The LIBERAL Media

Originally posted by sh76
No, it's not assuming anything. You are measuring the American media, so you measure it against Americans.

If you were measuring the European media, then you'd measure it against Europeans.

Media (primarily) serves the country that they're in. Obviously, all politics are relative. What is conservative in Massachussetts is not necessarily conservative in ...[text shortened]... the American media has to be measured against its constituents, which are not the Europeans.

What you're talking about is their political bent relative to the citizenry and I'm suggesting that you could approximate them more as an objective measure that isn't relative to the constituents of the state or country.

There is some grey area as to how center a policy might be, but I'm not sure I'd agree that all of it is relative.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Who owns the media?
Bleeding heart liberals? I think not.

And no, Rupert Murdoch is not a bleeding heart liberal.

There can be no one in US media business more liberal or biased than Jeffrey Immelt. Irrefutably proven now - by the fact Jeffrey Immelt was hand picked by Obama for Obama’s Econmomic Advisory Board.

This begs the question; What would RHP brain trust have to say if Bush had placed Rupert Murdoch on his Economic Advisory Board? We know the answer, do we not? <hell hath no fury> 🙂

THE HEAD OF GE ADVISING OBAMA ON ECONOMY
“Obama signed an executive order establishing the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The members include General Electric Co. CEO JEFFREY IMMELT, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, former Fed Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson, UBS Americas Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert Wolf and Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, the administration announced.”

It is safe to say these media outlets will be biasly promoting Obama’s liberal policies:

COMMUNICATION OUTLETS OWNED BY GE -- Controlled by JEFFREY IMMELT.
NBC Universal (GE has 80% controlling share); NBC - National Broadcasting Company; NBC Network Television stations; WNBC 4 - New York; KNBC 4 - Los Angeles; WMAQ 5 - Chicago; WCAU 10 - Philadelphia; KNTV 11 - San Jose/San Francisco; KXAS 5 - Dallas/Fort Worth²; WRC 4 - Washington; WTVJ 6 - Miami; KNSD 39 (cable 7) - San Diego²; WVIT 30 - Hartford; NBC Entertainment; NBC News; NBC Sports; NBC Studios; NBC Universal Sports & Olympics; NBC Universal Television - Universal Media Studios; NBC Universal; Television Distribution; NBC Universal International Television - EMKA, Ltd.; NBC Universal Digital Media; NBC Universal Cable; A&E Television Networks¹ - A&E; The Biography Channel; The History Channel; History Channel International; The History Channel en Español; Military History Channel; Crime & Investigation Network; Bravo; Chiller (horror-themed cable channel, launched March 1, 2007) [1]; CNBC (co-owned with Dow Jones); CNBC World (co-owned with Dow Jones); MSNBC (co-owned with Microsoft); NBC WeatherPlus; mun2; Sci Fi Channel¹; ShopNBC; The Sundance Channel¹; Sleuth; USA Network; Universal HD; The Weather Channel; WeatherPlus; NBC Universal Global Networks; NBC Universal Global Networks; LAPTV (Latin America); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (owned by MGM Holdings) and 20th Century Fox (News Corporation); Telecine (Brazil) - co-owned with Globosat Canais, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks (Viacom), MGM and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal Channel Latin America; Universal Channel Brazil; Sci Fi Channel Latin America; NBC Universal Global Networks España; Telemundo; KVEA/KWHY - Los Angeles; WNJU - New York; WSCV - Miami; KTMD - Houston; WSNS - Chicago; KXTX - Dallas/Fort Worth; KVDA - San Antonio; KSTS - San Jose/San Francisco; KTAZ - Phoenix; KBLR - Las Vegas; KNSO - Fresno; KDEN - Longmont, Colorado; WNEU - Boston/Merrimack; KHRR - Tucson; WKAQ - Puerto Rico; TiVo¹; Universal Studios; Universal Pictures; Focus Features; Rogue Pictures; Working Title Films; Universal Studios Licensing; Universal Animation Studios; Universal Interactive; Universal Pictures International; Universal Home Entertainment; Universal Home Entertainment Productions; United International Pictures; Universal Operations Group; Universal Production Studios; Universal Parks & Resorts; qubo - Qubo Venture,LLC¹; Swiss Re-(8.9percent)¹; ¹Minority interest; ²Stations which LIN Television owns a minority interest (24percent) in;

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What you're talking about is their political bent relative to the citizenry and I'm suggesting that you could approximate them more as an objective measure that isn't relative to the constituents of the state or country.

There is some grey area as to how center a policy might be, but I'm not sure I'd agree that all of it is relative.

I suppose you could try, but I don't really see how you could measure politics objectively. It seems to me that the labels, like "conservative" or "liberal" on issues mean relative to others on those same issues.

But, assuming that "conservative" and "liberal" can be measured objectively, when your measuring things like a country's media bias (or lack thereof), it seems to me as though that means as measured by the people that they're conveying information to.

Say, for the sake of discussion, that the Dutch people are liberal. One would expect their media to be comparably liberal because the media is generally made up of people from that country. If the Dutch media were centrist compared to the rest of the World, that would still mean that the average Dutch person would justifiably perceive his own media as having a conservative bias.

Let's assume you rank people from 0 (most conservative) to 100 (most liberal), measured by the entire Western World's outlook. If the median American is a 35 and the American media's median is a 50, then the media has a liberal bias. Even though it may be centrist compared to the rest of the Western World, it would be perceived as conservative by the people that it services.

Originally posted by MacSwain
There can be no one in US media business more liberal or biased than Jeffrey Immelt. Irrefutably proven now - by the fact Jeffrey Immelt was hand picked by Obama for Obama’s Econmomic Advisory Board.

This begs the question; What would RHP brain trust have to say if Bush had placed Rupert Murdoch on his Economic Advisory Board? We know the answer, do we ...[text shortened]... t)¹; ¹Minority interest; ²Stations which LIN Television owns a minority interest (24percent) in;

Being on Obama's economic advisory board proves you're a liberal? That's a stretch. He's there as an advisory for economic issues. It's not like he's Obama's press secretary or anything (cough - Tony Snow - cough). It's not like Obama's chief political strategist goes on to be a political "analyst" for the largest, most influential news agency in the world (cough - Karl Rove - cough). And of course it's not like that news outlet kept him on board while he snubbed his nose at federal subpoenas.

Originally posted by sh76
I suppose you could try, but I don't really see how you could measure politics objectively. It seems to me that the labels, like "conservative" or "liberal" on issues mean relative to others on those same issues.

But, assuming that "conservative" and "liberal" can be measured objectively, when your measuring things like a country's media bias (or lack thereo ...[text shortened]... stern World, it would be perceived as conservative by the people that it services.

I get your point. The problem is that if the population is far right and the media is right, but not that right then they would be seen as having a left bias - but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Should the media be tuning their bias to match their viewer's politics?

My main problem with the media isn't this left vs right bias but more the lack of research done and the repeating of talking points as if that's actual journalism.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I get your point. The problem is that if the population is far right and the media is right, but not that right then they would be seen as having a left bias - but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Should the media be tuning their bias to match their viewer's politics?

My main problem with the media isn't this left vs right bias but more the lack of research done and the repeating of talking points as if that's actual journalism.

===Should the media be tuning their bias to match their viewer's politics?===

Perhaps not. But, viewers can choose to determine which media they turn to for information and if they perceive bias away from their viewpoint, they will not like that outlet.

Let's be realistic. Fox News is not a superior news organization to MSNBC, CBS and CNN. So, why do they kick those other outlets' butts in the ratings? Obviously because those other outlets fight for the "liberal" wing of the viewership while Fox has a monopoly on the conservative viewers. As outlets like the NY Times and NBC continue to march towards liberalism, all they do is cement their own irrelevance. They'll never beat Fox by being one of 5 choices for liberal viewers. They are under no obligation to adjust their coverage to match their audience's, but they would be well advised to consider their audience if they want good ratings.

Personally, I'll read or see anything, whether I agree with the outlet or not. But most people would rather just watch their own views confirmed than watch someone who challenges their beliefs.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
For anyone who parrots the "liberal media" mantra, let's play a little game. Name ANY mainstream media outlet and I will find you an article or editorial critical of Obama policies. And it won't be something complaining he's not "liberal" enough, it will be something from a Conservative perspective.

Find me one article or editorial critical of Bush policies, something from a Liberal perspective from foxnews.com

This is from judge Napolitano a contibutor to Fox News and actually sits in for Glen Beck. It seems he is being groomed for his own show on Fox not unlike Gov. Huckabee.
Speaking on the Patriot Act,
YouTube

Originally posted by sh76
===Should the media be tuning their bias to match their viewer's politics?===

Perhaps not. But, viewers can choose to determine which media they turn to for information and if they perceive bias away from their viewpoint, they will not like that outlet.

Let's be realistic. Fox News is not a superior news organization to MSNBC, CBS and CNN. So, why do they ...[text shortened]... er just watch their own views confirmed than watch someone who challenges their beliefs.

I don't think it's all that cut and dry. I have seen polls that indicate that the divide between the right wing and the left isn't nearly as deep as the ratings difference between Fox and say MSNBC.

CNN is losing market share because it has started sucking more and more - not really because of it's leftness the way I see it. There's no liberal I know who thinks CNN is somehow great for news other than maybe headlines.

I think the NYTimes is dying mostly because of people reading it for free online, not that people are somehow not trusting it as a news source. After all, isn't the #1 source of its revenue from its paper delivery?

I don't know this for sure since obviously, but I just don't think the nation's politics match exactly with the ratings difference.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I don't think it's all that cut and dry. I have seen polls that indicate that the divide between the right wing and the left isn't nearly as deep as the ratings difference between Fox and say MSNBC.

CNN is losing market share because it has started sucking more and more - not really because of it's leftness the way I see it. There's no liberal I know ...[text shortened]... but I just don't think the nation's politics match exactly with the ratings difference.

I agree -- a lot of CNN's coverage goes as follows:

you bring up an issue - you bring in people from opposing sides of said issue - you let each of them speak for 5 minutes - you give each a couple softball follow-up questions - and JUST when things start to get slightly interesting, it's time for a new topic and a new set of opposing sides.

And the quality of the "opposing sides" is not always the best. One thing that drove me nuts during the 2008 campaign was how often they would bring in the same spin-meisters from each party to discuss the day's events - both spin-meisters would have little more than a set of talking points from party central, and you knew neither was allowed to present an independent thought. So I knew that I was going to hear the same cliches over and over.

Very rarely did I ever get the feeling that anyone was ever trying to ferret out the truth or underlying motives, or the other things that the media is supposed to be doing. The guiding philosophy seemed to be that "all we need to do is give everyone equal time to present their views, then we can flash our over-whitened smiles and declare we're presenting the news".

Originally posted by MacSwain

COMMUNICATION OUTLETS OWNED BY GE -- [b]Controlled by JEFFREY IMMELT.
NBC Universal (GE has 80% controlling share); NBC - National Broadcasting Company; NBC Network Television stations; WNBC 4 - New York; KNBC 4 - Los Angeles; WMAQ 5 - Chicago; WCAU 10 - Philadelphia; KNTV 11 - San Jose/San Francisco; KXAS 5 - Dallas/Fort Worth²; WRC 4 - Washington; ...[text shortened]... t)¹; ¹Minority interest; ²Stations which LIN Television owns a minority interest (24percent) in;[/b]

this brings up a major problem regarding the media.

You have these HUGE companies that control so many different outlets -- and I'm sure this makes it much harder for a small company with a totally innovative approach to media to have any chance of gaining a meaningful presence.

This list is also illustrates that despite all those many many channels you can now get from cable TV, almost all come from the same handful of companies.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
this brings up a major problem regarding the media.

You have these HUGE companies that control so many different outlets -- and I'm sure this makes it much harder for a small company with a totally innovative approach to media to have any chance of gaining a meaningful presence.

This list is also illustrates that despite all those many many channels you can now get from cable TV, almost all come from the same handful of companies.

And that's why you need a well-funded public broadcaster.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
And that's why you need a well-funded public broadcaster.

are you proposing an american version of the BBC?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
And that's why you need a well-funded public broadcaster.

I can't for the life of me fathom why it's the government's job to run media outlets.

The media checks government. That's its job. It's job is not to be dominated by the government.

If John Peter Zenger were paid a salary by the governor of New York, he never would have published something bad about him.

Originally posted by sh76
I can't for the life of me fathom why it's the government's job to run media outlets.

The media checks government. That's its job. It's job is not to be dominated by the government.

If John Peter Zenger were paid a salary by the governor of New York, he never would have published something bad about him.

It's the government's job because you cannot rely on commercial interests running what people see - they have to be kept in check by a neutral outside party.

And public broadcasters publish plenty of bad things about government as long as it's in their mandate to do so freely. Look for something bad about Gordon Brown on news.bbc.co.uk.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree -- a lot of CNN's coverage goes as follows:

you bring up an issue - you bring in people from opposing sides of said issue - you let each of them speak for 5 minutes - you give each a couple softball follow-up questions - and JUST when things start to get slightly interesting, it's time for a new topic and a new set of opposing sides.

And the ...[text shortened]... iews, then we can flash our over-whitened smiles and declare we're presenting the news".

I think it's more than just CNN that is doing that too.

Part of the problem is they also simply ask the Democrat or Republican they're talking to the opposing party's talking point and pretend that's a "good question" without researching or actually pretending to validate the claim first.

If a republican or democrat makes a claim that is a lie then the news orgs shouldn't be asking the other party to respond - they should be exposing it as a lie.

I've seen this from pretty much every network and it's what's passing for news unfortunately.

You're right about the spin-meisters too - it's insane that they just get two spinners to try and philibuster a discussion and see who can do it best.