It also bugs me how nobody seems to realize that the yee-haw, pro-America Fox News Channel is run by an old, rich, British guy. Ugh. It's all marketing.
Rupert Murdoch is Australian.
Anyway, I find two big problems with American media... well, okay, maybe like, 50 problems, but two of those are:
1. Pack Mentality- the need to do never ending reports on useless inane shit just because the other channels are doing it. This leads to 24 hour coverage of Anna Nicoles death, and them showing a plane carrying a suspected killer landing at an airport for an hour and a half.
2. Lazy/spineless media- seriously, this administration has played the media like a fucking fiddle. What other administration has CREATED THEIR OWN NEWS SEGMENTS, then sent them to various news outlets to be played as news reports, completely untouched or fact checked? Seriously, that's just criminally lazy and irresponsible.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
It also bugs me how nobody seems to realize that the yee-haw, pro-America Fox News Channel is run by an old, rich, British guy. Ugh. It's all marketing.
Rupert Murdoch is Australian.
Anyway, I find two big problems with American media... well, okay, maybe like, 50 problems, but two of those are:
1. Pack Mentality- the need to do never ending reports on useless inane shit just because the other channels are doing it. This leads to 24 hour coverage of Anna Nicoles death, and them showing a plane carrying a suspected killer landing at an airport for an hour and a half.
2. Lazy/spineless media- seriously, this administration has played the media like a fucking fiddle. What other administration has CREATED THEIR OWN NEWS SEGMENTS, then sent them to various news outlets to be played as news reports, completely untouched or fact checked? Seriously, that's just criminally lazy and irresponsible.
The problem is not so much laziness as being under-resourced. There was a serious change in the way the news was paid for from the 80s to the 90s.
For news, my top sources are a) a series of tubes, and b) Anderson Cooper.
For commentary, my top sources are a) that same series of tubes, and b) Olbermann (who started off on the news side of the ledger, then something broke in his brain after Katrina and he drifted into punditry).
Mix with Daily Show, Colbert Report, Meet The Press, and assorted sprinklings of random CNN/MSNBC coverage. Bake for 30 minutes at 400 degrees. Goes well with fish.
I can't take Anderson Cooper seriously. Admittedly this is due to watching him on Channel 1 during middle school. Everytime I see him I immediately have flashbacks to homeroom and my math teacher who ruled his classroom with an iron fist (minus the top section of is thumb he lost playing football).
HappylilElf on
0
Options
AlectharAlan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered Userregular
edited May 2007
I can't say that I get my news from the Daily Show, because I agree with Jon Stewart's repeated demands that it be recognized for what it is, a comedy show. However, I think it's extremely valuable as a way to reveal the idiocy of most cable news. I do believe Fox is absurdly biased, and for those of you questioning Murdoch's credentials as a conservative, he is indeed Australian, he is indeed very conservative, but mostly in that he'll do anything for a buck.
I get most of my news from NPR Podcasts, Slate, and the Stars and Stripes. The last may seem odd, but chances are any paper smaller than the Washington Post/New York Times/etc. is filling the paper with unimportant local crap. Stars and Stripes (the paper distributed at US military bases at home and overseas) is the home of remarkably unbiased reporting about shit that I actually give a damn about, mainly national issues and the conflicts in the Middle East.
And like I said, calling the Daily Show news is an insult to the show. It's intensely comic criticism on the way the media fails to inform us, and on the way the people who should be doing the work of the nation are, in fact, either impossibly incompetent or total shitheads. This includes both parties. It's worthwhile to watch to enhance your ability to discern fact from fiction, and to get a good laugh. The Colbert Report teaches us the same thing about punditry.
While I currently have disdain for several of these pundits listed in the OP, I want them to exist. As much as Jon Stewart annoys the crap out of me, I find that this heavily compares to the days of the Partisan Press which I think IS A GOOD THING. Before you lambaste, hear me out.
The idea of a truly issue-neutral, nonpartisan representative in journalism is as unlikely as Jane Fonda voting Republican in the next election. Even if you DO find someone without some sort of bias, the platform or medium for which they broadcast their news will always have some sort of public opinion toward bias anyway. CNN and MSNBC (as well as Jon Stewart) are considered liberal media. Fox News is considered conservative media. Nevermind that every once in a while all of these networks have no bias towards another side in certain issues (simply because it's not possible), people pick their horses and run with them.
The bias, whether real or imaginary, is already there. Moreover, if the media were truly neutral, their news stories would have to double in length to cover a topic from all sides sufficiently, and most viewers/readers do not have the patience to endure longer news segments.
The partisan press solves this dilemma in two different ways: 1) it provides a filter to news in a way that makes sense to already partisan viewers, 2) it allows for a full discussion of the issues, with both extremes making their points without regard for the needs of neutrality.
What results from this partisanship is a full picture that people can, if they prefer, piece together on their own. No holds barred. The illusion of non-bias actually shields most news stories of being thoroughly discussed, so let the sides make their points and counterpoints.
On issues where there is no partisanship-related themes, coverage won't matter anyway.
There's a series of videos on Australia I saw in my undergrad, they had one episode on the media in Australia that had an interview with Rupert Murdoch way back when he was just starting out in the news biz with his first paper. He was decrying the corporatization of news and how they push out the small, independent newsperson.
Seriously, I could not stop laughing when I saw that.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I watched Gore on The Daily Show from last night, and apparently a large chunk of his new book is on just this sort of thing. I am gonna pick it up after work today.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I watched Gore on The Daily Show from last night, and apparently a large chunk of his new book is on just this sort of thing. I am gonna pick it up after work today.
I saw that too... man, I wish he were president.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The American system of media and their coverage is, quite frankly, shameful. I have a number of specific problems with American news, but the most important is how flamingly right wing every single news channel is. People will talk about Fox being right wing - which they are - but in the same breath say that MSNBC and CNN are "liberal". They are anything but. While, as the poster above me has said, there isn't anything inherently wrong with papers or media that have official or implicit political beliefs, there is a problem when there is no counterweight to those beliefs or opinions. What you have in the US today is a media that willingly led the US to war in Iraq and still continues to fail when it comes to holding the government accountable for it's bullshit.
In Canada, we do have that problem to an extent, but it is generally not as pronounced, thanks to the presence and influence of the CBC/SRC. If the presence in broadcasting of a Crown corporation is necessary to keep the other, privately owned networks and papers accountable and on their toes when it comes to unbiased reporting and journalistic integrity...Well, I'm not sure if I should be proud of the job the CBC is doing or disappointed in calibre of reporting by Global and CTV.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
CNN and MSNBC (as well as Jon Stewart) are considered liberal media. Fox News is considered conservative media.
This is only conventional wisdom in conservative circles. Liberals certainly don't regard MSNBC or CNN as liberally-slanted and indeed the stations have no mandate to liberalism. Fox News is specifically and intentionally right-biased.
CNN and MSNBC (as well as Jon Stewart) are considered liberal media. Fox News is considered conservative media.
This is only conventional wisdom in conservative circles. Liberals certainly don't regard MSNBC or CNN as liberally-slanted and indeed the stations have no mandate to liberalism. Fox News is specifically and intentionally right-biased.
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted. When the Republican debates were on last time around, CNN had literally nothing about them on their website, but they did have a big story about Falwell dying. I wanted their perspective, and their perspective was just to ignore the whole thing....
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted.
Oh that's right I've heard all kinds of moderates and liberals refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted.
Oh that's right I've heard all kinds of moderates and liberals refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted.
Oh that's right I've heard all kinds of moderates and liberals refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted.
Oh that's right I've heard all kinds of moderates and liberals refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".
Yes, NPR News to me means Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Those programs are occassionally either liberal or conservative, to a slight degree, and usually only with [respectively] their newest and oldest reporters. Beyond that, they are exceedingly balanced and thorough. They report all sides to the story and give you the information you need to decide for yourself which side is more relevant. They don't use any of the bullshit tactics that so many reporters out there use in order to sensationalize, aggrandize, or soapbox.
However, many other shows on NPR are fiercely liberal, and pull no punches in what is sometimes a practically communist agenda.
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted.
Oh that's right I've heard all kinds of moderates and liberals refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".
Oh wait.
Well played.
... I'm moderate....
Yes, you seem very moderate.
Well considering you don't know me, you can't make assumptions about me. I voted for three democrats and four republicans in the last election cycle, I'm against the Patriot Act, I want to renovate the copyright/patent laws. Just because I call something liberal doesn't mean everyone has to turn on their "nuh uh" auto responders.
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well considering you don't know me, you can't make assumptions about me. I voted for three democrats and four republicans in the last election cycle, I'm against the Patriot Act, I want to renovate the copyright/patent laws. Just because I call something liberal doesn't mean everyone has to turn on their "nuh uh" auto responders.
It's more that you use conservative talking points, but whatever.
Well considering you don't know me, you can't make assumptions about me. I voted for three democrats and four republicans in the last election cycle, I'm against the Patriot Act, I want to renovate the copyright/patent laws. Just because I call something liberal doesn't mean everyone has to turn on their "nuh uh" auto responders.
It's more that you use conservative talking points, but whatever.
You apparently don't know the definition of moderate then.
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted.
Oh that's right I've heard all kinds of moderates and liberals refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network".
Oh wait.
Well played.
... I'm moderate....
Yes, you seem very moderate.
Well considering you don't know me, you can't make assumptions about me. I voted for three democrats and four republicans in the last election cycle, I'm against the Patriot Act, I want to renovate the copyright/patent laws. Just because I call something liberal doesn't mean everyone has to turn on their "nuh uh" auto responders.
Being a soft core libertarian who thinks global warming caused by humans is a myth doesn't make you a moderate. Neither, particularly, does voting for certain Democratic candidates.
The fact is, your style is not a moderate style. No moderate says things like "well, CNN is known as the Clinton News Network".
Can we have a whole thread on imbalanced, and his ironic political balance? Because that would be a really interesting thread that I would participate in, and it would contribute to the overall quality of the P-A forums.
Also, CNN was liberal for some time, and still is in subtle ways, but really now they are more like "we're going to be stupid about this because you Americans are stupid for wanting conservative news so here's some stupid half-asses attempt at balancing and stuff so you guys will quite calling us liberal."
Can we have a whole thread on imbalanced, and his ironic political balance? Because that would be a really interesting thread that I would participate in, and it would contribute to the overall quality of the P-A forums.
Can we have a whole thread on imbalanced, and his ironic political balance? Because that would be a really interesting thread that I would participate in, and it would contribute to the overall quality of the P-A forums.
Also, CNN was liberal for some time, and still is in subtle ways, but really now they are more like "we're going to be stupid about this because you Americans are stupid for wanting conservative news so here's some stupid half-asses attempt at balancing and stuff so you guys will quite calling us liberal."
Well my undergrad was journalism and political science, so I had quite the mix of political opinions. Then I went to Georgetown, and that's where everything went to hell.
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Yes, NPR News to me means Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Those programs are occassionally either liberal or conservative, to a slight degree, and usually only with [respectively] their newest and oldest reporters. Beyond that, they are exceedingly balanced and thorough. They report all sides to the story and give you the information you need to decide for yourself which side is more relevant. They don't use any of the bullshit tactics that so many reporters out there use in order to sensationalize, aggrandize, or soapbox.
However, many other shows on NPR are fiercely liberal, and pull no punches in what is sometimes a practically communist agenda.
Marketplace is pretty conservative, at least fiscally. But yeah, a lot of the more local shows can be pretty fiercely liberal.
I read that book Bias by Bernard Goldberg (really one of the central texts in the myth of the liberal media) in an attempt to see if it had any real sticking critique of the so-called liberal news. It was some of the most convoluted, disingenuous, and misguided tripe I've ever read in my life.
Mr. Goldberg would accuse the left of being some sinister class warriors all while continuously attacking the effete NYC liberal elite and how out of touch they were. He railed on Dan Rather for not being a good individual or lacking common respect or something, which in turn became this like book-length fixation with tearing Mr. Rather down. He also vehemently denied it being a right-wing hatchet job, despite the fact that if you picked out the first letter of the sentences in each paragraph it spelled "elephant*."
The worst part, though, is that at whatever point he bothered to bring forth these examples of liberal bias, pretty much the whole argument could just be taken one step back and applied to the profit bias. Oh -- they only showed attractive, truly destitute homeless people as opposed to those truly good-for-nothing layabouts? Maybe that's because down-on-your-luck stories sell much better than just watching a loser fail, hmmm? And oh they only show sympathetic AIDS victims as opposed to the slutty hoes who didn't make good decisions? See the exact same criticism as the previous.
News fails because it's profit driven, and being profit-driving for the most part makes it conservative. All of it. Even CNN. NPR, the shining light of flaming liberalism in America, you may have noticed, is publicly funded. The fact of the matter is that for-profit news models are a damn failure, and the sooner we come to accept that and decide to pump some more strings-free money into the Fourth Estate, we're going to continue to suffer for it.
Yes, NPR News to me means Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Those programs are occassionally either liberal or conservative, to a slight degree, and usually only with [respectively] their newest and oldest reporters. Beyond that, they are exceedingly balanced and thorough. They report all sides to the story and give you the information you need to decide for yourself which side is more relevant. They don't use any of the bullshit tactics that so many reporters out there use in order to sensationalize, aggrandize, or soapbox.
However, many other shows on NPR are fiercely liberal, and pull no punches in what is sometimes a practically communist agenda.
Marketplace is pretty conservative, at least fiscally. But yeah, a lot of the more local shows can be pretty fiercely liberal.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about shows like the Diane Rehms Show and Talk of the Nation, not Annette Dowers' Flower Power Hour.
I mean, it is Yar we're talking about here. I sometimes think he'd call Barry Goldwater a commie.
CNN and MSNBC (as well as Jon Stewart) are considered liberal media. Fox News is considered conservative media.
This is only conventional wisdom in conservative circles. Liberals certainly don't regard MSNBC or CNN as liberally-slanted and indeed the stations have no mandate to liberalism. Fox News is specifically and intentionally right-biased.
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted. When the Republican debates were on last time around, CNN had literally nothing about them on their website, but they did have a big story about Falwell dying. I wanted their perspective, and their perspective was just to ignore the whole thing....
I've always heard it called the Communist News Network. :?
I think part of it is that the "scale" in American society as a whole is shifted a bit to the right compared to many other western nations, such as Canada or the UK.
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
What makes you think partisan media will cause debate? It isn't like Fox and NPR have conversations with eachother.
More like the audience of each just tune into whatever challenges them intellectually less.
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
That's great, get some successful left-wing media up and running and we can see how that pans out.
Not everything contributes to the public discourse, and talking heads, either left or right, are more a cancer then any kind of cure.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Marketplace is pretty conservative, at least fiscally. But yeah, a lot of the more local shows can be pretty fiercely liberal.
I disagree. I guess it depends. Compared to almost any other serious financial source of information, they are fairly liberal. Or moderate, I guess. They certainly run a lot of Bush-bashing liberal commentary.
Marketplace is pretty conservative, at least fiscally. But yeah, a lot of the more local shows can be pretty fiercely liberal.
I disagree. I guess it depends. Compared to almost any other serious financial source of information, they are fairly liberal. Or moderate, I guess. They certainly run a lot of Bush-bashing liberal commentary.
Serious question -- is "Bush bashing" even distinctly liberal any more, though?
Most of what I hear described as liberal/leftist media seems to simply not-conservative/not-rightist media.
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
What makes you think partisan media will cause debate? It isn't like Fox and NPR have conversations with eachother.
More like the audience of each just tune into whatever challenges them intellectually less.
Okay so you apparently don't get it. The debate doesn't happen between Fox and NPR, the debate happens when you have those two sides arguing their points, and then PEOPLE WHO WATCH THEM decide what is in fact truth. The news isn't supposed to do your decision making for you, you're supposed to actually soak in knowledge and then form opinions by them.
This whole thing is dependent on the people making decisions watching more than one source, which isn't hard because it takes five seconds to switch back and forth between channels (and even less time to surf the web). And before you say some people making decisions WOULDN'T watch both, learn from my newspaper background: people read you more, and respond more, when they disagree with you.
Marketplace is pretty conservative, at least fiscally. But yeah, a lot of the more local shows can be pretty fiercely liberal.
I disagree. I guess it depends. Compared to almost any other serious financial source of information, they are fairly liberal. Or moderate, I guess. They certainly run a lot of Bush-bashing liberal commentary.
Posts
Rupert Murdoch is Australian.
Anyway, I find two big problems with American media... well, okay, maybe like, 50 problems, but two of those are:
1. Pack Mentality- the need to do never ending reports on useless inane shit just because the other channels are doing it. This leads to 24 hour coverage of Anna Nicoles death, and them showing a plane carrying a suspected killer landing at an airport for an hour and a half.
2. Lazy/spineless media- seriously, this administration has played the media like a fucking fiddle. What other administration has CREATED THEIR OWN NEWS SEGMENTS, then sent them to various news outlets to be played as news reports, completely untouched or fact checked? Seriously, that's just criminally lazy and irresponsible.
The problem is not so much laziness as being under-resourced. There was a serious change in the way the news was paid for from the 80s to the 90s.
I can't take Anderson Cooper seriously. Admittedly this is due to watching him on Channel 1 during middle school. Everytime I see him I immediately have flashbacks to homeroom and my math teacher who ruled his classroom with an iron fist (minus the top section of is thumb he lost playing football).
I get most of my news from NPR Podcasts, Slate, and the Stars and Stripes. The last may seem odd, but chances are any paper smaller than the Washington Post/New York Times/etc. is filling the paper with unimportant local crap. Stars and Stripes (the paper distributed at US military bases at home and overseas) is the home of remarkably unbiased reporting about shit that I actually give a damn about, mainly national issues and the conflicts in the Middle East.
And like I said, calling the Daily Show news is an insult to the show. It's intensely comic criticism on the way the media fails to inform us, and on the way the people who should be doing the work of the nation are, in fact, either impossibly incompetent or total shitheads. This includes both parties. It's worthwhile to watch to enhance your ability to discern fact from fiction, and to get a good laugh. The Colbert Report teaches us the same thing about punditry.
Battle.net
The idea of a truly issue-neutral, nonpartisan representative in journalism is as unlikely as Jane Fonda voting Republican in the next election. Even if you DO find someone without some sort of bias, the platform or medium for which they broadcast their news will always have some sort of public opinion toward bias anyway. CNN and MSNBC (as well as Jon Stewart) are considered liberal media. Fox News is considered conservative media. Nevermind that every once in a while all of these networks have no bias towards another side in certain issues (simply because it's not possible), people pick their horses and run with them.
The bias, whether real or imaginary, is already there. Moreover, if the media were truly neutral, their news stories would have to double in length to cover a topic from all sides sufficiently, and most viewers/readers do not have the patience to endure longer news segments.
The partisan press solves this dilemma in two different ways: 1) it provides a filter to news in a way that makes sense to already partisan viewers, 2) it allows for a full discussion of the issues, with both extremes making their points without regard for the needs of neutrality.
What results from this partisanship is a full picture that people can, if they prefer, piece together on their own. No holds barred. The illusion of non-bias actually shields most news stories of being thoroughly discussed, so let the sides make their points and counterpoints.
On issues where there is no partisanship-related themes, coverage won't matter anyway.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Seriously, I could not stop laughing when I saw that.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I saw that too... man, I wish he were president.
The American system of media and their coverage is, quite frankly, shameful. I have a number of specific problems with American news, but the most important is how flamingly right wing every single news channel is. People will talk about Fox being right wing - which they are - but in the same breath say that MSNBC and CNN are "liberal". They are anything but. While, as the poster above me has said, there isn't anything inherently wrong with papers or media that have official or implicit political beliefs, there is a problem when there is no counterweight to those beliefs or opinions. What you have in the US today is a media that willingly led the US to war in Iraq and still continues to fail when it comes to holding the government accountable for it's bullshit.
In Canada, we do have that problem to an extent, but it is generally not as pronounced, thanks to the presence and influence of the CBC/SRC. If the presence in broadcasting of a Crown corporation is necessary to keep the other, privately owned networks and papers accountable and on their toes when it comes to unbiased reporting and journalistic integrity...Well, I'm not sure if I should be proud of the job the CBC is doing or disappointed in calibre of reporting by Global and CTV.
Well considering it's been called the Clinton News Network for well over 10 years, I'm going to go on a limb and say that CNN is indeed liberally slanted. When the Republican debates were on last time around, CNN had literally nothing about them on their website, but they did have a big story about Falwell dying. I wanted their perspective, and their perspective was just to ignore the whole thing....
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Oh wait.
Well played.
... I'm moderate....
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Yes, you seem very moderate.
However, many other shows on NPR are fiercely liberal, and pull no punches in what is sometimes a practically communist agenda.
Wrong on all accounts there. There is liberal media and NPR and PBS aren't the best examples.
Yes, they both are full of hot air.
Well considering you don't know me, you can't make assumptions about me. I voted for three democrats and four republicans in the last election cycle, I'm against the Patriot Act, I want to renovate the copyright/patent laws. Just because I call something liberal doesn't mean everyone has to turn on their "nuh uh" auto responders.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
It's more that you use conservative talking points, but whatever.
You apparently don't know the definition of moderate then.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Being a soft core libertarian who thinks global warming caused by humans is a myth doesn't make you a moderate. Neither, particularly, does voting for certain Democratic candidates.
The fact is, your style is not a moderate style. No moderate says things like "well, CNN is known as the Clinton News Network".
Also, CNN was liberal for some time, and still is in subtle ways, but really now they are more like "we're going to be stupid about this because you Americans are stupid for wanting conservative news so here's some stupid half-asses attempt at balancing and stuff so you guys will quite calling us liberal."
Yeah, you're right. I'm going to drop it.
Well played Yar.
Well my undergrad was journalism and political science, so I had quite the mix of political opinions. Then I went to Georgetown, and that's where everything went to hell.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Marketplace is pretty conservative, at least fiscally. But yeah, a lot of the more local shows can be pretty fiercely liberal.
Mr. Goldberg would accuse the left of being some sinister class warriors all while continuously attacking the effete NYC liberal elite and how out of touch they were. He railed on Dan Rather for not being a good individual or lacking common respect or something, which in turn became this like book-length fixation with tearing Mr. Rather down. He also vehemently denied it being a right-wing hatchet job, despite the fact that if you picked out the first letter of the sentences in each paragraph it spelled "elephant*."
The worst part, though, is that at whatever point he bothered to bring forth these examples of liberal bias, pretty much the whole argument could just be taken one step back and applied to the profit bias. Oh -- they only showed attractive, truly destitute homeless people as opposed to those truly good-for-nothing layabouts? Maybe that's because down-on-your-luck stories sell much better than just watching a loser fail, hmmm? And oh they only show sympathetic AIDS victims as opposed to the slutty hoes who didn't make good decisions? See the exact same criticism as the previous.
News fails because it's profit driven, and being profit-driving for the most part makes it conservative. All of it. Even CNN. NPR, the shining light of flaming liberalism in America, you may have noticed, is publicly funded. The fact of the matter is that for-profit news models are a damn failure, and the sooner we come to accept that and decide to pump some more strings-free money into the Fourth Estate, we're going to continue to suffer for it.
*okay maybe I'm making that up
I'm pretty sure he's talking about shows like the Diane Rehms Show and Talk of the Nation, not Annette Dowers' Flower Power Hour.
I mean, it is Yar we're talking about here. I sometimes think he'd call Barry Goldwater a commie.
They do broadcast from Harvard Square.
I've always heard it called the Communist News Network. :?
What I've seen of it seems to be pretty neutral. Maybe it would be abit more obvious if there were some genuinely left-wing mainstream media.
Well my point of all that, before everyone went into their own rants about their opinions on how leftist/non-leftist CNN is, was that many people already see a bias regardless of if one really exists. In that case, just let it be. Let genuinely left-wing mainstream media exist. If anything it will cause debate, which is a GOOD THING.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
What makes you think partisan media will cause debate? It isn't like Fox and NPR have conversations with eachother.
More like the audience of each just tune into whatever challenges them intellectually less.
That's great, get some successful left-wing media up and running and we can see how that pans out.
Not everything contributes to the public discourse, and talking heads, either left or right, are more a cancer then any kind of cure.
Okay so you apparently don't get it. The debate doesn't happen between Fox and NPR, the debate happens when you have those two sides arguing their points, and then PEOPLE WHO WATCH THEM decide what is in fact truth. The news isn't supposed to do your decision making for you, you're supposed to actually soak in knowledge and then form opinions by them.
This whole thing is dependent on the people making decisions watching more than one source, which isn't hard because it takes five seconds to switch back and forth between channels (and even less time to surf the web). And before you say some people making decisions WOULDN'T watch both, learn from my newspaper background: people read you more, and respond more, when they disagree with you.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Here's a hint: Bush isn't fiscally conservative.
Marketplace runs a lot of fiscal-conservative-policy-bashing liberal commentary.