07-03-2007, 10:39 AM | #2 (permalink) |
paranoid
Location: The Netherlands
|
Good point.
It is very likely that with a sufficiently liberal administration the media would be seen as too conservative. And the media is also an instrument of the public. If it is too liberal for the administration, could it mean the administration is too conservative for the public?
__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. " - Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints) |
07-03-2007, 11:22 AM | #3 (permalink) |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
I can personally remember the allegations of a liberal media during the Clinton Administration, and I bet whatever triggers them was around for longer than that.
I definitely don't think that any perceived liberal bias in the media is an effect of the Bush administration. It may be that one has more opportunity to level the charge in our current times, but if anything, I think that reporting tends to sour on presidents as their administrations progress. The other thing is that it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to read hard evidence that media members as a whole hold liberal beliefs - just look at where they come from and where they tend to work. I'm not at all convinced that this is mirrored by a distortion in their presentation of information. I do believe that news presentation goes to where the bosses think the money will be, which isn't a liberal or conservative issue.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
07-03-2007, 01:13 PM | #4 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
To use Republicans as an example - they say they support smaller government, the reality is that they don't. People vote for Republican candidates on that and other principles only to be disappointed. On the Democratic side - the Democrats said the last round of Congressional election sent a message saying that the American people wanted a change with Iraq. To this point they have done nothing, and people are disappointed.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
07-03-2007, 07:26 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Our news sources became commercial and profit driven beginning in the Reagan administration. Corporate interests have replaced even neutral reporting of events and any notion that there exists a liberal media is a farce. The media coverage of this administration's run up to war is just one of many examples that corporatism drives the content of our "news."
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 |
07-03-2007, 07:34 PM | #6 (permalink) | ||
Tone.
|
Quote:
that said, yes, journalists tend to be more liberal than conservative, but a "flaming liberal" is a pretty rare find in a journalist. Most of us are much closer to the middle of the road. I for instance am pro choice, anti affirmative action. You can't really pigeonhole that into a liberal or conservative mindset. Quote:
Now why would a large corporation that supports the republicans want their most visible and vocal mouthpiece to be spewing liberal rhetoric? That's an asinine conclusion. The media isn't too liberal or too conservative. It's too chicken. We need to hold people from all sides accountable when they screw up, and as a whole, we simply don't do that nearly enough. |
||
07-03-2007, 07:49 PM | #7 (permalink) |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Shakran:
Thanks for your response to my comments - I hope you know that I mean to offense. "Where they come from" means journalism programs at Universities - particularly the elite ones. It's not a slam, but much of the atmosphere in these places is...progressive to be kind, one-sided to be blunt. At least that has been my overwhelming experience and observation. That may well be a natural state of affairs. At any rate, no matter the orientation, being opinionated and passionate does not mean that someone cannot present facts and issues fairly. Of course these are generalizations, and even I could name notable exceptions. I'm just thinking out loud about trends that might be strong enough to add up to an impression over time. And by money flow, I still think in the end that works out to neither conservative nor liberal. It probably has more to do with where the publication can find an audience - niche, geography, and where the interest lies. Often that means assuming positions contrary to the current powers. I know that I'm more likely to be enticed to read an article criticizing Bush than one that praises Bloomberg, even though I like Bloomie better than Bushie.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
07-03-2007, 08:16 PM | #8 (permalink) | |||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Tags |
tecs |
|
|