guyman1966 Posted December 16 Report Share Posted December 16 For those of you who claim that the Media is to RIGHT, CONSERVATIVE, and REPUBLICAN... Here is an article that disputes that. I agree with this 100%. It is from today's Boston GlobeUS media retain their liberal bias By Jeff Jacoby, 12/15/2002 A GROANING SHELF of evidence bears out what many people know intuitively: The American mass media suffer from a left-wing slant. The data come in a variety of forms: classic studies such as ''The Media Elite'' (first published in 1986) and William McGowan's ''Coloring the News'' (2001), insider exposes like CBS veteran Bernard Golberg's recent bestseller ''Bias,'' and a thick sheaf of industry studies and public opinion polls. Yet some liberals have always claimed that liberal media bias is a shibboleth. ''It's one of the great political myths,'' insisted Dan Rather in 1995. ''Most reporters don't know whether they're Republican or Democrat, and vote every which way.... And also, let me say that I don't think that `liberal' or `conservative' means very much any more.'' Peter Jennings offered much the same argument last year. ''I think it's just essential to make the point,'' he told Larry King, ''that we are largely in the center, without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage.'' Likewise, Geraldo Rivera, to take just one more example, contends that ''people who pretend the media has a liberal bias aren't really listening or reading.'' Comes now an even more cockeyed claim: Not only does Big Media not tilt left, it is in fact being shoved to the right. ''The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party,'' former vice president Al Gore recently declared. ''Fox News [Channel], The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh - there's a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires .... Most of the media has been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks - that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective as stated by the news media as a whole.'' Gore's motion was seconded by a number of prominent media liberals. Paul Krugman of The New York Times pronounced it ''so clearly true.'' The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne averred that conservatives have won a ''genuine triumph'' - ''a media heavily biased toward conservative politics and conservative politicians.'' After all, he noted, when Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle publicly denounced Rush Limbaugh, two cable TV talk shows took the unheard-of step of interviewing Limbaugh. One thing to be said about this ''new'' argument is that it's not new. The idea that conservative operatives are turning the media into a GOP echo chamber goes back at least six years, when it was an article of faith in the Clinton administration. Everyone recalls Hillary Clinton sneering away reports of an affair between her husband and Monica Lewinsky as the ravings of a ''vast right-wing conspiracy.'' What most forget is just how gripped by conservatives-are-taking-over-the-media panic the Clinton White House was. In 1995 it produced a 332-page report purporting to prove - I am not making this up - that Republican politicians, conservative think tanks, certain ''British tabloids,'' The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and The Washington Times were all linked in a plot, funded by the heir to the Mellon fortune, to get scandalous ''fringe stories'' about Bill Clinton ''bounced into the mainstream media.'' Well, conspiracy thinking is something of an American tradition. Some people believe the CIA funneled cocaine to the Los Angeles slums; others believe Richard Mellon Scaife is the root of all evil. It somehow comes as no surprise to find Al Gore resurrecting the Clinton-era fable about the right-wing tentacles that manipulate CNN, Time, The New York Times, USA Today, National Public Radio, NBC, and all the other influential outlets that make up the national mainstream media. It's not the only dotty theory cherished by the former vice president. The hard reality, though, is that the media's few conservative institutional voices cannot hope to overpower the liberal bias that permeates the rest of the media. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. As Michael Kelly noted last week, Fox News Channel's viewers add up to about 3 percent of the ABC-CBS-CNN-NBC-PBS news audience. The Washington Times has one-eighth the circulation of The Washington Post. In the media world, power comes from numbers. And so does media bias. The national media are largely left-of-center because those who go into the national media are largely left-of-center. ''Everybody knows that ... there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents,'' Walter Cronkite has said. Inevitably, that liberal persuasion colors reporters' and editors' work. How could it not? When everyone in the newsroom shares a liberal worldview, conservative opinions become easy to dismiss. The result is that on a host of topics from capital punishment to tax cuts, Big Media usually speaks with one voice. It's hard to believe Al Gore can't hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted December 16 Report Share Posted December 16 I agree that the media isn't necessarily left or right. It's a strange mix, but they seem to move to one side or the other when it benefits them.Take the Clinton saga for instance. To me it seemed like the media was really cracking the whip hard on him. They seemed to move more towards the right, using those tenets to their advantage.However, with the recent threats on Iraq, the media looks more liberal, portraying bush as a wack-ass leader, and not really getting too much into discussion on the subject as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyman1966 Posted December 16 Author Report Share Posted December 16 Originally posted by gmccookny Take the Clinton saga for instance. To me it seemed like the media was really cracking the whip hard on him. They seemed to move more towards the right, using those tenets to their advantage. I don't agree with you at all. I think that history will show that Clinton was by far the worst President. The media gave him breaks on China, the Middle East and Domestic problems. When it looked like the Media was starting to hold him responsible, he cried about Right Wing conspiracies. Imagine if a Republican President had the same scandals... he would be impeached. Clinton was far more crooked than Nixon. Time will prove this to be fact.The majority of the Press does lean towards the Left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted December 16 Report Share Posted December 16 Originally posted by guyman1966 I don't agree with you at all. I think that history will show that Clinton was by far the worst President. The media gave him breaks on China, the Middle East and Domestic problems. When it looked like the Media was starting to hold him responsible, he cried about Right Wing conspiracies. Imagine if a Republican President had the same scandals... he would be impeached. Clinton was far more crooked than Nixon. Time will prove this to be fact.The majority of the Press does lean towards the Left. BS except your final statement.How can u make these statements when Bill Clinton won 2 terms, had very high approval rating even after the scandal, and was truly an intelligent fellow.Reading his speeches in a Leadership and Rhetoric class and studying his style has conviced me that Clinton was more than just what the media portrayed him as. He didn't "cry" of right-wing conspiracies... While he was President, it was a time of extreme partisanship, and it was only natural that he had to defend himself against an onslaught of Republican accusators in the House and Senate. But save your critiques of Clinton for another thread, and let's stick to topic here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyman1966 Posted December 16 Author Report Share Posted December 16 Originally posted by gmccookny He didn't "cry" of right-wing conspiracies... I have to answer this...From the Jacoby essay:What most forget is just how gripped by conservatives-are-taking-over-the-media panic the Clinton White House was. In 1995 it produced a 332-page report purporting to prove - I am not making this up - that Republican politicians, conservative think tanks, certain ''British tabloids,'' The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and The Washington Times were all linked in a plot, funded by the heir to the Mellon fortune, to get scandalous ''fringe stories'' about Bill Clinton ''bounced into the mainstream media.'' AND - I guess we agree that the media leans towards the left. Let's talk about Presidents in another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted December 16 Report Share Posted December 16 printed media....yesTV and radio....moving to the right faster than dick cheney chasing after a big mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhouse Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by guyman1966 From the Jacoby essay: You do mean editorial, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by brickhouse You do mean editorial, right? good point to read between the lines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyman1966 Posted December 19 Author Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by gmccookny good point to read between the lines I’m not a highly trained paralegal. So, I guess I don’t read between the lines as well as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 you know, seriously, there's no need to be a shmuck when the ocassion doesn't call for it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyman1966 Posted December 19 Author Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by sassa you know, seriously, there's no need to be a shmuck when the ocassion doesn't call for it.... That was no slam! I really did not get it... the "between the lines" stuff. Again, you calling me names. I'm really going to report this to a Moderator! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by guyman1966 That was no slam! I really did not get it... the "between the lines" stuff. Again, you calling me names. I'm really going to report this to a Moderator! i did not call you a name, nor did i say you were a shmuck. your argument has no base. please....report me to a moderator, i would love that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyman1966 Posted December 20 Author Report Share Posted December 20 Originally posted by sassa i did not call you a name, nor did i say you were a shmuck. your argument has no base. please....report me to a moderator, i would love that. What is a "Shmuck"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted December 20 Report Share Posted December 20 Originally posted by guyman1966 What is a "Shmuck"? ok, i never said "guyman is a shmuck" i said it was not necessary to act like a shmuck, this could have been directed to anyone in here.therefore, your argument is invalid.i rest my case.please don't drag this out, this is a stupid thing to post on.sassa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.