The Darkest Canuck Wrote:there are no true leftist major media outlets in the USA because all of them are controlled by giant Corporations who are all very far to the right themselves, BUT, being the true capitalists that they are, they realize that not everybody is the same, and that there is a lot of $$$$$$$ to be made off of the people who are a little left of centre, gotta get that money mang! cuz money make the world go round.
thats what the left media tells us!
mr. rogers Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:there are no true leftist major media outlets in the USA because all of them are controlled by giant Corporations who are all very far to the right themselves, BUT, being the true capitalists that they are, they realize that not everybody is the same, and that there is a lot of $$$$$$$ to be made off of the people who are a little left of centre, gotta get that money mang! cuz money make the world go round.
thats what the left media tells us!
I hate to break it to ya, but there's no such thing as a "left" or "right" "media." There is no cabal, no collusion, no monolithic thing known as "the media."
The media are comprised of individuals with individual biases. In the United States, where a conservative slant is most prodominent among citizens, a "liberal" media tag is most popular. In Canada, where the opposite is true a "conservative" or "Tory" media tag is most common.
This is because the media's job is to hold the powerful accountable, and question authority. In Canada, most often the Liberals are questioned, in the US, most often the Republicans are questioned.
God forbid we question authority in a free society.
Just as a group of individuals with left-leaning values are collectively referred to as "the left", the "individuals with individual biases" to the left or right can be referred to as the liberal and conservative media...don't really understand why you're trying to say there is no collective here.
grooveless touque Wrote:Just as a group of individuals with left-leaning values are collectively referred to as "the left", the "individuals with individual biases" to the left or right can be referred to as the liberal and conservative media...don't really understand why you're trying to say there is no collective here.
Simply because an editorial stance, which may contain three conservative minded folks, does not an entire journalistic organization make. And remember, FOX News is not a journalistic organization, nor do they pretend to be. They're cheer leaders, they're proud of it, good for them.
At legitimate news sources, a good editor will make his opinions known and let his writers do the same. I work for what is often called "the most conservative news org. in the country" and yet when I cover strikes or Isreal-Palestine protests, I have never, ever been told to slant anything in anyway, nor has my stuff ever been changed by my conservative editors. That's how legit journalism works: Slant is for tabloids, editorials and entertainment.
Generalizations are a cop-out, every news-soucre is far too nuanced and varied to be simple labelled "right" or "left."
Partisan's will label anything that disagree's with their position "biased."
Quote:Partisan's will label anything that disagree's with their position "biased."
Ain't that the truth
It's funny because there is no changing strong supporters of both sides. If Bush or Kerry murdered someone, their supporters would still put some spin on the situation to make everything all right.
I was shocked that all the Liberals thought Kerry won the debate and all the Conservatives thought Bush won the debate.
Well I guarantee you a lot of Conservatives did not like Bush's performance - surveys are showing between 60 and 72 percent of respondents thought Kerry won. That's a huge, huge margin. Either 20 percent of conservatives admitted Kerry bested them, or they chose not to answer because they didn't want to think about it.
grooveless touque Wrote:Well I guarantee you a lot of Conservatives did not like Bush's performance - surveys are showing between 60 and 72 percent of respondents thought Kerry won. That's a huge, huge margin. Either 20 percent of conservatives admitted Kerry bested them, or they chose not to answer because they didn't want to think about it.
You are right, there are alot of GOP members who said they thought Kerry won debate.
I do think there are papers and stations that are Bias. There is a book out there called "Bias"which is a good read for anyone interested.
Well something we all have to remember is....
the media would not be doing their job if they didn't appear to be biased. The media HAVE to hold the government accountable...they are one of the checks and balances that make a democracy effective. If they objectively presented the public with the government's actions without judging them, where would we be? The government could run roughshod over whatever they wanted without fear of reproach. The media act as a counterweight, and they do it very well. Don't forget, the media didn't condemn the Republicans for impeaching Clinton - they covered every single tiny details of that sex scandal. Clearly they're not purely in the service of the left wing, because they would have tried to suppress that or say the Republicans were going too far.
The media HAS to take an intellectual stand against the affairs of the day to be effective.
Grooveless, the media covered every single nitpicking detail of the Monica affair right down to the bloody blue dress while glossing over the fact that he [/b]lied[b] under oath about having an affair with her! The pundits and media talking heads who form the journalistic conventional wisdom didn't think it was a big deal that a political leader delibrately lied to cover his affair because he was afraid of embarrassment and scandal. If he had simply said Yes, I had an affair but no I did not try to bribe Monica with a job offer, etc the whole thing would have died away because there really was no concrete proof that Clinton tried to bribe her, that evidence was all circumstancial. The Republicans made a huge error by focusing on the bribery attempts and not on the stark proof that Clinton lied under oath and under questioning by Paula Jones's attornies that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Why else would Clinton get fined and lose his Arkansas law license for 5 years if not for that?
Wasn't Slick Willie great though? Not one ounce of shame.
tigerthelion Wrote:Wasn't Slick Willie great though? Not one ounce of shame.
It is funny and the best part is, if he could run again for president, he would win.