US media

[ConspiRaider]

In the leadup to the Iraq war, many democrats supported Bush. After all, regime change was a policy first signed into law by Clinton. It wasn't until the 2004 campaign that opposition to the Iraq war became almost universal among democrats, and the press too.

Of course. More of your pathetic right-wingism. "It was CLINTON'S fault!!!"

Oh really, on the "2004 opposition" stupidity statement you made?

THE U.S. MAINSTREAM PRESS DID NOT PROMOTE ALMOST UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION TO YOUR BOY'S ILLEGAL WAR DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN!

How can you be so pathetically biased? In actuality: The U.S. mainstream press began timidly questioning - just a bit, mind - the validity of the Iraq War and its continuance only in very late 2006. AFTER we normal-thinking Americans (read: Democrats) threw a large number of Republican bums out of office. Then the media felt "safer" to maybe start doing their jobs as a true fourth estate in this country. But in 2004? HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[RandFan]

Anyway: I can comment on "Outfoxed", but I guess this is an old one, isn't it?

But I have to do so tomorrow.

Cheers,
Oliver

At best it shows that Rupert Murdoch manipulates the media. Of course Rupert Murdoch doesn't own CNN or MSNBC or many other news outlets so even if we accept everything in this video (I haven't watched it all and I haven't watched all of the other one) it still doesn't prove your thesis.

I'm looking forward to you what ever you have in support of your idea tomorow.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[brodski]

Of course. More of your pathetic right-wingism. "It was CLINTON'S fault!!!"

Oh really, on the "2004 opposition" stupidity statement you made?

THE U.S. MAINSTREAM PRESS DID NOT PROMOTE ALMOST UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION TO YOUR BOY'S ILLEGAL WAR DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN!

How can you be so pathetically biased? In actuality: The U.S. mainstream press began timidly questioning - just a bit, mind - the validity of the Iraq War and its continuance only in very late 2006. AFTER we normal-thinking Americans (read: Democrats) threw a large number of Republican bums out of office. Then the media felt "safer" to maybe start doing their jobs as a true fourth estate in this country. But in 2004? HAHAHAHAHA!

Do you think that this change in reporting on Iraq etc is the result of party political affiliation of the news media in general, or does it reflect the fact that the news media reports what it thinks the public wants to hear and will buy?

The only "danger" faced by the press in reporting against Bush whilst he was overwhelmingly popular was that they would become less popular and therefore less commercially unsuccessful. This was (IMHO) an example of the news media pandering to their audiences bias, rather than the media creating the bias in its audience.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet, journalists are overwhelmingly democrats. Hmmm........

Does that include Glenn Beck, John Stossel, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Michelle Malkin, Juan Williams, Shepard Smith, Julie Banderas...[rest of Fox news cast] Judy Miller, let's not forget Jeff Gannon, ...

Then there is the National Journalism Center whose mission it is to

Founded by conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans in 1977, the National Journalism Center (NJC) is, in the words of former director Ken Grubbs, Jr., "a juggernaut for creating journalists." The NJC provides training and assistance in finding jobs to conservative journalists and has long-standing ties to the tobacco industry....

...Since its formation in 1977, the NJC claim that, of the 1400 people who have attended their 12-week long training sessions, 900 have gone on to media and media-related positions. While a high percentage of those who were trained by the NJC appear to have had relatively short media life spans, a minority have carved our careers as media commentators, in conservative think-tanks, trade associations, lobbying or PR companies. [10]...

You may be reading the BS on the web pages of conservative distortion sites like, Media Research Center, but if you actually looked at the facts instead of the spin, you might find the world isn't what you fantasize it to be.

Here's what they said about media liberals:

Liberals Rule Newsrooms

Newspaper staffs have become even less conservative over the past eight years, a poll for the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) found. Last fall, ASNE polled 1,037 journalists at 61 papers of all sizes. Released in April, The Newspaper Journalists of the 90s report discovered:

-- "In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988" when the ASNE last conducted a comprehensive survey. Those identifying themselves as independent jumped from 17 to 24 percent while the percent calling themselves "liberal/Democrat" or "lean" that way held steady, down one point to 61 percent.

-- The bigger the paper, the more liberal the staff: "On papers of at least 50,000 circulation, 65 percent of the staffs are liberal/Democrat or lean that way. The split at papers of less than 50,000 is less pronounced: still predominantly liberal, but 51-23 percent."

Here's what their source actually said:

Politics and Religion

The storied liberalism of America's rank-and-file newspaper workers held strong over the last eight years, while conservatism crumbled. In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988. The greatest gain is in the ''independent'' column, which rose from 17 percent to 24 percent. Liberal/Democrats and those leaning that way slipped only from 62 to 61 percent.

Political orientation does not vary across job descriptions, except that editorial writers are more likely to be independent or conservative than staffers in the newsroom.

So the MRC uses the fact the staff in big city news rooms is 60% Democratic, ignores where those news rooms are as a co-founding factor, and conveniently leaves out the finding about the conservative make-up of the editorial writing staff.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It's not a question of decision. You know how your juridical system works: A panel could work in a similar way - and you cannot be convicted if no one accuses you.

So in a case of a panel, anyone could complain to the panel - maybe via petitions, for example.

ANYWAY:

I'm still learning, so don't bother me with things I don't know yet. It's not my intention to start a revolution, I only try to understand the Issue.

The "understanding an issue through avoiding the subject" school of thought.

I can only conclude you are not serious about actually engaging anyone on this subject, as you refuse to expend any time and energy into actually thinking about the results and repercussions of what you advocate.

 

[RandFan]

The U.S. mainstream press began timidly questioning - just a bit, mind - the validity of the Iraq War and its continuance only in very late 2006.

Do you have any proof of this? It is not at all my recolection. That there was no WMD was a hot topic from day one after the invasion IIRC. A simple google search shows questioning of the validity in 2005, 2004, CNN: Iraq WMD claims 'seriously flawed' (2004). I know that it is hard to prove a negative but perhaps it not a good idea to make claims without at least checking google to see if you are not in fact wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course. More of your pathetic right-wingism. "It was CLINTON'S fault!!!"

Are you having an anneurism? Because you've got it exactly backwards: I consider that to be one one of the things Clinton did right, which makes it rather impossible for it to be his "fault". Your impotent rage towards me is really clouding your ability to think clearly.

AFTER we normal-thinking Americans (read: Democrats)

Wow. Just... wow. You aren't even interested in balance in the media, are you? No, of course not... if you honestly believe what you're saying here (and I'm afraid you probably do), then the last thing you would ever want is anything resembling balance.

 

[Ziggurat]

So the MRC uses the fact the staff in big city news rooms is 60% Democratic,

Yes, but it's only 15% Republican. That's a LARGE imbalance. But just saying 60% democrat makes it sound like it's a 60/40 split when it isn't. Nice try at slight-of-hand, though.

ignores where those news rooms are as a co-founding factor, and conveniently leaves out the finding about the conservative make-up of the editorial writing staff.

What do you mean by the "conservative make-up of the editorial writing staff"? Are you suggesting that the editors lean conservative? Because that's not what that paper says. It says that they're slightly to the right of their newsroom colleagues. But those newsroom colleagues tilt heavily to the left, which means that the editors are still tilted left compared to the general population.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Do you think that this change in reporting on Iraq etc is the result of party political affiliation of the news media in general, or does it reflect the fact that the news media reports what it thinks the public wants to hear and will buy?

It's a terrific question, brodski. Wow. You oughtta be part of the White House press corps. Even the legendary Helen Thomas would be proud.

I think the first domino to trigger the change in Iraq reporting is primarily driven by the same force that wrested the right-wing hammerlock control of all levels of the U.S. federal government: The Internet. I think the Internet saved the USA in November, 2006. If there had not been this sort of underground, around-end mechanism to access information and get views and data from independent sources worldwide - I cannot even imagine the consequences. Because other than the Internet, mainstream media in the USA is concentrated in a handful of controlling interests, as Skeptigirl also indicated. We Americans know this implicitly. Take newspapers. When I was growing up in Cleveland Ohio, there were 3 major newspapers in the city: Cleveland Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland News. I was a delivery boy for the Cleveland Press for 2 years. Today, it's just the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Yes, there are other minor papers, but for the big, real stuff? Just the one. And that is the same throughout so many cities in the USA. One newspaper, one owner, one managing editor, one overall bias regardless of how objective that owner/managing editor tries to be. You have giant corporations who own these single-paper monopolies across multiple cities. And it's the same with radio stations and television stations.

There is no question that large corporations will do anything in their power to resist regulation, fairness, leveling of the playing field, acceptance of a decent share of a market and so forth. Their very nature is: "We want to own everything and do whatever we please. Try and stop us." The right-wing in this country is ideologically positioned to grant Big Corporate all its wishes. They won't budge.

I think the coverage changed because, from out there in the bleacher seats, the people - or at least enough of them - were able to discover what they needed to know through Web sources. And then they started a wave (to use another stadium analogy). I think that empowered the mainstream press to start telling it like it is. In other words, to do the job that we free-speechers fully expect - even demand - they do.

Just my opinion. And I still think you posed an incredibly intelligent question and I hope I gave it about one tenth of the justice it deserves. I hope others respond to your question above.

 

[RandFan]

It's a terrific question, brodski. Wow. You oughtta be part of the White House press corps. Even the legendary Helen Thomas would be proud.

Think how great the question would be if it were true.

Do you have any proof of this? It is not at all my recolection. That there was no WMD was a hot topic from day one after the invasion IIRC. A simple google search shows questioning of the validity in 2005, 2004, CNN: Iraq WMD claims 'seriously flawed' (2004). I know that it is hard to prove a negative but perhaps it not a good idea to make claims without at least checking google to see if you are not in fact wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Do you have any proof of this?

Is this thing on? Hellooo?

ETA: Ooops, mea culpa.

Just my opinion.

Sorry.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Regarding the US media in general, it does seem incredibly sensationalistic and sound-byte fixated. The only US TV news "show" I've seen with any depth at all is "60-minutes", which I think is wonderful, BTW.

This is my basic impression of the U.S. media too, which is why I tend not to get into the "they are liberal/conservative" debate. Most television news in the U.S. is like virtually any other program: they pander to the viewers. They are a business, and they do what it takes to get people to watch, whatever it happens to be at the time.

That's not to say there aren't serious journalists on TV, or at least people who try to be. But they are still constrained by the basic need to attract viewers, keep sponsors happy, and make money.

If people really wanted to know what our Congress was doing, C-Span would be really popular. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Oliver]

The media cannot be both advocates and neutral. Perhaps you don't know what "neutral" means in English?

I still have no Idea what you're complaining about:
One statement was about BBC UK, the other one about the US Media.

And yet you still didn't adress why the BBC can report critical about Iraq while the Mainstream in the US avoided this issue in the last years.

 

[Oliver]

It's actually pretty good. I'm not sure what Oliver thinks it proves though. Perhaps he can give us some commentary.

ETA: I should note that I'm only 26 minutes into a 54 minute show.

What did you think about the Video? There were no shocking Highlights, but it was at least interesting to see the personal advisers talk to the candidates. Or the religious Politician whose name I forgot, said he doesn't want that someone mention this abortion demonstration.

 

[Oliver]

The "understanding an issue through avoiding the subject" school of thought.

I can only conclude you are not serious about actually engaging anyone on this subject, as you refuse to expend any time and energy into actually thinking about the results and repercussions of what you advocate.

Well, I asked a question in the beginning of this thread and it wasn't my intention to be too active in this thread, but rather to follow the discussion and controversies about the issue and reply from time to time. So do you have an opinion about the issue? At least the poll shows that there is indeed some truth in this issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

And yet you still didn't adress why the BBC can report critical about Iraq while the Mainstream in the US avoided this issue in the last years.

That's because it's not true that the US media hasn't been critical of the Iraq war. You're not going to get an answer for why something didn't happen when it did happen.

 

[Oliver]

At best it shows that Rupert Murdoch manipulates the media. Of course Rupert Murdoch doesn't own CNN or MSNBC or many other news outlets so even if we accept everything in this video (I haven't watched it all and I haven't watched all of the other one) it still doesn't prove your thesis.

I'm looking forward to you what ever you have in support of your idea tomorow.

Thanks,

RandFan

Hello RandFan.

Right now I also guess that my view could have been more overstated than I thought. Nevertheless, the poll says something different. Why is that in your opinion?

 

[Oliver]

That's because it's not true that the US media hasn't been critical of the Iraq war. You're not going to get an answer for why something didn't happen when it did happen.

Which documentary comes to your mind? I would love to watch it and withdraw my statement.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which documentary comes to your mind? I would love to watch it and withdraw my statement.

Farenheit 9/11 was a big hit, if you're looking for a documentary per se - surely you've heard of it? Though I was refering more to news stories and editorials. The New York Times, for example, is almost reflexively critical of anything Bush does in regards to Iraq.

 

[RandFan]

Hello RandFan.

Right now I also guess that my view could have been more overstated than I thought. Nevertheless, the poll says something different. Why is that in your opinion?

Well I wouldn't put much stock in an internet poll. It's a long way from being scientific. Even if it was scientific you would be making an ad populum argument to suggest that it proves anything beyond the perceptions of a group.

But it is interesting, I'll grant you that.