How can the press be liberal?


PDA






Drjones
January 3, 2003, 05:32 PM
I don't understand: The press clearly is liberal. How is this possible, seeing that the people who OWN and control the press are likely NOT liberal?

The people who own and control the press are VERY wealthy and powerful men. Wealthy men are very rarely liberal. (In general)

Am I missing something?


Drjones

If you enjoyed reading about "How can the press be liberal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
David Roberson
January 3, 2003, 05:53 PM
Two points to ponder:

1. Liberal guilt.
2. Rich people have a great tendency to think they know what's best for everyone. Wanting to control everyone else's lives has become the hallmark of modern liberalism, much to the dismay of classical liberals, who would view the modern Democratic Party as the object of total contempt and revulsion that it is.

Hope this helps.

DonP
January 3, 2003, 06:27 PM
There is an automatic assumption that the people that control large corporations, including the ones that own the major media oulets are by and large conservative. Tain't neccessarily so.

Think about the people that control major media outlets like Turner, McKelvey (and I can't recall the name of the media guy Gloria Steinem married). And let's not forget major players like Oprah and Martha Stewart.

I think the "Limousine Liberal" guilt does play a big part in their liberal attitudes. They can't imagine their lives without privelege. They truly believe that they "know what's best" for most poor, uninformed, low class, "Joe 12 pack" American's.

In a phrase, they are liberal because they can afford to be liberal. Their wealth and power is preserved for them in family trusts or investment portfolios and real estate ventures. Major government programs like welfare have no affect on their lives so why not support more government giveaways?

As far as the 2nd amendment goes; "if the poor people are afraid, let them hire body guards too or if they really can't afford it call the police, isn't that what they are for?"

I think that there was a survey that indicated that over 85% of newspeople voted Democratic in the last three elections.

No liberal slant, yeah right.

Don P.

2nd Amendment
January 3, 2003, 06:40 PM
There's plenty of fiscal conservative/social liberal types out there. A desire for wealth and a lack of moral grounding. Turner would be a fair example, though he seems to be going further to the left fiscally as well.

Regardless of how leftist or Conservative the big money types may be, though, the fact remains they are in it for money. So long as those on the front lines are making them money it isn't likely they are going to be instructed to change their views and biases and thus we see a leftist media. Considering the recent Fox numbers we may also be seeing a change soon, since it appears that obvious bias isn't making the money it used to.

treeprof
January 3, 2003, 06:48 PM
Actually, a lot of papers and all the networks are big corporate entities, not privately owned, so there's not much in the way of a an old-time, traditonal publisher's hand steering things. Content is suposed to be dictated by ratings, circulation rates and ad sales, so they do what they think will sell. And, perversely, the papers and networks generally can't understand why consumption of traditional media sources has plummeted. Partly it's because journalism schools are nearly completely dominated by leftist types, out to "make a difference", not report news and a lot of people don't care for that (which explains talk radio and Fox News).

Given the make-up of journalisms grads, the people hired by newspaper/radio/TV outlets are usually libs, from the editors on down. Editors predominantly control content, hence a liberal slant for a lot of big-city papers. Also, a lot of big name journalists have backgrounds as liberal congressional or White House aides or other some such (Chris Matthews, Bill Moyers, Tim Russert and pretty boy George). Same for a lot of editors or producers (like at CNN). Some, like Peter Jennings, are just anti-American foreigners.

Justin
January 3, 2003, 07:07 PM
Considering the recent Fox numbers we may also be seeing a change soon, since it appears that obvious bias isn't making the money it used to.

It's not that FOX News isn't biased, it's that they're biased in a direction that is different than all the other media news outlets.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that there can be any such thing as bias-free news.

One only need look at Elsworth Toohey, er, I mean Bill O'Reilly to see manifest bias.


This is not to say that FOX News is bad. They've certainly given the other networks a run for their money.

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2003, 07:20 PM
Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. For the media to appear at least cultrually liberal serves the owning class better than for them to appear conservative. Actually, the media are neither. Sex, cultural tolerance, and a stance that embraces modernity against traditional values is a valuable marketing position. It's not used to advance social conditions, but to sell products, and to pacify the population and to keep them from questioning authority in any meaningful way. It gives the young and alienated a set of false targets for their rebellion, and the rest of us it pacifies with the modern Roman circus.

Drizzt
January 4, 2003, 02:56 AM
wealth does not automatically equate to conservative values. Look at the distribution of wealth in the U.S. Congress. I don't have the numbers right here, but most of the money in Congress is in the hands of the liberals (that does include a few Republicans as well...). Look at who in politics has the largest personal fortunes, and it is more likely that they are on a Democrat ticket, rather than a Republican.

WonderNine
January 4, 2003, 04:39 AM
Alot of older men, especially when they reach a relatively advanced state in their careers can afford to think liberally, just as those young and old with nothing at all can do the same. Some have more brains than that though.

Airwolf
January 4, 2003, 05:00 AM
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth

By Robert Parry
January 1, 2003

The notion of a “liberal” national news media is one of the most enduring and influential political myths of modern U.S. history. Shaping the behavior of both conservatives and liberals over the past quarter century, the myth could be said to have altered the course of American democracy and led the nation into the dangerous corner it now finds itself.

Too long to post entire item.

ravinraven
January 4, 2003, 06:10 AM
A few comments:

Of course the media is in general biased to the left. The only ones who dispute that are those who lean so far left that Lenin looks vertical to them. Naturally, a news outlet that is in fact vertical will look terribly right leaning to the lefties.

Next comment:

In reading the above remarks, I came across one that mentioned "constitutional privledge" or something to that effect. Watch out for that word "priviledge." The writer was referring to constitutional "right" when the p word slipped out. It is very important that the word "right" is ground into the minds of everyone, especially the young. Right?

And a sick example of leftist terror:

I just read in a link from the Drudge Report about the man at the Talahassee Democrat who was fired, actually, suspended, I guess, for making a statement of truth in an email. The word "Democrat" in the paper's title explains the action. The fact of left media bias also explains the action.

The "culprit" is forced to say he's sorry and the paper was right for punishing him. Brrrrrrr! If this isn't straight out of "1984" nothing is.

For a news paper to attempt to shut down the first amendment is, in my way of thinking, a capital offence. Get the people who did this on trial for their lives. [Actually, I would take a flame-thrower to them and burn them like you'd burn a nest of tent caterpillars out of a fruit tree.]

There needs to be a national organization that could call up the major advertisers in that Nazi wannabe newspaper and tell them to stop advertising there or face a major boycott. Use the tactics that Jesse Jackass and his scam artists use to wreck America in an effort to save America.

Then we need to follow through on the threat and shut down anyone who does not support liberty.

If we the people do not organize to peacefully take back liberty, then our children and grandchildren and going to be forced to revisit such places as Lexington and Concord and Valley Forge and begin the terrible task of watering the tree of liberty.

Or else we the people are going to roll over and be trampled by the likes of such "liberal" [read "new age Nazi"] lights at Hitlery and Chap-Of-Quick-Dick Kennedy.

F=ma
January 4, 2003, 11:13 AM
I don't think they are intentionally liberal per se, it's more a brothers-in-arms/same MO thing....Most media, and liberals, further their cause by alarming, scaring, or otherwise inciting emotions (fear, outrage, concern, whatever) in their "marks". Keeps 'em coming back for more. Thorough analysis, or careful debate, makes eyes glaze and a tendency to reach for something a little more exciting.
(note: it's understood that this tecnique is not limited to the aforementioned groups).

Reporters, under deadlines and the above-mentioned pressure, need a quickie...A brief encounter with a lot of emotion but no real thought or long-term baggage. It keeps the reader excited, wanting more/demanding action.

Weighty analysis and careful deliberations, like long term relationships, are for putzes and non-progressives. :o

4v50 Gary
January 4, 2003, 11:15 AM
Well put Malone LaVeigh.

johnr
January 4, 2003, 01:39 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/752095/posts
Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media...


http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/1996/cyb19960507.html
recent Freedom Forum survey of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs revealed...

http://www.bu.edu/com/html/greatdebate9.html
opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the...


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a390a6f2767e5.htm
Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/608305/posts
Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

bad_dad_brad
January 4, 2003, 10:22 PM
Airwolf has hit the nail on the head. There is no liberal media. Read a little Gore Vidal on occasion, and you will see what I mean. The media is a carefully crafted tool of those in power.

Fascism is far more dangerous than liberalism, and it is Fascism that America is sinking in to. If you recall your civics properly, Fascism and it's resulting oligarchy are the ultimate form of conservatism.

treeprof
January 4, 2003, 10:49 PM
Libs like Chomsky and Vidal are good sources to debunk the myth of liberal media? Please.

ACP230
January 5, 2003, 12:00 AM
To see if the major media is liberal just look at how they characterize tax cuts, self-defense, or Christians who prefer candidates with voting records different from Ted Kennedy's. If perjoratives are used in stories on these subjects the reporters, editors and producers are leftist liberals, or socialists.

P.S. Noam Chomsky is unreadable, and a bore.

ravinraven
January 5, 2003, 08:07 AM
I wondered how long it would be before the old "conservatism leads in its extreme to Facism or its twin brother Nazism," chant would surface. Here I am quoting the chant, not the message I read.

Whoopieeeee!!!!!!!!!

The far right believes in total liberty. The far left believes in totalitarianism. Total liberty involves the total responsbility for one's self. Nobody wants to be totally responsible for himself. No roads to drive on, no social security check no organized protection from totalitarians. Brrrrrrr!

When we band together with even one other individual to make life a bit more safe and comfortable we start moving away from the far right end of the political spectrum.

Leftist people want to remove all or most all responsibility from individuals and place it in government organizations far removed from the individuals whose responsibilities and, therefore, liberties they have confiscated. Socialism, Marxism and Communism are three of the philosophical totalitarian cousins under which rights confiscation is the center piece. None of these philosophies or their twin-brother cousins Fascism and Nazism can exist in the absence of a totalitarian regime.

Nazi is an acronym for the German language version of National Socialist Worker's Party. Notice that leftist concept of Socialism right there in the acronym? Hitler was a Liberal who had approached nearly to the furtherest left point on the political scale. Under him you were not even responsible for deciding when to lay down and die.

In a ship you can sail east and get to the west and vice versa. Leftist, pro-totalitarian apologists, in an attempt to hide their true goals from an unwitting and uninformed public, have come up with the "circle" theory of the political spectrum. I bought that for several years myself. The "circle" theory says that if you go right far enough you get to leftist totalitarianism. The circumnavigation of the world is cited as the logic upon which this "truth" is based. Folks, there's a big difference between a ship of commerece and a ship of state.

We are right now in a several front war against liberty. The left can't control talk radio and the web (yet). These are the sources of truth. Truth has dealt the left a blow in the elections. Bad-mouthing truth sayers no longer seems to be working. Watch for curbs on free speech. Daschle [sp?] has hinted at it. Chap of quick dick Kennedy and the Clinton joke-on-America team would strangle free speech in an instant. They are beginning to realize that it is not guns but the hard drive which they must protect thmselves against. I think we are living in a time when the old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword" is being demonstrated yet again.

Hkmp5sd
January 5, 2003, 08:25 AM
Information is one of the most important things in the world. If you can control the content and distribution of information, you can control those that read it. By having that control, the person can't resist playing God and using that information to shape the world into his version of Eden.

Prime example is the former USSR. For years the Czar had censorship. Lenin and some of his flunkies sat in Europe and wrote articles that were smuggled into Russia. Following the Czar's abdication, Lenin ran back to Russia and promptly took control of the newspapers. From that point on, the average soviet citizen only knew what was printed in Pravda, which is why even after all of the evil actions of Stalin, when he died, the people were genuinely sorrowful and turned out in mass and wept at his funeral.

Interestingly, after the defeat in the last election, the Democrats blamed Fox TV, Talk Radio and the Internet. The three things they cannot control.

Khornet
January 5, 2003, 09:33 AM
!. liberal/leftist
2. Lazy

So a news angle which comports with their worldview goes unexamined and unchallenged. They will dig for dirt much quicker when covering conservatives, but even though that involves work, it comports with their worldview. True even-handed skepticism is very hard work, because you have to check reports from all sides, not just the right. This is why global warming scare stories are uncritically aired, while evidence to the contrary is spiked--they'd have to STUDY to understand both sides.

If you're drenched in the liberal view, anything to your right seems exterme, while your way of seeing seems no more than sweet reason.

For a media type to perceive liberal bias would be like a fish feeling wet.

Khornet
January 5, 2003, 09:36 AM
Noam Chomsky is a malignancy, and Gore Vidal is insane. Reading them for enlightenment is as useful as studying Lyndon Larouche or Mein Kampf. They're just the leftist equivalents.

Mike Irwin
January 5, 2003, 10:24 AM
I saw an interesting claim the other week on a news talkshow, and I'll be darned if I can remember which one...

The person being interviewed, a member of the media, claimed that in the last 3 Presidential elections claimed that newspaper employees -- reporters, editors, and controlling staff -- voted Democratic about 88% of the time.

One of the hallmarks of the American print media industry is that, by and large, editorial staffs control the editorial content of the newspaper. "Interference" in content and coverage, including that from the owners of the papers, is fiercely fought. Editors and reporters have resigned over it.

Khornet
January 5, 2003, 11:07 AM
where two sports writers, whose columns disagreed with the Times' partry line on the Augusta National golf club, had their columns spiked. After Howell Raines' censorship was exposed, the Times backtracked, but the veil had slipped for sure.

another okie
January 5, 2003, 11:18 AM
Most reporters and editors are liberal Democrats, and most owners are conservative types. You can see a slightly different type of split in the Wall Street Journal, where the feature writers are quite liberal but the editorial page is conservative. It's not that hard to reconcile the two ideas.

The owners are willing to let the reporters do whatever they want in areas of lifestyle, such as sex, drugs, and music. That sells papers and doesn't interefere with the owner's privileges. If the reporters and editors started arguing for large-scale redistribution of property you'd see the owners cracking down pretty quick.

shu
January 5, 2003, 11:20 AM
Why is the media liberal when, as a business, one would expect it to be run by conservatives?

The media is in the business of selling stories. Sympathy, scandal, sensationalism, and sex sell. Conservatism has a more limited market.

Why is television liberal and talk radio conservative?

You can listen to radio while you work; you cannot watch television and work. Donahue, Jerry Springer, Geraldo, and Oprah gravitate to television and the market of people who have time to watch it. Rush and Dr.Laura gravitate to radio and an audience of people with jobs.

Malone LaVeigh
January 5, 2003, 03:56 PM
Libs like Chomsky and Vidal are good sources to debunk the myth of liberal media? Please.Puh-leez. Noam Chomsky is one of the biggest critics of liberalism in the world.
P.S. Noam Chomsky is unreadable, and a bore.If his books are too hard to get your brain around, there's an excellent documentary available in video, also called Manufacturing Consent.
________________________________

I really don't want to get into a fight over Noam Chomsky. I don't always agree with his foreign policy positions. But I think his analysis of the media is spot-on. Another central theme of his analysis is that the media don't really have the power to control what the public thinks, but it has the ability to control what it thinks about. It sets the parameters of the national debate. This is absolutely true.

Look at any debate in any of the major mainstream media over the war in Iraq. The debate is always framed in a way that serves the administration and the forces that want to go to war. The debate isn't over the morality or legality of waging war for oil. It's over side issues such as whether the admin should wage war without permission of Congress. Or UN approval. Or whether the cost will be too high. Tactical debates such as this dominated coverage back during the Vietnam days also. that's why people took to the streets. Their voices were not being reflected in any way by the media.

treeprof
January 5, 2003, 09:24 PM
The same Chomsky who wrote that the Khmer Rouge is an example of good gov't? The one who in various interviews and publications has basically blamed us for 9/11? Who actually said that we'd be likely to attack, or facilitate the overthrow of, the Pakistani gov't if they didn't assist us in starving millions of Afghanis? The one who said that Bin Laden is really motivated by bitter opposition to the corrupt and repressive regimes in the Mideast, including Muslim countries? The one who bends over backwards to try and explain how every oppressive socialist/communist regime the world has ever known isn't REALLY socialism? The ardent anti-capitalist? A critic of classic liberalism, yes (but not my point), but of Liberals (which he is, my point), not so much. Only in instances such as when Clinton got NAFTA passed.

grampster
January 5, 2003, 09:39 PM
How about this? The truth is difficult to sloganize. It needs to be debated, thought about, chewed over and applied, sometimes at a cost that is less than desireable. It takes time to digest. But time today has been reduced to 20 second sound bytes and headlines, or trailers at the bottom of the screen.
The mainstream media job is to pander to Americans, many of whom are either lazy, not interested, too self absorbed, or driven, or whatever tends to cause them to not be too aware of what is going on around their own narrow space. This leads to sound bytes, sloganeering and abrupt headlines. Time is chewed up and everything takes second place to instant gratification. Over time the truth sort of loses out to what sounds good or causes people to become even less aware, or motivates them to "let the other guy do it". Look at all the advertising. How much of it is truth? Mostly none of it. We are being inculcated with the fact that the truth doesn't matter as long as it sells newspapers or tv time. The media tells us that TV, movies, computer games and music that are violent or obscene don't affect anyone; yet millions are charged for advertising space in those venues. Ironic isn't it?
The truth is swallowed up in information overload during which it is easier to say just about anything that will draw attention to a particular ax that needs grinding. It does not need to be true, just work.
Sigh

Malone LaVeigh
January 5, 2003, 09:47 PM
I'm not here to defend all of Chomsky's ideas about foreign policy. But I think his ideas have been grossly misrepresented by those who seem to work better with simplistic slogans than real ideas (see above.) Those who get their information from David Horowitz may recognize some of the language.

Of course, none of the things cited fits anywhere near current mainstream liberalism in this country.

treeprof
January 5, 2003, 10:00 PM
Malone - those who seem to work better with simplistic slogans than real ideas (see above.)

Is that me you're condescending to, pal? Sorry, I don't respond well to intellectual chest-thumping.

I never said he was mainstream - he's far, far to the left.

And having read both, I do prefer Horowitz.



Edit: I'm done. Getting up in arms w/another gun owner/TFLer/THRer over this issue (and we're on the same track in the SUV thread) is not worth it, and is not reflecting well on me. Apologies to Malone McVeigh for combativeness.

Malone LaVeigh
January 5, 2003, 11:29 PM
Hey, that's not fair! I won't be "out reasonabled" in this thread! Why, I oughtta....

treeprof
January 5, 2003, 11:36 PM
Ha! I have never "outreasonabled" anyone. Hopefully, I'm just getting better at minimizing the amount of time (both mine and others), goodwill and bandwidth that I waste.

UnknownSailor
January 6, 2003, 01:27 AM
IMNSHO, the media is liberal, because the schools they go to are infested with liberals.

ravinraven
January 6, 2003, 07:27 AM
Grampsters description of the people the media pander to is about as accurate as they can be described without delving into a study of mental processes. The original framers set the system up so that these types of people would not get anywhere near the levers of power, especially those little levers in the voting booth. Now they have taken over to the point that it is their collective "wisdom" that decides the course of events. The only way a candidate has a chance of winning is if he abandons any appeal to human strengths of character and only panders to human character weaknesses. That's the only way the Clinton joke on America team ever got to first base.

If these same characters that grampster so well describes were sitting on a cruise ship and the captain and top few mates suddenly needed to be replaced, would you set up elections among the passengers to see who was going to steer from here on in?

There seems to be some sort of liberal toxemia running around in the "mainstream" media. A friend of mine described academic toxemia which among other things prevents college administrators from demanding that things make sense. Same here. One well remembered event that liberal toxemia caused was poor old Dan rather speaking at a Democrat fund raiser in Texas and then wondering why anyone thought anything about it. "What? Me liberally biases? Nonsense!"

The question is how do we keep constitutional rights intact with liberals everywhere chewing them up?

Steel
January 6, 2003, 03:18 PM
Wealthy men are very rarely liberal. (In general)

who told you that? just another leftist slant...

"...the racist, rich, white conservatives are..."

you know the mantra

I wish I had a recent article that has a breakdown of the US (and states'?) representatives and senators and theri net worths. The majority of the money was in the liberal (Demoncrap) camp.

If you enjoyed reading about "How can the press be liberal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!