just an honest question regarding media and election
Collapse
X
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
(Photo credit: SSG Lorie Jewell, US Army) Gen. David Petraeus flies with Sens. Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel from Baghdad International Airport to the International Zone.
Great pic here.
http://www.myspace.com/mjdubmusic
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
"Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl."Comment
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
Ironically, I honestly think that part of the reason is that because the folks on the right made such a big deal over the fact that Obama hadn't been yet, it inevitably became more newsworthy when he did go. The RNC ran a ticker on its homepage showing how long it had been since Obama had been to Iraq -- now he's there, and so far it looks to be a net positive for him. Be careful what you wish for, IMO.
And by the way, it is not a foregone conclusion that the media has this liberal bias that everyone speaks of. The media has a pro-media bias, and will run whatever stories keep people watching and listening, period. At different times over the course of an election cycle, that manifests itself by reporting that looks to favor one candidate or the other, most often the one that is behind, because viewers are more interested in a close race than a blowout
Yes the media is pro-media, but when most of the media is owned by liberals and employs liberally leaning reporters then it becomes pro-liberal by default. The same goes for media outlets like Fox on the other end of the spectrum. However in this case, Obama is leading and getting the attention while McCain is trailing, so the argument that "media favors the one trailing" really doesn't hold water, and lets face it, this election will be a blowout in favor of Obama.
I frankly am just not buying the media bias study cited by Kiff (and I couldn't help notice that there are quite a few commentators that take a similarly dim view of the methodology). The way it is set up, it ignores obvious displays of bias, like when a reporter editorializes about a situation, and it also attaches what I view as artificial significance to what "think tank" is cited by members of congress and news outlets. This debate will rage on forever, but attempting to quantify something like this in an empirical way is like herding cats, IMO.“Only those who attempt the absurd...will achieve the impossible. I think...I think it's in my basement... Let me go upstairs and check.” - MC EscherComment
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
Yes the media is pro-media, but when most of the media is owned by liberals and employs liberally leaning reporters then it becomes pro-liberal by default. The same goes for media outlets like Fox on the other end of the spectrum. However in this case, Obama is leading and getting the attention while McCain is trailing, so the argument that "media favors the one trailing" really doesn't hold water, and lets face it, this election will be a blowout in favor of Obama.
I don't expect run-of-the-mill left wingers (or right wingers for that matter) to really buy the study because they consider opinions on blogs, wikipedia, or candidate websites as gospel over accredited institutions or specialists in the field. They tend to ignore or dispute valid studies no matter what they reveal (whether its this liberal media bias or global warming, etc). Even though this study does have its flaws, I have yet to see a valid study that shows no liberal bias in media.
The reason I don't put much stock into this study is that it is attempting to measure empirically something that inherently evades empirical analysis. When I hear Chris Matthews talk about how listening to Obama sends a tingle up his leg or watch Fox doctor photos of NYT reporters, I don't need a scientist to explain to me that there's bias at work. Of course, these and what most people would consider the most egregious examples of media bias wouldn't be captured in this study because they have nothing to do with any "think tanks."
You clearly believe there is an overwhelming liberal bias in the media and you've found a study that validates that belief for you, congratulations. Creationists are able to find studies that purport to support their positions as well. When you're dealing with things that are inherently touchy-feely and subjective, though, you're never going to find a study that carries any weight with me, which is why I'm not even going to bother to try to find an opposing study. It's an absurd discussion to have.Comment
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
Well then lets look at your argument in light of having one view drilling ideals in your head. Here are some numbers to chew on:
Audience reach and circulation statistics illustrate the liberal domination of the five major information media, two of which have no conservative sources:
Broadcast TV news, millions/day Liberal 42.1 Conservative 0
Top 25 newspapers, millions/day Liberal 11.7 Conservative 1.3
Cable TV news, millions/month Liberal 182.8 Conservative 61.6
Top talk radio, millions/week Liberal 24.5 Conservative 87.0
Newsweeklies, millions/week Liberal 8.5 Conservative 0
*for more info check out http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc
So, if there are any ideals being drilled into the head, its obviously the liberal ideals that are really being drilled (though I doubt you actually have a problem with that). Ironically, it's the liberal ideals that stand to loose the most from the "Fairness" Doctrine. So, would the "Fairness" Doctrine increase or reduce discussion about public policy issues? History says speech would be curtailed. When the "Fairness" Doctrine was in effect, talk radio avoided controversial topics. Most stations programmed only general talk and advice. Politicians repeatedly have used the "Fairness" Doctrine to chill speech. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both used the "Fairness" Doctrine to stifle criticism, suppress the speech of political adversaries, and force radio stations to provide free air time. Today, efforts by liberal politicians to restore the "Fairness" Doctrine bring to mind the worst moment of Israel’s King David (I'm not much of a christian, but there are some interesting stories in the bible). David was not satisfied with his many wives and concubines; he also had to have the beautiful Bathsheba, the only wife of one of his soldiers. American liberals already dominate four of the five most important news and information media, and they are determined to take over the fifth medium as well. America has so many sources of news and information available that no federal regulation of broadcasting content can possibly be justified on the grounds of public interest. The Fairness Doctrine has an ugly history of political abuse directly intended to restrict the free exchange of ideas.
And why should Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly be booted from the air? I get it, you think that only Liberal ideals should be discussed and that nobody with conservative ideals should have a voice (how very Soviet of you). How about having Bill Moyers and Anderson Cooper booted off the air too? Oh, wait they are Liberal voices and they have the only right to be heard. In all actuality, none of these people should be booted off the air. This is America, where freedom of speech is a right. As my fellow Libertarian Mariner88 stated, if you don't like the shows, then turn that dial or change the channel. Otherwise move to Cuba, Mynmar, or Venezuela where "fairness" doctorines thrive. Oh wait, your already in Canada....
WORD!
and there is a huge liberal bias in the media...
Its just getting worse too, thats why I think ratings for the networks and newspaper subscription is down...
Give us the facts, not your opinion...
If your giving us your opinion then make it clear, like Rush or anyone in talk radio does.."A man has to believe in something, I believe I'll have another beer."
Want Spoon'n music?
Check out my downtempo mixes
http://ryanlinneman.podOmatic.com
Comment
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
Another reason might be that people from our generation turn to the internet and other non-traditional sources for our information. I get offered a subscription to the local paper every time I go to a baseball game, and I'm always thinking, "Why the hell would I pay for you to fill my house with excess paper with news that is already a few hours old when I get it?"Comment
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
WORD!
and there is a huge liberal bias in the media...
Its just getting worse too, thats why I think ratings for the networks and newspaper subscription is down...
Give us the facts, not your opinion...
If your giving us your opinion then make it clear, like Rush or anyone in talk radio does..Comment
-
Re: just an honest question regarding media and election
^ what, pray tell, would you classify yourself as?you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
Am I somewhere....in the corners of your mind....
----PEACE-----Comment
[ms] Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 191,699
Posts: 1,236,794
Members: 53,126
Active Members: 71
Welcome to our newest member, Sacigyan.
Comment