Liberal Media?

[ritz627]

This, more than anything, just does not make sense to me.


A media outlet/company, especially nationally, aims at making the most money possible. So why would a media company trying to make the most money possible make news that only appeals to half the American audience? They wouldn't. Now others might say that this liberal media is only localized, but if that is so, why is the entire nation complaining about it as a whole? Also, if it is only localized to liberal regions, couldn't the same be said that conservatively biased media appears in conservative regions? This, in turn, would even everything else out. So, for those who are saying it doesn't, you must be implying that the entire nation is liberally biased. In which case, I guess you finally know what it feels like to be a minority. Either that, or you are just imagining things, which based on the popular votes is more likely. Granted, there are likely to be a few national outlets on either side of the spectrum: Fox news, and the New York Times. But these, again should even themselves out, since, after all, the nation is split pretty much half and half between democrat and republican. This (again) does not mean the majority of outlets are liberally biased, there are a few on each side to tend to the "extremes" of both political views.

[legendkiller717]

i just wrote a big diatribe in another thread, or i'd do it here too...media is only effective on those willing to take it as gospel...basically, the radicals and retards of the nation...and look at what major coporations own these subsidiaries, and then look ath the programming or publications put out by their other subsidiaries, or other intersts...it makes perfect sense...its pretty much the same facts, with diferent twists from the different outlets...



and the red sox blow

[unriggable]

Red sox kick your ass.

[0ojakeo0]

Red sox kick your ass.

[ignotus]

Red sox kick your ass.

...but you gotta wash them separately!

[Anarkistsdream]

Well, as a journalist, and a member of what you deem the 'liberal media' all I can say is that it depends on what supercompany owns your paper, television station, or website.

If you want to keep getting paid, you write about things that are either controversial or important to the local good.

I could go on about this all day, but it really ends up being this: Unless you are in the profession, whatever it may be, it's hard to really understand why and how they do the things they do.

[legendkiller717]

Well, as a journalist, and a member of what you deem the 'liberal media' all I can say is that it depends on what supercompany owns your paper, television station, or website.

.

thats what they taught me in college too...

EDIT: and thats why the yanks almost caught them and pretty much owned them the second half of the season...pack it up...another disappointing loss in the playoffs for the sox...and the best part is it will be at the angels hands

[Anarkistsdream]

Well, as a journalist, and a member of what you deem the 'liberal media' all I can say is that it depends on what supercompany owns your paper, television station, or website.

.

thats what they taught me in college too...

Yep... 100% correct, too.

[CoffeeCream]

A media outlet/company, especially nationally, aims at making the most money possible.

I don't agree with this. Their main objective is to advance their political ideology.

[spurgistan]

Errr, absolutely not. The Tribune Company could not give a crap what my local paper says. But if it starts losing money, there are going to be cuts. How else could a fairly conservatively-run paper (as the Trib is) run a paper in a town dominated by hippies (as my town is) Hippies wouldn't dare buy a paper with the things the editorial board of the Trib believes in, so they adapt the views to sell papers.

Oh, good call on the Angels, genius. Really showed us East Coast fools who's boss.

[heavycola]

The Guardian! the Observer! The Independent! All owned by trusts to ensure fair reporting. It's a much better model... They are all accused of liberal bias though. If you don't live in the UK, a 'guardian reader' is shorthand for a muesli-munching, sandal-wearing, save the raniforests, fair trade, middle-class twat (ask norse!) And whatever you say, those papers are definitely sanctimonious. And I am a bleeding heart liberal journalist too (although i hate muesli).

[Titanic]

Well, Murdoch owns the largest media organisation in the world, and I would say that he is definately not a liberal.

[ritz627]

EDIT: and thats why the yanks almost caught them and pretty much owned them the second half of the season...pack it up...another disappointing loss in the playoffs for the sox...and the best part is it will be at the angels hands

I know this is off topic for a thread I started but I gotta say it.

-Almost isn't good enough. Yankee fans just cant face the fact the red sox are a better team this year, hence the winning of the AL East, yet another fact you guys can't get over.

-Our pitching is easily better than yours, and our batters are notorious for tiring pitchers out, two things you need to win the playoffs. Pitching is what it comes down to, because every team in the playoffs can hit, and you guys lack in pitching...especially in the bullpen.

-Did you watch game 1??

[ritz627]

Errr, absolutely not. The Tribune Company could not give a crap what my local paper says. But if it starts losing money, there are going to be cuts. How else could a fairly conservatively-run paper (as the Trib is) run a paper in a town dominated by hippies (as my town is) Hippies wouldn't dare buy a paper with the things the editorial board of the Trib believes in, so they adapt the views to sell papers.

Oh, good call on the Angels, genius. Really showed us East Coast fools who's boss.

Agreed, on both parts. Money is what every business comes down to in a capitalist society, and money is what every business strives for...media or not. And Anark is right, in order to make the most money possible they must unfortunately write articles on really (for lack of a better word) "juicy" issues. And go sox.

[Nobunaga]

... There's a big, fat, arrogant talk radio guy in the US named Rush Limbaugh (just in case somebody here didn't know)...

... OK, there was this guy who went to boot camp and washed out - never made it through basic training. This p*ssy decided to start telling folks he was a Green Beret in Iraq who witnessed US soldiers committing massacres against civilians - hanging them in mosques and the like...

... This lying pr*ck got busted only after he had appeared on one television program and was interviewed by newspapers and news sites. He is facing federal charges over this now, specifically I cannot recall the charges but they are rather serious....

... So, Rush Limbaugh calls the lying p*ssy a "Phony soldier". And what happened?

... The US Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reed, is calling for a censure of Rush Limbaugh on the Senate floor (in session) for "Aiding the enemy" and "Working to destroy the morale of our fine troops in Iraq". (This is the same guy who declared that war lost, btw, and compared US soldiers' actions to Nazis... go figure)

... Now... This has been in the news a bit, because Rush Limbaugh is real easy to hate, I think, and makes a great target. BUT... the media has access to Limbaugh's programs, they know who he was referring to in his radio program (that lying sh*t)... but none of them, none of them has seen fit to set Senator Reed straight, nor have they seen fit to tell us what this is really about.

... Why do you suppose that is?

... Media bias? Hell yes. That's all I see any more and it makes me sick because so many fools in this country believe the first thing they see and hear on TV - f*ck the truth, Nascar's coming on!

... I left America for a decade and "you b*stards" screwed up my country.

...

[Nobunaga]

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/ ... 9_exec.asp

... According to a new study, those news organizations that hold themselves up as the most neutral and professional — big newspapers, the broadcast networks and taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio — are actually producing campaign stories that are the most tilted in favor of Democrats, while online news and talk radio have actually been the most balanced.

... The study, released Monday from the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, found newspapers and broadcast TV outlets devoted far more time to covering the Democratic candidates than the Republicans and that the tone of those stories was much more favorable to the Democrats, mirroring the results of a Media Research Center study released in August.

...

[unriggable]

Nobunaga, it sells better. More people hate bush than like him.

[Nobunaga]

Nobunaga, it sells better. More people hate bush than like him.

... True enough.

...

[unriggable]

Nobunaga, it sells better. More people hate bush than like him.

... True enough.

...

Having said that, it was exactly the opposite around the 2000 elections.

[Anarkistsdream]

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/Riseandshine/report0829_exec.asp

... According to a new study, those news organizations that hold themselves up as the most neutral and professional — big newspapers, the broadcast networks and taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio — are actually producing campaign stories that are the most tilted in favor of Democrats, while online news and talk radio have actually been the most balanced.

... The study, released Monday from the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, found newspapers and broadcast TV outlets devoted far more time to covering the Democratic candidates than the Republicans and that the tone of those stories was much more favorable to the Democrats, mirroring the results of a Media Research Center study released in August.

...

What state was the research done in?

If they polled mostly democratic states, then obviously the media plays to them.

But in my state, Republican candidates get much more air time... Interviews with house and senate members are always republican.

It just depends on your location. That study targeted certain locations and groups of people...

You can get a poll that says anything... They mean shit.

[Nobunaga]

To find out, Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 campaign segments on ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS’s The Early Show and NBC’s Today from January 1 through July 31. Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign’s quest for positive media attention.

... I believe those are national.

[Anarkistsdream]

To find out, Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 campaign segments on ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS’s The Early Show and NBC’s Today from January 1 through July 31. Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign’s quest for positive media attention.

... I believe those are national.

Yes, but where are those places filmed??? In the states where all their tax breaks come from. New York... A very liberal state.

If Hilary Clinton were your senator, she'd be on the t.v. a lot too.

[Anarkistsdream]

Marketing and PR agents learn how to manipulate polls, diagrams, facts, and anything else. That is their JOB.

All of us in the journalism field have to come to grips with the fact that you have to cater to the powerful in your area.

Just the way it goes, if you want the good stories.

[heavycola]

Marketing and PR agents learn how to manipulate polls, diagrams, facts, and anything else. That is their JOB.

All of us in the journalism field have to come to grips with the fact that you have to cater to the powerful in your area.

Just the way it goes, if you want the good stories.

The study was done by the project for excellence in journalism (http://www.journalism.org) - the individual results for the candidates are pretty interesting. If anything it is censuring the 'liberal media'. Then again PEJ could be affiliated to just about anyone, i have no idea

[Guiscard]

You do realise that the US has a very conservative media by pretty much any standard, don't you?

Your liberal is another mans nazi, so to speak