| Author |
Message |
    
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 4:29 pm: | 
|
phenixfalling
Mind your own business. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Problem with all you folks is that you are too smart. The issues surrounding the Iraq War, WMD, middle-east power politics, etc. are way beyond the intellectual abilities or interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans. On the other hand, everyone understands a blow job.
It's not liberal bias or conservative bias. They want to sell more newspapers or get more viewers or listeners. Sex sells. Give people headlines about WMDs, Sunnis and Shias etc., etc., they'll turn away. Give them a good bimbo story, they'll go for it! |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 485
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Check out this request from ABC News:
"For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20.
If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below:"
ABC intended to use the funeral of an American soldier to make a political statement. If your funeral isn't on the 20th or you died in Afghanistan , ABC News doesn't need you.
ABC News has since removed the request.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 613
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Guy, though I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt, this seems to be pretty disgusting.
Where did you see this request? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 487
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Rastro , scroll down. This site made a copy of the since removed request.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/story.htm |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7283
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
I think the ABC request was in bad taste. However, I also think that the gala celebrations being put on by Bush are in bad taste as well, given that American troops are being killed almost daily in the Middle East. I believe that other "War Presidents" toned down the festivities. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
That is really contemptible. ABC should get a big kick in the head for that one. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4318
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Notehead,
Hey man.. How's it going? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 488
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Notey, that is what happens when everyone in the newsroom has the same ideology. |
Sgt. Pepper
Citizen
Username: Jjkatz
Post Number: 564
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Yeah, it's Inauguration Day! We don't want to be bothered with stories about death and grief and stuff. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 490
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Seems that ABC only wanted to be bothered on Inauguration Day. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 612
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Seems that ABC only wanted to be bothered on Inauguration Day.
What a crock. Maybe the coverage would be better if the administration hadn't blocked access to coffins returning from Iraq. Who knows what else they're restricting? And what about when Ted Koppel wanted to read a list of names of slain soldiers, but got pre-empted by Bush-loving Sinclair Broadcasting?
The fact is, whenever there is any criticism of George Bush or his policies, conservatives start whining and stamping their feet with this "liberal media" claptrap. If the media was so liberal, they'd have done their jobs in the first place, and reported the truth about this war before we went in.
Another difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives are offended by news coverage of the dead, liberals are offended by the actual deaths. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 493
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Madden, ABC tried to pull a political stunt and got called on it. That is why they pulled the request.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 286
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
This thread started out about media bias.
That the media are generally fairly left-wing is a given.
So why was Bush given an apparent pass on WMD's? Partially at least, because the Bush administration has not been prone to the oozing levels of personal corruption that took place in the Clinton administration. Bill and Hillary never missed a chance to line their pockets.
From whitewater to the sale of pardons on their last day in office, the Clintons set a new standard in personal corruption. They will probably go down in history as the most corrupt administration in the history of the U.S.
Bush has been guilty of questionable judgement, incompetence, and gross fiscal mismanagement. But he has not been caught stuffing stolen cash in his pockets, nor has he left any stains on any blue dresses. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
As Safire explained the other day, the media are kind of left-wing NOW because there is a right-wing guy in office. When Democrats are in charge, the media leans to the right. They don't exist to yell "hooray" to every step the administration takes (except for FOX, obviously), their purpose is to tell us what's going on, and when they do editorialize they should tell us what's wrong. The press is not a cheering squad.
Chris, believe what you like. The Clintons certainly haven't caused over a hundred thousand needless deaths, as Bush has. As far as "evil" goes, you are comparing a grain of sand to a mountain. I'll take a personal-scale moral lapse to one resulting in massive human suffering every time. Wouldn't you?! |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 725
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Chris: Just wait until the details of Halliburton kickbacks come out (possible second-term scandal?) I mean, starting a war to line the pockets of a corporation versus a blue dress stain??? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 613
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Madden, ABC tried to pull a political stunt and got called on it. That is why they pulled the request.
How on earth do you know that? |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 211
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Chris says, "That the media are generally fairly left-wing is a given."
Generally? Fairly?
How so? |
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 493
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Too Much Liberal News, Too Few Liberals
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the results of this year's presidential election represent the news-watching and news-reading population as a whole. This would mean that 51 percent or so of the public is right-of-center in one way or another, and 49 percent is left-of-center in one way or the other.
If you're a conservative, chances are you prefer Fox News. You often sense that the "mainstream" networks don't give a fair shake to your leaders, your party, your views, or your beliefs.
If you're a liberal, maybe you prefer your media to be a little more pugnacious — Air America, or the columns of Paul Krugman or Molly Ivins. But by and large, you find the mainstream media's tone and coverage choices to be preferable to Fox.
But if you're a liberal, or at least a non-conservative, your attention is the target of CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and all the major-network news operations — basically, every one except Fox News. Fox will welcome you and tout their fair and balanced approach and their room for such liberal commentators as Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and Mara Liasson, but by and large they're well-established as the network of choice for conservatives.
In the print world, the major newsweekly magazines, and almost every major city newspaper is clamoring for your attention if you're a non-conservative. In fact, most of the coverage is written from, and for, your viewpoint. You can read the New York Times nationally, or the Los Angeles Times, or Reuters wire copy. Both Chicago and Philadelphia have two major papers, neither of which is conservative. At the magazine rack, you have The New Republic, The Nation, The American Prospect, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, Harpers, the post-Michael Kelly Atlantic Monthly, and Slate and Salon on the web. (This list isn't exhaustive, I'm just trying to give a sense of the breadth and depth.)
On the radio dial, you've got Air America, as well as much of NPR's programming.
That's a lot of media competing for the attention of the 49 percent.
Meanwhile, on cable, Fox News pretty much has the 51 percent to itself, unless you want to count Joe Scarborough, Dennis Miller, and about half the Capitol Gang.
It's a similar situation in print: You have a few conservative magazines, NR, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative, as well as the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and some alternative newspapers like the Washington Times, the New York Post, New York Sun, Boston Herald, etc. The radio dial gives you a decent slew of options.
But by and large, the right-of-center "alternative" media outlets are courting the 51 percent, while the many more mainstream media outlets are courting the 49 percent.
In light of this, doesn't it seem likely that the mainstream media will face consolidation in the coming years? And will some news network that's struggling with one of the smaller fractions of the blue-state audience decide to take on Fox News directly by competing for their red-state audience?
This media-saturation phenomenon also recalls the Onion headline, "Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue":
"For a while, I wanted more fuel for the fire, to really get my blood boiling," said Madison, WI resident Dorothy Levine, a reproductive-rights activist and former Howard Dean campaign volunteer. "I read the policy papers on the Brookings web site. I subscribed to The Progressive. I clipped cartoons by Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall. I listened to NPR all day. But then, it was like, while I was reading Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked, eight more must-read anti-Bush books came out. It was overwhelming. By the time they released Fahrenheit 9/11, I was too exhausted to drag myself to the theater." "It used to be that I would turn on Pacifica Radio and be incensed at the top of every hour," Levine added. "Now, I could find out that Bush plans to execute every 10th citizen and I'd barely blink an eye, much less raise a finger."
The saturation of each side's market also helps explain the changing tone of some media voices. If there are only so many anti-Bush publications and shows that the average liberal is willing to read, watch, or listen to, then the competition for that audience is fierce. One of the ways to stand out is to be the angriest, the shrillest, the most outrageous. (And the same phenomenon is not unheard of on the right.)
One would suspect — based on circulation figures and ratings, as well as voting trends — that the right-of-center alternative media has some room to grow, while the left-of-center audience has more media options than it can support indefinitely.
The mainstream media could attempt to expand its audience by reaching out to conservatives. But if you're sending a veteran political correspondent to Nebraska and Texas to cover the natives as if they were a bizarre and mysterious foreign culture like the Washington Post just did, then you have essentially written them off as potential readers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200501190800.asp
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Face: the point of the Onion article, the reason that it's funny, is because there is so much to say about what Bush is doing wrong that it is absolutely mind-numbing. It's not that there is such a surfeit of liberal media, it's that Bush is such a putz. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page