination. You want pro-Republican propaganda. You want anti-Islam, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-taxes. You aren't looking for fair, you're looking for propaganda. And you found it, and again, I'm cool with that. Go get you some.
Again, everyone is partisan except you and those that agree with you. Delightful...
Trying to compare media outlets as they existed 15, 20 or 30 years ago is fallacious as well. The money donated speaks for itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
You're funny!
Fine, I'll take it. Though, I prefer hilarious.
There's nothing too funny about some folks complete inability to comprehend or accept the simple functions of media and news.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Again, everyone is partisan except you and those that agree with you. Delightful...
Trying to compare media outlets as they existed 15, 20 or 30 years ago is fallacious as well. The money donated speaks for itself.
Yes, we should all tinkle ourselves because money was donated. By God, let us tinkle.
And by God! Let the media bring down every Democrat president, let's just not allow them to bring down Republicans. The concept of "liberal" or "leftist" media, as described by gov't, has been around much longer than you.
It's not about partisan. You don't understand the media in any other terms than "us versus them." Then you drag your little conspiracy everywhere you go, trying to convince everyone else that there's nothing normal about this media. And anyone who says it's normal, only does so to hide their "liberalism". Again, go get you some, I'm very happy that they have an outlet for you.
quote:
You don't understand the media in any other terms than "us versus them.
So am I to assume that you want exactly the opposite of these evil conservative POVs? How is it that your position isn't indoctrination or propaganda, but the conservative position is?
You can't adopt both sides of an issue without being duplicitous or waffling(Unless you're John Kerry). You decry the same malady that you yourself suffer from.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
You're funny!
Fine, I'll take it. Though, I prefer hilarious.
There's nothing too funny about some folks complete inability to comprehend or accept the simple functions of media and news.
Me thinks you need to look in the mirror..
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You can't adopt both sides of an issue without being duplicitous or waffling. You decry the same malady that you yourself suffer from.
In your "us versus them" world, that would be true. However, "conservative" media is a response to the label of "liberal" on everything mainstream. Many people bought into this label, and looked for something else. AM Radio, and Fox/News Corp gave it to them in the form of near-pure propaganda.
The same people claiming "liberal media", even fictionalized the mainstream medias handling of the Iraq War in the beginning. Even though the mainstream media failed miserably in it's duty to ask questions of the gov't.
I don't watch Fox News, listen to AM Radio, or seek out "liberal media." If you're one of those kind of folks, you've probably got plenty to look at. Go get you some.
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
Me thinks you need to look in the mirror..
Oh stop it, you don't "think".
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
Me thinks you need to look in the mirror..
Oh stop it, you don't "think".
Such hostility from the self-proclaimed bipartisan!
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
Such hostility from the self-proclaimed bipartisan!
Feel free to wet your pants, everyone else on this thread has. And if you can't take a jab, you could think about your desire to dish them out.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
Such hostility from the self-proclaimed bipartisan!
Feel free to wet your pants, everyone else on this thread has. And if you can't take a jab, you could think about your desire to dish them out.
Looks like you're the one that can't take a jab.. tsk, tsk... Such anger. Things not going well for you today, or any other day?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
In your "us versus them" world, that would be true. However, "conservative" media is a response to the label of "liberal" on everything mainstream. Many people bought into this label, and looked for something else. AM Radio, and Fox/News Corp gave it to them in the form of near-pure propaganda.
The same people claiming "liberal media", even fictionalized the mainstream medias handling of the Iraq War in the beginning. Even though the mainstream media failed miserably in it's duty to ask questions of the gov't.
I don't watch Fox News, listen to AM Radio, or seek out "liberal media." If you're one of those kind of folks, you've probably got plenty to look at. Go get you some.
So let's drop the labels then, since you somehow believe that the term liberal media "made up." You believe that conservatives are pushing anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc, with propaganda on conservative news outlets. Fine.
What then do you call a news outlet that is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc?
Why is it only "pushing an agenda" when it's conservative, but evenhanded when the POVs conveniently mirror your own?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What then do you call a news outlet that is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc?
I haven't seen one that's actually "pro" either. I have seen events mentioned, but it's not obviously "pro" on either, unless you get to op/eds. Op/eds aren't news, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, they all have Op/eds. Mostly conservative-ish (because it pays). But there's also more than one force at work, so if you're talking about abortion, most people don't like it, but most people think it has to be legal. That would be a mainstream opinion, but it's value in mainstream news is marginal.
quote:
Why is it only "pushing an agenda" when it's conservative, but evenhanded when the POVs conveniently mirror your own?
Mainstream media, what you refer to as "liberal", does not mirror my own views. Only in your little polarized world do people think like that. I've not been happy with mainstream media in recent years, it's coming around some. But still, mainstream media doesn't reflect my views. I don't fault you for flocking to propaganda material, lot's of people do. I don't, I know it's there, and I am fine with it being there.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No, predisposition as in predisposed to being liberal. Paging Dan Rather.
News Corp almost isn't news at all, because of bad journalism.
No, just propoganda and eye candy, that's really about it. Shepard Smith seems like he's fit for bigger and better things, though. His work during Hurricane Katrina and last year's set-to in Israel were his signature moments.
Still, they do have their memorable moments when it all blows up in their faces, such as when Senator Carl Levin of Mchigan
sparred verbally with Brian Kilmeade and by the time the "interview" was over, Brian had this look on his face like he'd just been owned. Or when Senator Barbara Boxer lit into Jane Skinner; the Senator had Fox's number and Jane knew it by the time the "interview" was over.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Mainstream media, what you refer to as "liberal", does not mirror my own views. Only in your little polarized world do people think like that. I've not been happy with mainstream media in recent years, it's coming around some. But still, mainstream media doesn't reflect my views. I don't fault you for flocking to propaganda material, lot's of people do. I don't, I know it's there, and I am fine with it being there.
It's always the guy who's completely nuts who thinks everyone else has the problem, but no, he's just fine...
You couldn't possibly be a partisan or have a clouded POV that makes it difficult for you to discern when media outlets are being heavy handed and letting personal opinion filter into their reportage...except for when they're conservative of course, then you're all over it.
Whether you're "happy" with the mainstream media or not is of no concern to me and has no bearing on whether they are shifted in ideology or not. The numbers don't lie, and these people aren't machines. They are influenced by their personal beliefs just like you and I are. At least I'm honest enough to admit that outlets like Fox are more conservative...you're happy in la-la-land pretending that fiascos like Dan Rather's are just isolated incidents.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Whether you're "happy" with the mainstream media or not is of no concern to me and has no bearing on whether they are shifted in ideology or not. The numbers don't lie, and these people aren't machines. They are influenced by their personal beliefs just like you and I are. At least I'm honest enough to admit that outlets like Fox are more conservative...you're happy in la-la-land pretending that fiascos like Dan Rather's are just isolated incidents.
He made a mistake, a big one, and he paid.
But it takes a complete moron or a revisionist to sit here and say that the mainstream media was anything but conservative for the couple years after 911. I know why, I understand why. I only fault them a little bit, given the quasi-fascist rhetoric coming out of the White House. We were close to reverting to McCarthyism or worse, and the only ones that would have survived were groups like News Corp.
Your concept of "liberal media" when attached to the mainstream news outlets is under water. The only people that believe that, have believed it all along. Like those that believe in UFOs or WTC Conspiracies.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Whether you're "happy" with the mainstream media or not is of no concern to me and has no bearing on whether they are shifted in ideology or not. The numbers don't lie, and these people aren't machines. They are influenced by their personal beliefs just like you and I are. At least I'm honest enough to admit that outlets like Fox are more conservative...you're happy in la-la-land pretending that fiascos like Dan Rather's are just isolated incidents.
We were close to reverting to McCarthyism or worse, and the only ones that would have survived were groups like News Corp.
Close to it? Hmmm, listen to the likes of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the rest of the Hee Haw gang and you'd swear we already
were dealing with some degree of McCarthyism.
It doesn't matter what you think of the press, but the sad reality is that, as a whole, they have failed newspaper readers. This is one of the reasons for popular blog and websites, such as Tulsa Now. How many topics of Tulsa World stories were first mentioned here? We are doing their job for them.
There is no investigative journalism today. There is no one out there looking for the proverbial deep throat anymore axcept maybe the bloggers.
I would be interested in attending journalism school today to see what has changed. It used to be that it was "just the facts." period. It was simple. Today, reporters offer analysis (read opinion) in the midst of legitimate news articles.
Ethis were an important part of journalism school. We were told not to support candidates or particular issues or we could lose credibility. Journalists were not allowed to accept gifts. Now, gifts are the only way to get an interview with a writer in some cases.
I think the demise of true journalism is a reflection of the demise of the industry itself. Reporters just don't care anymore, because people don't read newspapers anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
It doesn't matter what you think of the press, but the sad reality is that, as a whole, they have failed newspaper readers. This is one of the reasons for popular blog and websites, such as Tulsa Now. How many topics of Tulsa World stories were first mentioned here? We are doing their job for them.
There is no investigative journalism today. There is no one out there looking for the proverbial deep throat anymore axcept maybe the bloggers.
I would be interested in attending journalism school today to see what has changed. It used to be that it was "just the facts." period. It was simple. Today, reporters offer analysis (read opinion) in the midst of legitimate news articles.
Ethis were an important part of journalism school. We were told not to support candidates or particular issues or we could lose credibility. Journalists were not allowed to accept gifts. Now, gifts are the only way to get an interview with a writer in some cases.
I think the demise of true journalism is a reflection of the demise of the industry itself. Reporters just don't care anymore, because people don't read newspapers anymore.
Nellie, are you a journalist?
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
It doesn't matter what you think of the press, but the sad reality is that, as a whole, they have failed newspaper readers. This is one of the reasons for popular blog and websites, such as Tulsa Now. How many topics of Tulsa World stories were first mentioned here? We are doing their job for them.
There is no investigative journalism today. There is no one out there looking for the proverbial deep throat anymore axcept maybe the bloggers.
I would be interested in attending journalism school today to see what has changed. It used to be that it was "just the facts." period. It was simple. Today, reporters offer analysis (read opinion) in the midst of legitimate news articles.
Ethis were an important part of journalism school. We were told not to support candidates or particular issues or we could lose credibility. Journalists were not allowed to accept gifts. Now, gifts are the only way to get an interview with a writer in some cases.
I think the demise of true journalism is a reflection of the demise of the industry itself. Reporters just don't care anymore, because people don't read newspapers anymore.
I see several problems which have evolved since the advent of cable news and the internet.
Used to be when I was a kid, you got your news in the morning paper, evening paper (I was a Trib carrier for a couple of years), and on the local evening news or the national news immediately before or following. There wasn't a 5pm and 6pm local newscast, just one.
If there was a major disaster, you could expect them to cut in on regular programming. The Tulsa World was more or less a re-cap of what you saw on the 10pm news unless something happened between 10pm and deadline for the final home edition, which I think was 12 or 1am.
Now that there are so many news outlets, there is heavy competition to scoop each other on stories. In the haste to be the first to inform, details are frequently left out.
The other issue is that CNN turned news into entertainment. Two watershed events I see that addicted a nation to news as entertainment were Operation Desert Storm and the O.J. trial.
Things which weren't considered acceptible in journalism school are now SOP. Networks and tabloids pay big $$$ to get the "inside story". Inflecting a journalist's personal views into skewing his or her report is apparent. It's easy to see in reportage. If the news isn't distilled in some manner, then what is the purpose in having 10 channels on Cox all reporting the same story? Every reporter has to put their personal angle on a story or add pathos to pull you in. Otherwise, we'd only need one news station.
For example, on ABC Nightline and Olbermann last night, the Libby sentence commutation (incorrectly referred to by multiple parties as a parden- just stating facts not my "conservative" opinion) weighed in heavily with Joe Wilson, who has a horse in this race and leading Democratic candidates for President as to why this points to corruption in the White House. Hillary chiming in on this was ludicrous, considering the volume of pardons to some serious scum-bags issued on her husband's last day in office- which is a President's prerogative.
You wouldn't expect Olbermann to be kind to Bush on this. However, you would think a "mainstream" news outlet like ABC would have had more balance, rather than giving a GOP-head a 15 second sound bite to a 1 minute sound-bite to a Dem-head.
There's obvious bias on this. I didn't watch anything on Fox last night, but it didn't raise too much of a stink even on Beck.
Long story short, Nellie: We get crappy news these days because the news industry is so competitive, they have to fill lots of time, and they have to keep people interested long enough to keep viewership or readership. Things like facts seldom get in the way of a good story these days.
Two men I will say represent the last bastion of honorable journalism are Woodward & Bernstein. I don't have a clue which political party either of them belongs to, but they have investigated and reported tough stories on politicians without bias as to which political party that person was from.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
However, you would think a "mainstream" news outlet like ABC would have had more balance, rather than giving a GOP-head a 15 second sound bite to a 1 minute sound-bite to a Dem-head.
There's obvious bias on this.
Maybe your expectations are at fault. That doesn't show bias, it's shows economics. People don't want to sit through some guy saying how "everything is alright". They want b*tching and moaning and blood and "the sky is falling."
If roles were reversed, and the GOP was given 4 times the amount of time given to a Dem, you wouldn't even have noticed it.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
However, you would think a "mainstream" news outlet like ABC would have had more balance, rather than giving a GOP-head a 15 second sound bite to a 1 minute sound-bite to a Dem-head.
There's obvious bias on this.
Maybe your expectations are at fault. That doesn't show bias, it's shows economics. People don't want to sit through some guy saying how "everything is alright". They want b*tching and moaning and blood and "the sky is falling."
If roles were reversed, and the GOP was given 4 times the amount of time given to a Dem, you wouldn't even have noticed it.
Actually, I would have noticed. Is it time for us to start calling each other liars again, MC? [;)]
When I watch Olbermann or O'Reilly, I know who their horse is, they are commentators- not journalists. When I watch a nightly newscast or news journal like Nightline, I expect all sides to be represented equally.
Had ABC devoted more time talking to Rudy or McCain, I would assume the producers at ABC thought the commutation was a good thing. I can only assume that the producers felt it was a bad thing since they devoted more time to the critics of it.
Why anyone cares what Joe Wilson thinks is beyond me, other than to ratchet up partisan hatred. He's a putz.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Had ABC devoted more time talking to Rudy or McCain, I would assume the producers at ABC thought the commutation was a good thing. I can only assume that the producers felt it was a bad thing since they devoted more time to the critics of it.
Something like 80% of the population is opposed to Bush giving away a pardon on this guy, and even though this isn't a quite a pardon, you expect equal time for someone's case that 80% of the population is opposed to.
They don't give time to every lunatic fringe to explain their views on Scooter Libby. Why would they give time to an opinion that isn't even held by a majority of Republicans? Heck, equal time would probably have been less than they got, all views considered.
And how do you know that McCain or Rudy weren't asked? If I were either one of them, there would certainly be no reason to touch this.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Had ABC devoted more time talking to Rudy or McCain, I would assume the producers at ABC thought the commutation was a good thing. I can only assume that the producers felt it was a bad thing since they devoted more time to the critics of it.
Something like 80% of the population is opposed to Bush giving away a pardon on this guy, and even though this isn't a quite a pardon, you expect equal time for someone's case that 80% of the population is opposed to.
They don't give time to every lunatic fringe to explain their views on Scooter Libby. Why would they give time to an opinion that isn't even held by a majority of Republicans? Heck, equal time would probably have been less than they got, all views considered.
And how do you know that McCain or Rudy weren't asked? If I were either one of them, there would certainly be no reason to touch this.
So news should be populist-based?
Rudy & McCain both released statements in support.
Personally, it's a "big-to-do-about-nothing" issue. I could care less if Libby does time or not and predicted Bush would step in at some point since his legacy is pretty much hosed.
I'm more concerned about convicted child molesters walking around on appeal bonds than some admin official convicted of being too stupid to say: "I don't recall" being allowed to walk.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
So news should be populist-based?
It doesn't matter if they "should be", they are mostly. The exception being, as usual, anything that will piss you off or horrify you. It's about money, not politics. You can make a huge "whoopity do" over it, but it's the media, it's how they work. Like I said before, people don't want to hear some guy talking about how great everything is.
quote:
I'm more concerned about convicted child molesters walking around on appeal bonds than some admin official convicted of being too stupid to say: "I don't recall" being allowed to walk.
Then you should really love the heck out of the media. They'll let you in on it, they love that crap.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
people don't want to hear some guy talking about how great everything is.
I do. Call me weird.
Conan, one of the biggest changes with 24/h news is the need to create news. It used to be you could always fluff out a 30 minute news report or fill the front page with something. With 24 hours news, you need people like Paris and the ever present "going to kill you" story of the year (SARS, West Nile, Killer Bees, Solar Radiation, Global Warming...). I barely watch "news" anymore, it is certainly more entertainment based than news based.
Which, after all, they are really in the business of selling advertising. So it shouldn't be surprising that the news is full of hyperbole, fluff, and partisanship. Its too bad, but not surprising.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
people don't want to hear some guy talking about how great everything is.
I do. Call me weird.
You want to hear how great everything is...for child molesters right? That's exactly it. What in the high blue blazes do I care if someone goes on a drunken car theft rampage and kills a blind man and his dog while driving a Mini Cooper in freakin Vermont? I don't, but apparently it pays. Same goes for "child molesters", missing blondes in the caribbean, drunken Brittany's, and whatever other nonsense you can think of. People eat that stuff up.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Which, after all, they are really in the business of selling advertising. So it shouldn't be surprising that the news is full of hyperbole, fluff, and partisanship. Its too bad, but not surprising.
We're actually pretty close, except I'll deny partisanship on the mainstream media. The Mainstream media went full bore after Clinton, they watched the run to Iraq War without questioning the Bush Administration, they have already started taking shots at Democratic controlled congress, and the idea of partisanship is mostly put forth by admitted partisans. People who literally want to destroy the Mainstream Media.
While, on the other hand, populism and fluff and a hankerin' for thumpin' gov't, already known to exist, explain any perceived "partisanship", perfectly.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Which, after all, they are really in the business of selling advertising. So it shouldn't be surprising that the news is full of hyperbole, fluff, and partisanship. Its too bad, but not surprising.
We're actually pretty close, except I'll deny partisanship on the mainstream media.
Does Faux News count as Mainstream?
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Does Faux News count as Mainstream?
If it didn't, about all you'd have is McNeil-Lehrer. And, I can't think of another.
Unless of course by Faux you mean Fox. They don't even want to be, or pretend to be "mainstream."
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Does Faux News count as Mainstream?
Unless of course by Faux you mean Fox. They don't even want to be, or pretend to be "mainstream."
Precisely who I was referring to.
Fox News certainly has strong, mainstream-type ratings. If it's trying to position itself as a David-vs.-Goliath thing or an us-against-the-world, that seems very disingenuous.
Fox News is nothing more than niche programming. It positioned itself as an "alternative" to "liberal" media, whether the liberals were real or imagined.
It's little more than good marketing, really.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Fox News certainly has strong, mainstream-type ratings. If it's trying to position itself as a David-vs.-Goliath thing or an us-against-the-world, that seems very disingenuous.
Fox News is nothing more than niche programming. It positioned itself as an "alternative" to "liberal" media, whether the liberals were real or imagined.
It's little more than good marketing, really.
With the possible exception of Fox anchorman Shepard Smith, it comes off as equal parts propoganda and eye candy.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
If you want that stupid Bull Sheet they call "news" like Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton then you have got a problem man. I don't want that stupid crap on my TV... Does anyone else in this forum really think that Paris Hilton should have EVER been the lead story on CNN, FOX, CNBC, CBS, and ALL the major stations? This is not news this is a distraction and I don't want that crap therefore it is NOT capitalism because I DON'T watch it and the only reason most mindless Americans do watch it is because like the guy said the NEWS IS OWNED and there is NOTHING else on.
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Damned capitalism allowing companies to produce products that people want and that make other people want to advertise with them. Damn them!!!
If you want that stupid Bull Sheet they call "news" like Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton then you have got a problem man. I don't want that stupid crap on my TV... Does anyone else in this forum really think that Paris Hilton should have EVER been the lead story on CNN, FOX, CNBC, CBS, and ALL the major stations? This is not news this is a distraction and I don't want that crap therefore it is NOT capitalism because I DON'T watch it and the only reason most mindless Americans do watch it is because like the guy said the NEWS IS OWNED and there is NOTHING else on.
Sometimes, what is billed as News, is little more than Infotainment.
Fox draws more people to its news broadcasts each day than anything else on the planet. So I would have to say it is mainstream. As I have said before, all studies have shown that Fox News is the least biased of all major networks (I believe the study was by Stanford, it was based on source material).
NEWS. Not programming. So Hannity doesnt count against them because it is not news.
I don't watch Fox, nor CNN, nor any of the other network news channels. You get 5 minutes of news every hour...
- - -
MichaelC, good points on the media going after Cliton and buying into the war. But overall, a bias presents itself. Study after study, political donation by political donation. Subtle things always give it away, their choice of stories, the snowball questions to liberals, and even the vernacular chosen sometimes. I don't think its the end of the world and I understand why (if the people making the news hold a view, it will probably creep in), just sayin' its there.
In order for that to be true, the study would have to assume a few things: 1) No third view can exist. 2) The definition of "Liberal" as everything that exists outside the narrow view of so-called "conservatives", is true. 3) Fox is not conservative, it's "pro-gov't" 4) Mainstream Media is never "anti-gov't". 5) Populism and economics have essentially no value in media.
Fox has an excessively "pro-gov't" view in it's regular news casts. No mainstream media outlet is automatically "pro-gov't". It's the duty of the media to de-cloak gov't and in some cases outright attack gov't, even a GOP run gov't. Fox can not be "mainstream", and doesn't pretend to be "mainstream."
If the most popular of something isn't main stream... then the definition has greatly changed.
quote:
Mainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence
By definition, if something is THE most popular, it is mainstream. In Nazi Germany, whatever Herman Goering said was the mainstream, it was the only stream. Mainstream does not mean right, just that it is the prevailing trend.
- - -
The study is not a loose cannon. It is a well thought out and carefully researched product of the University of Chicago, UCLA, and Stanford.
They looked at the most cited references of Congress. They then broke out Congressmen's ADA score (how conservative or liberal they are, 50 being center) and then looked at what sources they sited too. The theory being, a conservative sites the Heritage Foundation more than the Brookings Institute.
They then compared various media outlets and referenced their stories to see how often they utilized the various sources. Clearly the process is much more in depth than I can explain here, their methodology is presented in their research:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
" Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress."
"Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist"So there are the findings of three HIGHLY respected Universities (two very liberal ones at that). Your argument, and that of everyone else apparently, is simply your opinion. I have not dont an in depth review of the news channels, I do not watch them. So I will go ahead and trust Stanford on this one...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If the most popular of something isn't main stream... then the definition has greatly changed.
QuoteMainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence
The sum of all other Cable News media trounces Fox News. Any of the big three, not even including Cable News, in their little 30 minute time slots, trounce Fox News.
You're confusing "most popular cable news network" with "prevailing current".
And "left of average congressman" means nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If the most popular of something isn't main stream... then the definition has greatly changed.
QuoteMainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence
The sum of all other Cable News media trounces Fox News. Any of the big three, not even including Cable News, in their little 30 minute time slots, trounce Fox News.
You're confusing "most popular cable news network" with "prevailing current".
And "left of average congressman" means nothing.
Just can't admit it when you've been owned huh?
Michael C has been OWNED!
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
Michael C has been OWNED!
Thanks for your contribution, moron.
Being the most popular entity of many entities, does not make "mainstream". Particularly if the majority of entities are in opposition to you.
And being "pro-gov't" doesn't make "mainstream." It makes "propaganda."
(Personal attack removed. You already made your point)
Apparently Lister hasn't yet graduated from the fifth grade.
(Play nice. Personal attack removed)
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Apparently Lister hasn't yet graduated from the fifth grade.
It's hard to tell really, but it could be considered cute in some circles. He's at least weird, I kind of like weird. Most of the time anyway.
You are correct, the sum of the other news channels trounce Fox. Just like all other records sold in 1958 trounced Elvis. They were all very different than and mostly hostile towards Elvis. Nonetheless, no one could deny that Elvis was mainstream (Im not comparing Fox to Elvis, just trying to show you where I am coming from). Fox News has more viewers than any other news source, even with the network news evening bump... (the network news are akin to one large concert, Fox has many small concerts... at the end more have seen Fox. Elvis theme, yay)
And I believe trying to differentiate between "prevailing" and "current most popular" is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. I understand what you are saying, that overall the style of Fox News is not the prevailing wind, but nonetheless, to pretend it is not mainstream is not being honest.
- - - -
To define something as liberal, conservative, or centrist you have to identify a defining center. The poor fools at Stanford thought using our elected body as an indication would be the best way to define the center. Read their methodology and try to find a better way, there would probably be $100,000 in it for you if you come up with one.
Even if you do not think it is the best way and you beat Stanford, U of Chicago and UCLA by finding a better one... their criteria is still not meaningless. It means that ALL major news aside from Fox is more liberal than the average representative in the United States. One can easily extrapolate that the news networks are more liberal than the voters who put them there. And therefor, that there is a severe liberal media bias.
Even when presented with a firm scientific study from 3 well respected Universities you will still not yield any ground. Seems like you are rooted in your opinion in spite of arguments or evidence to the contrary. Did you read the study?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
To define something as liberal, conservative, or centrist you have to identify a defining center. The poor fools at Stanford thought using our elected body as an indication would be the best way to define the center. Read their methodology and try to find a better way, there would probably be $100,000 in it for you if you come up with one.
The problem with selecting some average of congress as "center", is that it essentially makes all "pro-gov't" news "centrist." Not gov't news, "pro-gov't" news. That baseline makes the study worthless, Fox couldn't possibly have been anything but "centrist" according to their methodology.
That Fox doesn't pretend to be mainstream, that they pretend to be an "alternative," tells me I don't have to bother worrying about them. Until they're version of selective "pro-gov't" news is the majority news, they won't be mainstream.
The most simple test of Fox's intentions, would be to elect a Democratic President. My money is on "Fox goes wild," and kicks "pro-gov't" to the curb.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So Hannity doesnt count against them because it is not news.
Hannity doesn't count anyway, no matter what the context.
Michael, no. Your analysis is patently wrong.
The study has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with pro or anti government. As I stated above, it reference what resources the news agencies site as a source. It doesnt matter if the story was pro government, anti government, or about daisies. It has NOTHING to do with pro or anti government. NOTHING.
Any news agency could be anything based on the sources they utilize. A rapid anti government channel could be centrist. And a Vote for Bush station could be leftist - if they used liberal sources for their stories. It has NOTHING to do with their governmental stance. Sheesh.
Do you understand? Please go read the study, apparently I am not doing a good job explaining it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The study has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with pro or anti government.
What would "pro-gov't" news be, if not centrist?
Using Congress as a baseline, and Fox's selective "pro-gov't" news model, what was Fox supposed to be? And what are they now? Given that Congress has turned over.
For the love of god. Pro government news could be leftist if there is a leftist government in power, or conservative if there is a conservative government in power, or leftist on some issues, or centrist or... it can be anything. In this study, it would depend entirely on what that news channel and what those member of congress used for source material to support their views (perhaps this is the core of the problem, you are unfamiliar with support for a view).
NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE GOD DAMN STUDY LOOKS AT WHAT POINT OF VIEW THE CHANNEL TAKES.
If every news story were about flowers, nothing about the government at all, they would still be able to rate them based on what sources they utilized. It has NOTHING, at all, what-so-ever, to do with anyones point of view at all period, fin, QED. That's the entire point of a scientific study.
It matters what SOURCE material they utilize. If they site to the Heritage Foundation in a story about teenage pimples it is weighted as conservative based on the source material. It doesnt matter if they are pro or anti governmental pimples.
GO READ THE STUDY!!!!!!
You are not even arguing a logical position. Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Its frustrating to argue with someone who doesn't understand what's going on. I tried very hard to provide a detailed study illustrating why I believe what I do. I then went out of my way to explain it repeatedly. I then explicitly TOLD YOU that you were wrong and again explained why.
Yet you persist with your nonsensical argument.
For the final time, in this study - the political slant of a news organization has NOTHING at all to do with its opinion of the sitting governmental body. PERIOD.
Do you get it?
You take a congress, where who knows, maybe 40% will say they're opposed to abortion completely. 75% probably favor restricting abortion. Where maybe 40% support a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. Where maybe, depending on how it's worded, 80% are opposed to any taxes. You might even find that 10% are ready to declare "hunting season" on Hispanics.
Even though, at least 70% of them are lying, don't give two craps about taxes or abortion or gays or aliens or anything else. And you're going to use that as a baseline.
Then you turn to Fox News, which has done literally nothing the last 6+ years other than glance by the tough questions on this gov't, in favor of basic scare tactics and pro-gov't news, especially when it comes to the GOP. They avoided every issue on this gov't that could have made them go either way according to that study. Their news has been "pro-gov't" the last 6 years.
There is no way Fox could have been anything other than "centrist" in that study.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
For the love of god. Pro government news could be leftist if there is a leftist government in power, or conservative if there is a conservative government in power, or leftist on some issues, or centrist or... it can be anything.
So are you saying that Fox is "Neo Con" news, since it's "pro-gov't"?
Before you start the insults, you might see if you can get it first. That the study didn't mention it, makes the study worthless.
Michael have you ever actually watched Fox News?
(personal attack removed)I presented Stanford, the University of Chicago, and UCLA's study and explained it in great detail. I repeatedly went over their methodology and encouraged you to read it.
In response, you said "I do not agree with it, I think fox is 'pro gov't.' The study is worthless." You have not read the study. You do not understand the methodology. You present no contrasting study. And your argument does not even attack the merits. Instead, you do not like Fox News and stand by that as your proof.
quote:
So are you saying that Fox is "Neo Con" news, since it's "pro-gov't"?
NO. I am screaming from the god damn roof tops that it does not matter. The argument you are bating is ridiculous. You are arguing that fox is conservative because you feel they like the current administration and therefor are biased. That is not a study, that is not scientific... that is an opinion. A naked opinion does not help settle a dispute.
Not to mention the fact I never used the word "Neo Con" nor in that post did I even hint at what way a given network might slant.
The study did not mention it because in their methodology it doesn't have a single thing to do with the study. In a scientific study, by definition, IT CAN NOT. You seek to classify bias as an opinion - which, as we outlined above, is not helpful.
So you sit and ignore logic, reason, work product, and insight and keep telling me I'm wrong because you're opinion says so. I'll stick with my sources until I'm shown something better. In a logical argument you can either present a better argument, succumb, or acknowledge a point and stand to disagree. IN a rambling tirade you can do whatever you want... have at it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
NO. I am screaming from the god damn roof tops that it does not matter. The argument you are bating is ridiculous.
You can't have it both ways, and it's not baiting. You're the one that said "pro-gov't" can be "conservative."
You don't get it. The study does not take "pro-gov't" into account. And "pro-gov't" does not mean "pro-neocon" or "pro-leftist". All it means is they avoid controversy in regards to the government, in favor of things which are positive. Pumping a 29% president, not popular, but pro-gov't. Their reasons for that, are TBA. And until they're announced, "pro-gov't" can be no where but "centrist".
Fox News does not tackle the "issues" your study sites. Your study is worthless. On more than one plane.
And seriously, we should all thank the Mods in advance for continuing to let CF sh!t all over the place. And we should all expect it to continue.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Michael have you ever actually watched Fox News?
Watch it? Hey, I'm soaking in it!
Pro government can be conservative, it can be liberal, it can be centrist. Therefore, it is worthless as a gauge. It means nothing in this context.
Your complaint is that Fox News is too positive? Because they are positive they will always be centrist.
per this study, that is incorrect. Wrong. False.
The study means that Fox News uses various sources when compiling its news while other channels rely heavily on liberal sources. Where, in that finding, does anyone care about what the channels views are.
You are either being really rude by pretending not to get this, or there is no hope in continuing this conversation. If anyone else has any light, I'd appreciate it. I think I am unable to communicate effectively with Michael. If you are being serious, sorry I yelled at you earlier. Its amazingly frustrating to repeat oneself and rephrase with Elvis examples and still not be understood.
Back to study real quick, I still contend that it means nothing specifically because it's based on "average congressperson." A relative gauge, that takes nothing else into account like economics or even a "pro-gov't" view. You're acting like these media groups live in a vacuum and can do whatever they want to and it will pay. That you say it's irrelevant, doesn't make it irrelevant. You can continue to argue, you can continue to sh!t all over the board, you'll get nowhere.
If all media is as a rule anti-gov't (unveiling the inner secrets, asking the tough questions), and you have a neo-con gov't, does that make all media liberal? If you're a neo-con, yes. If you're one of those 29% loons, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Pro government can be conservative, it can be liberal, it can be centrist. Therefore, it is worthless as a gauge. It means nothing in this context.
Your complaint is that Fox News is too positive? Because they are positive they will always be centrist.
No. A "propagandist" news network would be positive too. You've made the assertion that it could be "propagandist", technically. I agree with that, doesn't mean Fox is "propagandist." A focus on normally average gov't functions isn't left or right or anything, ignoring everything else may not be "centrist", but it certainly could appear that way.
That previous remark was not meant as a disrespect. Fox News is what is played for news at the salon, and thus, it's Fox News or no news at all.
CF: I think this is what Michael C means by unbiased, non-progandist news coverage by a major media network:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
CF: I think this is what Michael C means by unbiased, non-progandist news coverage by a major media network:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Not a matter of bias on Olbermann's part, just a matter of stating facts. It's a sure bet you won't hear that on Faux News.
No bias? You're kidding right? That's J.O.'s interpretation of the facts. He's not privy to any more information than you and I are, and there is personal spin and hyperbole all over that commentary.
Olbermann is paid to be a liberal crank, same as Hannity is paid to be a sockpuppet for the RNC. He was hired to be MSNBC's anti-O'Reilly.
I will deliniate a marked difference between O'Reilly and Hannity. O'Reilly genuinely disagrees on the war and is a frequent critic of the White House. He's a true conservative and calls the admin and legislators out who don't fit his ideal conservative mold. When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, he's sincere.
Hannity on the other hand only issues token admonishment toward the admin and legislature. When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, it's tepid and weak. All Colmes is there for is to help set Hannity up.
That's the problem with entertainers posing as journalists. Some of the more simple-minded aren't savvy enough to separate opinion from fact and mistake talk shows for news. You don't strike me as a simpleton, so surely you jest.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
No bias? You're kidding right? That's J.O.'s interpretation of the facts. He's not privy to any more information than you and I are, and there is personal spin and hyperbole all over that commentary.
Olbermann is paid to be a liberal crank, same as Hannity is paid to be a sockpuppet for the RNC. He was hired to be MSNBC's anti-O'Reilly.
I will deliniate a marked difference between O'Reilly and Hannity. O'Reilly genuinely disagrees on the war and is a frequent critic of the White House. He's a true conservative and calls the admin and legislators out who don't fit his ideal conservative mold. When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, he's sincere.
Hannity on the other hand only issues token admonishment toward the admin and legislature. When he speaks out against someone from the GOP, it's tepid and weak. All Colmes is there for is to help set Hannity up.
That's the problem with entertainers posing as journalists. Some of the more simple-minded aren't savvy enough to separate opinion from fact and mistake talk shows for news. You don't strike me as a simpleton, so surely you jest.
I did find his Katrina coverage compelling, up there with that of Faux's Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera. With that in mind, I do think Olbermann should have stayed in familiar and more easily definable environs, specifically, sports.
Hannity and Colmes, I think would benefit much better if Colmes were replaced by a more aggressive liberal-because Colmes is too much of a Casper Milquetoast to counter Hannity. Someone such as Mike Malloy (a liberal version Rush Limbaugh), or Marc Maron-or Randi Rhodes (all Air America alumni). Hannity simply needs someone besides the occasional guest to the show to bring him up short and call him out when he needs it (which is often).
Bill O'Reilly, I agree, an independent voice on a very partisan network. There are the occasions when even I am forced to agree with him. And uh, his books are very well done also.
Hannity & Olbermann? [}:)]
The thing which annoys me most about Hannity besides the obvious "favored son sockpuppet" status he enjoys with the GNC, is that he cuts people off constantly. No one can get a word in edgewise when they are at odds w/ him.
I complained loudly when KRMG put his show on after Rush. Who wants another three hours of Rush regurgitated into a Long Island nasally twang?
He's the image many centrists and liberals have of conservatives. It's not a good image.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hannity & Olbermann? [}:)]
The thing which annoys me most about Hannity besides the obvious "favored son sockpuppet" status he enjoys with the GNC, is that he cuts people off constantly. No one can get a word in edgewise when they are at odds w/ him.
Hannity and Olbermann, now that would be a good show!
As for debating Hannity, I've found that the more insistent and loud you can be, the better off you are in carrying an argument, or at least gaining a stalemate.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
If all media is as a rule anti-gov't (unveiling the inner secrets, asking the tough questions), and you have a neo-con gov't, does that make all media liberal?
Under this logic, media would always swing opposite of whomever is in power. I do not believe this is the case. The media does not donate in large amounts to the minority party - they donate to the liberal party. Likewise, under Clinton the media was still perceived as having a liberal media bias (though I did not search for studies to back this up).
I have stated my opinion and gone to length to both support and explain it. It is clear that you do not accept the best evidence available on this topic and thus, I can not truly discuss it with you. I apologize for getting frustrated by this fact last week.
/me bows out of the conversation
Point is, I think if you would have said there was a pro-gov't bent to the news, he would have said there was an anti-gov't. He gets off on banging heads with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Point is, I think if you would have said there was a pro-gov't bent to the news, he would have said there was an anti-gov't. He gets off on banging heads with you.
I think it depends on the news channel and who's in power, but you do have a point.