Originally posted by EladarBecause outside your ultra-right-wing bubble, mainstream voters recognize that the media is owned by conglomerates motivated by turnover and advertising sales, not Yuri Andropov, Chernenko or Philip and Elizabeth's handlers from The Americans.
How is recognizing today's media as being no better than pravda going to go down poorly with voters?
Maybe voters in the North East who are no better than Communists anyway.
Over my lifetime I've seen politicians of all stripes and parties attack the media, and from Wilson through Major to the current GOP candidates (the latter of whom have a much poorer case than the former in terms of the way they're being presented) , all of it falls flatter than a pancake with the electorate, who expect their self-appointed leaders to at the very least stand up for themselves and take flak. If you're in public life, you're certainly entitled to whine at the small part of the media you don't own and can't yet abolish, but you have a bully pulpit, media time and a party machine, and if you can't handle the pressure, make way for someone less sensitive.
Originally posted by AmauroteThey are motivated by those who hire them.
Because outside your ultra-right-wing bubble, mainstream voters recognize that the media is owned by conglomerates motivated by turnover and advertising sales, not Yuri Andropov, Chernenko or Philip and Elizabeth's handlers from The Americans.
Over my lifetime I've seen politicians of all stripes and parties attack the media, and from Wilson through Maj ...[text shortened]... and a party machine, and if you can't handle the pressure, make way for someone less sensitive.
Originally posted by EladarOn that, at least, we're agreed. John Birch fantasies aside, freedom of the press still belongs to those who own it, and last time I looked, the average US media owner looked a little bit more like Rupert Murdoch, and a little bit less like the supporting cast of Germinal.
They are motivated by those who hire them.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe big money guys own the media, if you like it or not. Put your head in the sand if you like, it does make one feel better.
On that, at least, we're agreed. John Birch fantasies aside, freedom of the press still belongs to those who own it, and last time I looked, the average US media owner looked a little bit more like Rupert Murdoch, and a little bit less like the supporting cast of Germinal.
Originally posted by EladarAnd the GOP is the party of the no money guys, right?
The big money guys own the media, if you like it or not. Put your head in the sand if you like, it does make one feel better.
So if they can't handle criticism from their own choir, how they going to handle the likes of Putin?
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI don't recognize any of this, unless by "lefties" you mean anyone to the left of General Franco. Who exactly are these fanatical Marxisant corporations? Can you name them for us, with particular reference to their communist-sympathizing owners? I won't feel safe until you do.
GOP has fox, the others are owned by the lefties.
Originally posted by whodeyYou have to remember who he beat.
Rubio is being called the GOP Obama. This is probably why Jeb was going after him. He figured all he needed to do was take out his most popular establishment Republican and double his support in doing so among establishment Republicans.
But like his brother, he is clueless. I just don't understand how "W" got elected twice.
Originally posted by EladarOnly in America can media like NBC, for most of its recent history owned by GE one of the world's largest power and defense conglomerates be considered as left leaning. You guys do realise that everywhere else in the civilized world, your left is our right wing in politics?
GOP has fox, the others are owned by the lefties.
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteFirst there is some reality to most John Birch fantasies. Second, the owners of the media giants may be mirrors of Rupert Murdoch, but Rupert owns a lot of media outlets in cities which are Democratic strongholds, and feature leftist news anchors.
On that, at least, we're agreed. John Birch fantasies aside, freedom of the press still belongs to those who own it, and last time I looked, the average US media owner looked a little bit more like Rupert Murdoch, and a little bit less like the supporting cast of Germinal.
Clearly, the big media outlets are almost entirely in the biggest metropolitan areas, and those big cities are almost all Democratic strongholds. They all make money the same way, selling advertising.
Originally posted by kmax87The guy who owns GE helped put Obama in power.
Only in America can media like NBC, for most of its recent history owned by GE one of the world's largest power and defense conglomerates be considered as left leaning. You guys do realise that everywhere else in the civilized world, your left is our right wing in politics?
I'm well aware of the fact that Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution do not exist in the rest of the world so the rest of the world's definition of left and right are different.
Originally posted by kmax87I am so glad that we differ from the rest of the world, and always have.
Only in America can media like NBC, for most of its recent history owned by GE one of the world's largest power and defense conglomerates be considered as left leaning. You guys do realise that everywhere else in the civilized world, your left is our right wing in politics?
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignMurdoch's record is pretty clear: he may hire the odd weak liberal as an anchor, and there may be the occasional sop to nationalist prejudices (for example, the Scottish Sun endorsed the SNP, while the UK Sun endorsed the Conservative Party, and his republicanism did the monarchy some harm here in the 1990s, which was marginally entertaining for those of us who share his views on that score, at least), but his empire is a series of right-wing newspapers and centre-right media outlets which project his prejudices. For that matter, Fox has frequently featured weak liberals as "balance" to its usual far-right presenters, which is amusing enough, but not exactly proof of balance. Most of us would have no problem with this if Fox dropped its pretence of being a news channel.
First there is some reality to most John Birch fantasies. Second, the owners of the media giants may be mirrors of Rupert Murdoch, but Rupert owns a lot of media outlets in cities which are Democratic strongholds, and feature leftist new anchors.
Clearly, the big media outlets are almost entirely in the biggest metropolitan areas, and those big cities are almost all Democratic strongholds. They all make money the same way, selling advertising.
One thing I will agree with you is that genuinely left-wing - i.e. socialist or populist, as opposed to liberal - presenters often find a berth more easily on commercial talk media than they do in mainstream public broadcasting. For example, while Conservative presenters and hosts dominate the political news on the BBC, people like James O'Brien, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway do okay on LBC. The point is that these people are crowd-pleasers, they boost participation and advertizing revenues, and they move the Overton window precisely nowhere because the other 95% of the presenters on those broadcasters veer between the far right, the centre-right and the stolid centre, which has itself moved rightwards over the last decade.
Originally posted by AmauroteDespite the differences in the media, here in the US, most people have the opportunity to hear all sides of issues.
Murdoch's record is pretty clear: he may hire the odd weak liberal as an anchor, and there may be the occasional sop to nationalist prejudices (for example, the Scottish Sun endorsed the SNP, while the UK Sun endorsed the Conservative Party, and his republicanism did the monarchy some harm here in the 1990s, which was marginally entertaining for those of us ...[text shortened]... the centre-right and the stolid centre, which has itself moved rightwards over the last decade.
I still think that in primary debates, there isn't any reason for balance, or opposition moderators. It is the primaries, and is to select a candidate for a given party.
Originally posted by EladarYou might have to expand on that a bit because I'm not sure how your constitutional freedom in terms of your day to day existence differs from my common law freedoms guaranteed under my Westminster inspired constitution to influence the wings of politics.
The guy who owns GE helped put Obama in power.
I'm well aware of the fact that Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution do not exist in the rest of the world so the rest of the world's definition of left and right are different.