| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Capt. Nemo
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
630 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2007 : 12:24:28 AM
|
The Onion has decided to throw their hat in to the ring.
Surnow, I hope your taking notes.
[url="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/immigration_the_human_cost"]Click here to see "The Onion" clip[/url]
________________________________________________________________________
"Ward, the Beaver blew up the 7-11 again."
"I'll have a talk with him Dear" |
 |
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 7:28:35 PM
|
Argh. No one is arguing that the left isn't a "major force" in the country. It kind of has to be, given that apparently there are only two sides to every issue these days. You guys were the ones who started using the word "underground". I said that the left were the political underDOGS, and I stand by that. The other word you brought up? Embattled? That's pretty good, too. It doesn't mean that left-wingers are being hauled out into the streets and shot, or that they're conspiring in basements to overthrow the tyrant. There's a whole spectrum here. All I'm saying is that the left didn't have any political clout from about 2002, or earlier, up until the congressional elections last year, and it's hardly a cakewalk for them since.
And the fact that Jay Leno peppers his monologue with harmless, meaningless "Bush sure is dumb" jokes does not even things out, sorry. Sure, Michael Moore is out there raking muck. We still have a marketplace of ideas, despite (I will grant you) a bit of hysteria on the left. A BIT. But Michael Moore is not the king of all media. He gained some respect, often grudging, for being willing to make a mainstream movie criticizing the Bush administration. But to pretend that he was universally embraced is dishonest. The first 9/11 review I read was over at Chud, where the left-wing Devin Faraci tore Moore a new one for factual errancies. I saw this repeated all through the media by left-wingers while F9/11 was in theaters. He was booed, you'll recall, at the Oscars. And there's a documentary on its way as we speak called "Manufacturing Dissent", by a couple of left-wing filmmakers who criticize Moore's techniques.
In comparison, the right often seems shamefully silent on its own demagogues. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are still hugely popular despite being repeatedly shown as liars and hypocrites.
The real problem is that referring to the media as a 'citadel' or anything, right or left, compounds the absolutist doctrine that's crept into our culture. Again, the Bush gags you hear on SNL do not have any relevance towards a massive left-wing conspiracy in the media. "The left runs the show", you say, as if The Left was some vast hydra coiled around the roots of an ominous black tower somewhere in LA, controlling everything you read and hear. But last I checked, the Bush administration was the one handing out talking points to its lackeys in the pundit corner. Which is not to say there aren't varied and heterogenous voices on the right, but it all gets back to the subject of this post: it seems like there's a movement out there to create entertainment that's just another channel for certain political interests. Hitting the "media has a liberal bias" button is a way to enable that--to say, "I don't have to think about the point that was just raised, because the media has a left-wing bias. They're just spouting propaganda". And then someone can come along and spout propaganada in the other direction, and claim they're providing balance. But it used to be that the point that was made was more important than the political background of the person making it. If I say "The sky is blue," you can't say, "No, I say it's green, and I don't have to listen to you because you're a lefty."
Not everyone is spouting propaganda, is my point. I mean, hell, I think Bill O'Reilly is knee-deep in talking points and spouting whatever's convenient for the Bush administration at this particular moment--but even then I don't disagree with him every single time. It would just be nice if, whatever his personal biases, he would take the time to weigh the arguments from either side. I think that there are plenty of people in the "left-wing media" who make an attempt to put aside their biases and do real journalism. When I look at the right's attempt to "counteract the liberal bias", I mostly see a lot of people who are eager to reinforce their interests or cater to a certain audience. Of course there's a place for every viewpoint, but the truth, or entertainment, or whatever, is supposed to come first.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 9:35:58 PM
|
Actually, there was a joint UCLA/University of Missouri study of media bias published in 2005.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."
There are other indicators. A study in 1996 found that only 7 percent of Washington correspondents voted for G.H.W. Bush, compared to 37 percent of the American people.
Other studies show that journalists as a whole are far more liberal than even our most liberal districts in the country. For example, 12 percent of California's Ninth District (which includes Berkeley) voted for G.H.W. Bush in 1992. That is almost double the rate of journalists who voted for the first Bush. The Massachuessetts Eighth District (which includes Cambridge) voted 19 percent for Bush. That is nearly triple the number of journalists who voted for Bush in 1992.
Think that kind of bias doesn't spill over into their coverage? Of course it does. Many people make a lot of money writing books about how biased our news coverage is.
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
There are the entire published results of the study. It is interesting to note that the researchers found journalists on the whole to be even further Left than many of the most liberal members of Congress.
And that is just TV and print news media.
What about sitcoms? How many of them have you watched over the decades that had Left-leaning social messages?
How about our nation's universities? I can count all the conservative professors and teaching assistants I've had on one hand.
Yes, conservatism has a few bulwarks. Talk radio. Rush, Hannity, Bech, Boortz, and others. Air America tried to combat that and it has not worked. I think it has failed due to a combination of poor on-air talent and that it was competing not against Rush, but against NPR...which has far, far superior programs.
But when you cite Fox News, The Washington Times, and AM talk radio's conservatism, you are citing the exceptions to the rule. Fox News? Compared to ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC? What's balanced about that? It makes Fox News look like the Alamo.
It used to be worse, but there can be no rational notion that conservatism has some kind of parity (or even approaching it) in the news and entertainment media. For every producer of "24", there are five Aaron Sorkins. |
|
|
|
BrainFromArous
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 09:11:42 AM
|
Even "24" ain't what it used to be, CC.
One thing to watch for, which really gives away the game, is what the guys at National Review call "Strange New Respect." SNR is the praise Republicans/Conservatives get from the political and news press when they move left and compromise their beliefs or positions.
Contra Prankster, nobody is talking about anything monolithic or conspiratorial. What we're observing is more accurately called 'groupthink;' the emergence, establishment and propagation of an institutional mindset.
There are other examples of this, of course. You won't find too many pacifist utopians in your local police department. Cops tend to be socially and politically conservative and the 'culture' of the police station reflects this.
No, it's not a conspiracy. It's not a cabal. It's a consensus and conformity that leads to certain assumptions and thinking following from those assumptions.
We also need to keep in mind that most ideologues don't think of themselves as such. We all have to struggle with this because it's a constant task to see one's own politics. Most Liberals I have met do not describe themselves as Liberals even though it's screamingly obvious that they are. Some of them go so far as to argue with me that there is no such thing as Liberalism; the way they think is just how all reasonable, humane people think.
Some Conservatives do this too, of course, but its far more common for the Leftward among us because the state of the media makes it easy to fall into an echo chamber of Liberalism where few if any contrary messages are heard.
**********************
Boards don't hit back.
(Bruce Lee) |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 6:20:59 PM
|
Yes, I would never categorize our media as "conspiratorially liberal".
I just think that in covering a story and looking for quotes, it would occur to most journalists to get the opinions of NOW, the NAACP, and others. It simply wouldn't occur to them to ask the conservative counterparts to those organizations as often.
In the book "Bias", the former CBS reporter remarks that if instead of having our national news organizations located in NYC, Washington D.C., L.A., and Atlanta they were located in Omaha, Des Moines, and Cincinnati and their kids went to public schools...our national news coverage would look a whole lot differently. |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 5:22:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Carrier
Yes, I would never categorize our media as "conspiratorially liberal".
I just think that in covering a story and looking for quotes, it would occur to most journalists to get the opinions of NOW, the NAACP, and others. It simply wouldn't occur to them to ask the conservative counterparts to those organizations as often.
In the book "Bias", the former CBS reporter remarks that if instead of having our national news organizations located in NYC, Washington D.C., L.A., and Atlanta they were located in Omaha, Des Moines, and Cincinnati and their kids went to public schools...our national news coverage would look a whole lot differently.
True, As Bernie Goldberg said, they don't do it deliberatly, its just the resault of "Birds flocking together".
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KDOT
|
Edited by - Flangepart on 04/10/2007 5:22:40 PM |
|
|
|
The Rev. D.D.
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
203 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 09:50:57 AM
|
Can't say for sure about Cincinnati (although wasn't Jerry Springer mayor there?) or Des Moines (although Iowa tends to not be full-on liberal or conservative), but I used to live in Omaha, and it's a pretty liberal city. It and Lincoln are bastions of liberal-leaning people in a sea of conservatives. A few years ago they had a vote on a DOMA-type law. It passed by an overwhelming majority; almost every vote against it came from precincts in those two cities and the surrounding area. So my guess is that it wouldn't change things much if it happened to be one of those three.
Good city. I miss it a lot.
-----------------------
Now I'm all depressed. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked