Jump to content

Liberal Media in the US


Guest imported_b0b

Recommended Posts

Guest imported_b0b

Is the media in the US really liberal? Right-wingers always seem to be moneing about the "liberal media" but to me (and here I admit I have limited knowledge of it - I'm Enlgish & live in England) American media seems to be some of the most right wing and obedient media in the world. I am incorrect? Is American media as liberal as people moan about? Is one man's liberal another man's right wing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

No it's not liberal at all. What it is is that media is mostly owned by right wingers... though most journalists are left wingers. So you get some subtle and nuanced information... and most of the real important stories are in the back pages.... I've even seen them sometimes in the middle of the comics section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KING BLING

The right views any truth not in line with there beliefs to be liberal and anti-Christian. The reason for this is the same attitude you can see in the republican government of ours and the people behind them - if you're not with us you're against us.

 

To explain:

Billy Bob Ifuckmysister governor bans abortion and has 4000 crosses hung up in every office in the state. He does so knowing that it violates the findings of the surpreme court and by that violates the constitution. He knows someone will step up to say "wait, doesn't this violate my right to not have your religion shoved down my throat like your dick in your sisters mouf?" And they go to court and the court sides with the logical fair intent of our government, hopefully. And the media reports it as it happened, with no extreme bias either way especially because they are hyper sensitive due to always being accused of having a left bias. BUT, since the republicans think everything including brushing there teeth is a war of good and evil and the media did not try to cast down bolts of lightning on the court systems, the evil constitution and the pagan godless devils who ould request fairness - the media is too liberal.

 

R.I.P NOW with Bill Maher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the vast majority of media here in the 'States is far left-wing. In this last election, they were so convinced by their early exit polls that Kerry was going to win -- they were giddy over the prospect... now they're in deep denial over Bush's victory.

 

I long ago stopped watching television news as it's impossible to get a straight story out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one's opinion about whether the American media is left- or right-wing depends upon one's own subjective view of politics. One's statement about it says a lot more about oneself than it does about the political tendencies of the average journalist, newspaper, radio station or television network.

 

I think most journalists tend to be young and college-educated. It would not surprise me at all to find that young, college-age people are liberals or leftists. I was an anarchist when I was young, and before that, a very liberal, left-wing Democrat.

 

Owners and editors and news directors tend to be older, and male, and here in the U.S. are often Caucasian. These facts telegraph that the owners-editors-news directors are likely to be more conservative.

 

However, if one is a right-wing Christian and Republican, a more-or-less liberal Republican editor who gives his ultra-liberal young Democrat journalists some room to run is going to seem very liberal.

 

If one is a middle-aged, "1960's" Democrat with a liberal arts degree, the media is going to seem quite stilted and conservative.

 

If one is an early-twenties college student attending a school like Berkeley, the news media is going to seem to obviously be part and parcel of the American imperialist propaganda machine, and the very idea that journalist can or should be "impartial" to be just more evidence of the racist, sexist, fascistic nature of the mass media.

 

Having been at each of these places at one time or another, I think that the media has changed more than just a little in the last thirty-five years, but I have changed a whole hell of a lot. Therefore, the media that seemed callous and fascistic in 1968 now seems to me like a hopelessly liberal shill for the nanny state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i watched that hour-long video that browner provided a link for. it did a good job articulating with great examples what i've always thought about the media. basically it's conservative in that it protects the interests of large corporations since the media is in fact owned by these large corporations.

 

there are some loose ends left by some of the statements in the video, that i thought should have been further addressed, basically statements that rely on the presupposition that you already agree with them, which i thought was faulty on their part.

 

kabar, try to spend the hour watching it, even if it starts stating things you greatly disagree with, just stick it out for the entire hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 22 2004, 06:00 AM

If one is an early-twenties college student attending a school like Berkeley, the news media is going to seem to obviously be part and parcel of the American imperialist propaganda machine, and the very idea that journalist can or should be "impartial" to be just more evidence of the racist, sexist, fascistic nature of the mass media.

 

You cannot generalize like that. That is an extreme view which most 'liberals' do not hold; I would know since I am attending a notoriously liberal school. Most intelligent people don't view things in black and white like that. I have read a bunch of your posts on here, and it is clear to me that you have a problem appreciating the shades of gray. People turn to the news for information. Most people trust the news, unless it's flagrantly biased like FOX news. In my experience, appreciably intelligent people do not blindly adhere to some radical dogma; that is, they don't approach things with some preconceived notion that everything they see on the news is "part and parcel of the American imperialist propaganda machine." I would not say that the US media is particularly right-wing, and my friends here probably wouldn't either. I would, however, say the argument that the media has a left-wing bias is bullshit. That said, it might be better to listen to the people here who live in other countries, because they have an objective view of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOBODY has an "objective view of things." People from other countries have a viewpoint that is colored by their own life experiences and culture. Their opinions are valid (to them,) but not necessarily valid to ME. All viewpoints are subjective, at least to one degree or another, and because of that, all viewpoints are open to question and to some degree, suspect.

 

Only things that can be absolutely measured can be considered to be completely objective. The barometric pressure, for instance, or the hardness of steel--yes, that is objective. But virtually everything else is subject to opinion, and since my opinion is just as valid as yours, and your opinion is just as valid as a third person's, it's pretty much all subjective.

 

"One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

 

Who is to say who is right? There is no "right," except as how one perceives it to be. My justice my be your injustice, and vice versa. Our opinion about what is "right" is colored by our own interests, our own experience and so forth. There are plenty of shades of gray in my life, but at some point one must strike a line of discernment and state "This is dark enough to be considered black; and this is only dark gray; and this is light gray; and this over here is white." What is dark gray to me may be black to you, and so forth. It's mainly a matter of opinion, and that makes it subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's great, but I still think that people in other countries have a comparatively objective view in this case. Sorry for not making that clear...

 

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 22 2004, 07:38 AM

Who is to say who is right? There is no "right," except as how one perceives it to be.

 

Grandiloquence alone won't justify your argument. I'm not even going to argue with you. I can tell that it will go nowhere, and your lack of a logical argument says more than I can. In the spirit of what I just read in the anarchism thread, I'm gonna stop wasting time at this shit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of a logical argument? One must base a philosophy of right and wrong upon something.

 

For instance, if I am ostensibly a Christian, and therefore believe in the principles of Christianity, and base my moral code upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, or at least upon the New Testament and what the New Testament authors had to say about the teachings of Jesus, then my behavior, my personal sense of morality and the way in which I regard the world should be that of a Christian. One cannot violate all the principles of Christianity and reasonably continue to regard oneself as a Christian.

 

If I were an anarchist, and an adherant of anarchist philosophy, then I suppose I would base my moral code, my behavior and the way in which I regard the world upon the principles of anarchism. I would then accept most of socialist theory, a belief in economic communism (with a small "c"), the primacy of the individual, the tyranny of Law, the State, Family and the Church. I could not very well go into business, employ people for wages, and work to produce a profit. Not if I were an anarchist.

 

Rather than base my philosophy upon the New Testament, I would base it upon Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Christie and Meltzer and so forth. If I were an anarchist, I would despise religion, and the influence of religion upon society, but I would embrace the morality inherent in anarchism.

 

The two viewpoints are diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive. They cannot be reconciled. Yet, Christians believe sincerely that they are right. And anarchists believe they are right. And if they both adhere to the principles of their respective philosophies, they will both lead unoffensive and morally consistent lives. Unfortunately, neither Christians nor anarchists (nor anyone else, really) seem capable of so doing, and therein lies our problem. We all fall painfully short of our lofty aspirations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, the facts are left wing.

 

Which side is usually more corrupt? The guy getting a blowjob in the bathroom or the guys selling weapons to Iran and starting wars based on information they know to be bullshit? Who's got more blood on his hands, Ted Kennedy or Henry Kissinger?

 

The right wingers always scream about the so-called liberal media when they get busted doing nefarious shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the original question, the right-wing has created a myth of how powerful and dominant the liberal media is here...when in reality, over 90 percent of the media (not just t.v. media) could be considered conservative...

...now the definition of conservative and liberal...If the issues and topics of popular (media) discourse tend to work in the favor of the u.s. economy and foreign policy and the views of the current administration (despite contradictory facts and evidence)...then the media is conservative.

 

...Because seriously...we almost impeached clinton for lying about a blowjob...now we should be impeaching george walker bush for lying about something more important than blowjobs...but whatever...if any of us want to act like we're not brainwashed by the american media (culture) then so be it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC all the way.

 

There was a lot of ho-hum about radio as well. Clean Channel is apparently right-wing and had a lot to do with promoting the war. They own almost every single fucking radio station in the U.S.

It's usually the independent/community/private stations that are liberal.

 

Colorado (either Boulder or Denver) got their first ever independent radio station and it was a seriously big deal. People were sick of all the Clear Channel propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as people have noted, the "right-wing media" is yet another myth perpetuated by the conservative party, and somewhere along the line they figured out that if you repeat something enough times, people will believe it, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

 

i see the media as really subserviant and obediant.

the fourth branch of the government, if you will.

 

immortal technique wrote a great fucking song about it.

 

..the fourth branch of the govt wants us to settle

a bandanna of glittering generalities

fighting for 'freedom' and 'terror'

but what's reality?

read about the history

of the place that you live in

and stop letting corporate news tell lies to your children....

 

...And you know it's serious

When these same media outfits are spending millions of dollars on a PR campaign

To try to convince you they're fair and balanced

When they're some of the most ignorant, and racist people

Giving that type of mentality a safe haven

We act like we share in the spoils of war that they do

We die in wars, we don't get the contracts to make money off 'em afterwards!...

 

 

bu some of it is really liberal (just as there is very conservative stuff)

 

like http://www.thenation.com

 

or unbiased but brutally honest

 

like http://www.motherjones.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

I'm always surprised to hear people calling the media liberal, just as much as I am surprised to hear it being called conservative. I don't think it's either.

 

The only thing I see the media being biased towards, is sensationalism, no matter what side it favors. If anything, I tend to believe it appears a little more liberal because the topics that can be blown up to make big news usually favor the left (one big exception, for example, would be the Clinton impeachment scandal). But whatever the hell keeps the viewers glued on to the TV is what gets priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro
Originally posted by symbols@Nov 22 2004, 05:14 PM

or unbiased but brutally honest

 

like http://www.motherjones.com

 

I'll agree about the brutally honest part... but after the time I've spent on that site after you made that thread I can't say it isn't biased. Well, not really BIASED, but with a clear agenda that defines its choices of articles and their treatment... and the result clearly favors the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is American media Liberal? I cant tell but i'd have to agree with most of what Kabar said earlier.I guess its depends on your own view of what's liberal. Both conservatives and liberals always claim that that media favors the other side. If you consider daytime cable tv to represent the media as a whole than i would have to say that it is liberal. But I believe that the media is pretty balanced between being liberal and conservative. Its just like the Red Blue states map. Certain aspects of the media tend to paint one picture( AM radio) while another presents something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by El Mamerro+Nov 22 2004, 06:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (El Mamerro - Nov 22 2004, 06:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-symbols@Nov 22 2004, 05:14 PM

or unbiased but brutally honest

 

like http://www.motherjones.com

 

I'll agree about the brutally honest part... but after the time I've spent on that site after you made that thread I can't say it isn't biased. Well, not really BIASED, but with a clear agenda that defines its choices of articles and their treatment... and the result clearly favors the left.

[/b]

 

 

werd..

that's correct.

 

but i have seen articles approving of some republican politicians actions

(such as ah-nuld doing good stuff for cali state schools that was way better than ol' gray davis)

and that made me see that they tend to push a liberal agenda yes, but they are also doing some solid reporting that is far less editorialized than most "biased" outlets (like the nation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the media is all that liberal then why the hell did Michael Moore have to make Fareinheit 9-11 to bring all those important issues to the public at large.

 

I really don't like biased anything. I actually felt kinda weird voting democratic across the board when I didn't even know anything about some of these people. Like for instance ® Senator Domenici's energy plan I can agree with some parts of. Such as his support of nuclear power. 80% of France's power is nuclear. Why not us? Of course nuclear fusion would be the shit but that's still a ways off. Even though he's in favor of nuclear power I can't understand why he voted against having 100,000 hydrogen powered cars on the road by 2010.

 

If I were to make generalizations however I would have to say the left is more unbiased simply because many of the inherent principles of the left such as acceptance of difference, and unity of differing peoples, religions, orientation etc., these things in itself help bring about a wider perspective of viewpoints on the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one problem I see... Some peoples' definition of liberal is defined by whether or not they support gay marriage...or whether they are pro-choice.... to me, that may just be the difference between conservative and radical conservative (depending on the person)...

 

...There is a lot more than just the "hot media topics" that can dictate what we consider "liberal" and conservative...I agree with someone else on here that said media is just the 4th branch of the gov't... ...I'm seriously laughing at everyone on here that says the media has even the slightest libral slant...b/c obviously thier idea of liberal has been numbed down to what I would consider moderately conservative...Then the actual "liberals" (to my definition) get demonized as radical leftists...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right wing of the Republican party has been pretty successful at driving the entire political process farther to the right. The "Silent Majority" of the 1960's is no longer silent. The liberal Democrats (this is kind of redundant--there are no more conservative Democrats) enjoyed a run of over forty years. For forty years, they dominated both houses of Congress. They passed one measure after another that the inert conservative middle found offensive. They forced the conservatives out of the Democratic Party, where they were welcomed by the Republicans in droves. The liberal Democrats had their own way, and now they are dealing with the result of pissing people off, and forcing unwanted social "reforms" on people, and forcing people into situations which they do not wish to be in. It was not really a grass-roots movement. It was forced from above.

 

We have not had civil war. There have been very few violent outbursts from the right. People have behaved like civilized human beings, for the most part, and have attempted to express their anger and frustration the way the rules say they must--at the polls. But the liberal Democrats have succeeded in radically altering the cities--conservative whites have flooded out of the cities and into the suburbs. No wonder that on the election maps the center of the country looks solid red.

 

The extremes on both sides are larger than they were. That is a tendency that is likely to continue. I read something by the Southern Poverty Law Center that said that the National Alliance (a notorious neo-nazi organization) is increasing in size rapidly. They accomplished this by becoming less hateful and strident and more mainstream, but in the end, they advocate "national socialism," i.e. the Nazi philosophy. In my opinion, this is a temporary "backlash" phenomenon, but it's still very concerning. (The leader of the National Alliance, William Pierce, wrote the book that inspired Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how the fuck does that have anything to do with the "liberal media" myth?

 

are you forgetting that ronald reagan, a republican, ran the white house for eight years?

that he apponited a supreme court justice?

that george bush sr was president for four years?

 

the democrats haven't pissed me off at all.

 

i think the middle of the country is red because they are living in a fantasy constructed by the republican party.

 

not really grass roots?

democrats are responsible for white flight?

 

your stupidity and ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...