The Liberal Media
 

I was just wondering...

If it's okay for corporations to make political donations, and since the Media has such a liberal bias, how would folks feel if, say, CBS* made a substantial donation to get Democrats elected?

*I work for CBS and I am simply using them as an example. My question and my opinions do not represent those of CBS.

Corporations are free to make political donations. That said, media corporations that produce news programming should refrain IMHO, if only to create an appearance of objectivity.

I guess it's a bit ironic, but the news media I trust the most is (partially) government funded - the PBS Newshour, and to a lesser degree NPR news programming. I find the big three (ABC, NBC and CBS) to be dumbed-down infotainment and Fox News to be propaganda.

gee then the horse manure that the media is liberal would finally be more than a Palin war cry.

We need Fox to balance out PBS. I do agree most news is crap.

Pete

Right. Lies are always necessary to balance out the truth. :)

John

Lol!

Pete

And by the way, Pete, how many hours a day does PBS devote to news?*

Now, how many hours for Fox News Channel?**

John

* Answer: 1
** Answer: Their name ought to give you a teensy weensy hint.

That wasn't exactly a joke.

John

Hmmm. A trick question. Zero.

We apparently need them to donate $1M to the Republican Governor's Association as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_684462.html

Now, when I saw this I thought "I bet this is only part of the story". So I did a little research and turns out it is. Looks like they're all in the habit of making donations. I found this article written specifically to justify the Fox donation.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...ney_170967.asp

But I have to say, after reading it, I feel two things.

1. I'm pretty cynical about media companies playing both sides of the fence. Seems like "protection" money to me. What a racket. I have to pay you both off to make sure you legislate with me in mind. That's BS.

2. Damn, those Fox guys aren't even pretending to be unbiased. It's one thing to complain about the "Liberal Media", but if the case had been what I laid out in the first post of this thread CBS would be crucified! We say one thing when there is PROOF that the opposite is true! Fox isn't "offsetting" anything. They're stacking the deck and nobody cares!

You must not watch much PBS!

Newshour (often in depth, nice, but biased)
Smiley
Rose (who I like anyway)
'Need to know' (puke, obvious drivel for the brainwashed kids)
That lady that does the one on one
Frontline can be good, but when it's preachin', it really preaches.
Heck even National Geographic, instead of telling about the various points of an animal/plant/region, now it gets all Lion King circle of life bleech. That's a bummer, I loved it. Nova has gone somewhat the same way but not as bad.

Pete

News and, as the name implies, one hour long. If you mean by biased that it's not a pro-right mouthpiece, I guess you're right.

.

Not news

Well, the National Geographic (owned by Rupert Murdoch, by the way) isn't even on PBS. As for Frontline, it's in-depth analysis is often newsy and even political - but not always- so I'll give you half credit for that.

Nova is science, not politics or news. There's a difference, although the Right would like you to believe that scientific facts have a Liberal political bias.

John

I think it's the least biased news on any network by a wide margin. If anything, it's neutral to a fault (to the point of being boring to those needing "hard-hitting" Hannity-style "news.") To defend Fox News while calling Jim Lehrer's program biased is patently absurd and perhaps even delusional.

I've come to conclude that many conservatives think that anything that is not "looney-fringe" right wing is biased (i.e., Rush and Fox are mainstream. Everything to their left is biased). Bottom line - I don't think many in the Right can handle the truth. It simply doesn't comport with their simplistic and twisted worldview.

Speaking for the people I know who are Fox viewers, they watch it to reinforce their worldview, not to inform themselves with regard to current events. To a man, all of them get confused, even angry when they hear a point-of-view that doesn't comport with what Fox fed them.

I said this exact thing in a PM to another member this morning. I firmly believe that Fox's primary mission is not to gain converts to the Church of Wingnuttia but to reinforce the beliefs of those who already "think the way they're supposed to" and further radicalize them.

John

Newshour biased? Sure and I am the Queen of Romania.:rolleyes:

"The Church of Wingnuttia"?! Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,.....Love it!

Welcome to the Holy Church of Wingnuttia, with Pastor Sean Hannity, Deacon Glenn Beck, and of course our wonderfull Acolytes, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

Todays sermon;
The love of money is the root of everything Great and Godly!

Todays Hymm;
Beat up a Fag for Jesus!

And our closing message this beautiful Sunday;
We don't hate Obama because he's black, it's because of all that other stuff that aint so nice, whatever it is.

Dave

Rob, of course I respect your opinion, your highness :D

Pete

Nothing necessarily odd about this, in much the same way as Fox tends to turn off those who don't care for Fox's presentation. However, I don't think you'll find to many Fox viewers also gravitating to MSNBC, CNN, or other sources for the same reason.

Many sources of news content present information from a particular point of view while at the same time holding themselves out as dispensers of "the facts". Nothing new about this. Leave it to the reader / listener / viewer to assimilate the information and make a determination about what they choose to believe.

Kind of a bummer, really. I don't have cable at home, so I don't get to see the National Geographic Channel. When National Geographic ran periodically on PBS, it was very entertaining.

We all do the things that validate our world view. It emboldens us when we find others who see the world the way we do. The trouble starts when we decide we're "right" and they're "wrong". We all do it and I'm not sure there's a way to stop. Only thing you can do is remember not to take yourself too seriously.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"

Rabbi Hillel

What's that mean in English?;)

Now that you mention it, I haven't seen a Nat'l Geographic for a while. It must've been within the last few years though. But that mother earth crap seems to have infiltrated many science based shows.

Pete

Overbearing bitch that she is.:p

Rotflmao!!

Pete

Damn Earth! Screw the Earth I say. What did the Earth ever do for me?

It's interesting- and yeah, I get all "out there" when I think like this- but if we were to look at some other planet and we could see it in time lapse what would we think? Say we saw the matter collect and form a disk. Gravity pulls much of the matter to the center and compresses it until fusion gives birth to a star. Much of the remaining matter forms planets. One is just the right distance from the star for liquid water to cover most of its surface. Over time life evolves and intelligence.

What would we make of that? I suspect we'd say "that's a neat planet". But when we talk about our own planet we talk about it as if we're not part of it! It's the Earth and us. But there is no Earth and us. There's just us. We're all Earth just as we're all Universe.

Why do we do that? It's our ego's need to be separate and superior. I can't be Earth! A rat is Earth, I'm something far more important that that! We sure do make ourselves out to be something special. And we are pretty special, but I'd wager in the scheme of things we're not much more impressive than my dog.

I resemble that remark. Wuff.

Wuff x2 :)

I mean the circle of life baloney. Spiritual/mystic garbage has no place in science shows, imo.

I've camped all my life, I am keeping my fairly large storm water retaining area in my yard, I do not use fertilizer, I fix things instead of throwing them away....

Want to help the planet? Plant a tree. But then one has to rake :rolleyes:

Pete

Be careful with the earth, it's not uranus.

Trees? By last count we have planted close on 80 or more.

Since they do it every day
 

It should be counted as a political donation.

Might be a good occasion to resurrect this thread. The war of words between Media Matters and Fox News appears to be heating up. The latest installment:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...#ixzz1M8trgdMt

While you might be dismissive of the source, the article does ask some interesting questions.

Irony alert. Fox News decrying media bias and using the GOP's favorite boogieman, George Soros, to make their argument, no less. :rolleyes:

I take it you're now familiar with Hannity's expose of media bias in which the only thing he demonstrates is Fox's bias.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105010004

And then Fox has the unmitigated gall in the cited article to point out the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.” How about the cadre of GOP candidates on the payroll of Fox News Channel? You realize that Olbermann was fired by MSNBC for making a contribution to a Dem candidate? Hannity and the Fox News crew do so with impunity, BTW.

They go on to attack ProPublica reports on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

It's perfectly appropriate to report on these issues. Reports on a rapper being invited to a White House poetry reading will only get you so far in understanding the big issues of the day.:p

The Stephanopolis works for MSM.

Pete

IIRC, he ain't running for President.

So, distilled, the beef of the article is that there is an immense concentration of journalistic talent that reports on things he doesn't like. In the words of the author: "The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest media outlets in the nation." Apparently, the author is not taking issue with the accuracy of the reporting; he just doesn't like them exposing bad things about those who support his media organization.

Regards,

D-Ray

The stories theselves, in a vacuum, are not the issue. The issue is the presentation of the articles as "balanced" and unbiased when those writing the articles are drawing sustenance from an individual with an admitted agenda. I'm sure if a conservative was funding a news organization and you believed that news product was colored with a particular agenda, folks on the left might take issue with that...

...oh, wait...:rolleyes:

Problem is, Fox News is providing "balance" in an environment where most major media tends to slant to the left. (this comment will get some folks hair to curl :) ).

Outright lies don't balance against an ideological slant IMHO.

Then again, it just might be that those in the media are able to learn and evaluate a huge amount of information. The information and the conclusions that are drawn from that information are not comfortable for those on the right. The investigation prevents corporate America from convincing the public of the alleged reality that its advertising agencies and PR hacks would like people to believe. Therefore, the right's PR machine continues to pump out the fiction that the media is biased to the left.

Regards,

D-Ray

You're painting with a REALLY broad brush there, counselor. What conclusions are so uncomfortable for the right?

Read your article again. I don't have the stomach to.

Regards,

D-Ray