Fox News Makes You Stupid

“One thing that cracks me up sometimes is to hear right wingers accuse the media of moral relativism when they won't come down hard enough on "evil doers," and then bash them for bias when they mention facts that the right finds inconvenient.”

“left right left right left right left right

yawn”

“arclite convinced me that liberals and conservatives don't even exist.

WTF is his ranting about anyway?”

“He is out to prove that liberals think / conservatives feel.”

“A man is rushing to catch the train he knows the street name, but doesn't know which way to turn when he gets to the street... he comes up to someone on the corner says "hurry, tell me which way to the train!" The guy answers: "if you turn right you'll be left, if you turn left, you'll be right."”

“Sometimes, I secretly suspect that arclite might have been a barrister in his former life.”

“No need to resort to name calling chili.”

“Hey, Arc. Rush, Goldberg, and John Rocker ruined their own carreers. They didn't need any help. And, as for the Black Elvis, Rev Sharpton, just see how many votes he garners in the primaries. That will tell you how seriously the "left" is taking him. I would bet he will be out of the race after Iowa, and certainly after New Hampshire. Hell, Alan Keyes had much more substance, and look how seriously the "right" took him.”

“I agree... I was living in New Hampshire during the primary and got a good look at Keyes... a man of substance and integrity. I didn't agree with him, but he and McCain were the most admirable of the Republican candidates in my view.


What Rocker said was disgusting. It wasn't the left that started the blacklist. And it wasn't the left that burned cd's by the Dixie Chicks or Steve Earle.”

“Arclite, I've come to expect better of you over the years. The last few things I've seen from you, though, have all centered around this Bias book. What about this particular book, among all the others about bias in the media, has you so enthralled?”

“Tony Sanchez, violin? You’re really stretching now. Why should we take seriously what Tony Sanchez says? I’ll go you one better than Tony Sanchez. I have an intelligent, “liberal” friend who refuses to even read “Bias”, let alone speed-read it. He has his fixed “liberal” dogma and won’t listen to anything that doesn’t agree with his preconceived notions despite the many examples and verifiable facts Golberg presents in his book.

Ruined their own careers, doomadan? You can’t be serious. The media pilloried all these people. They were cruising in their careers until they got bad press. That much is obvious.

What exactly did Rocker say that was disgusting, Pedxing? Do you know his mind-set when he made the comments? Was he joking? Did he have evidence to support his observations? Have you ever made “disgusting” off-color comments in jest? Do you have a sense of humor? Do you believe in the right of free speech if it disagrees with “liberal” causes? Your post appears to be 99.66% free of logic and evidence. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since it is difficult to write a fact-filled treatise in this forum. We all expect each other to do a little research on our own. You “looked through”. Pedxing? You mean skimmed? Do you mean read the parts that seemed interesting to you? Not very scientifically inquiring of you my friend; disappointing actually.

Mentally ill, Tom?

#&%!$, ynami? You’ve always proven yourself to be closed-minded. I really don’t need any more proof, but your denial is funny. I enjoy funny.


Fear Drugs, I know…I know. I’ve been beating this thing for a while. But I find “liberal” denial so funny. Many humans are in denial about a lot of things. But the dictionary definition of “liberal” means open-minded. I have found this to be anything but the case for many “liberals”. I believe that hypocrisy and willful ignorance are detriments to a truly free society. I don’t have all of the answers, but I don’t dismiss information because it doesn’t agree with my belief system. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

“Liberal” media bombards us and still the “liberals” are in denial. They think the viewpoints expressed are “mainstream”. They believe that the stories on which the media tend to focus are “mainstream” issues. They have created an image of themselves as the ideology of morality much like the religious right whom they despise. Many “liberals” seem unshakable in their faith. One of my favorite stories in Bias is about a woman who says, “How did Nixon get elected? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Of course she didn’t. Because she surrounded herself with like-minded people and refused to look at other viewpoints. We all know that Nixon carried 49 states. There were plenty of opportunities for this woman to meet people who voted for him.

Closed-minded dogma is a way of life for many. What about Hollywood? The movie Pretty woman has a recurring Hollywood theme: The struggling “working-person” who teaches the heartless “rich-person” how to live a moral life. I haven’t met too many hookers-with-a-heart-of-gold but I’m sure they exist. Mostly in the minds of Hollywood “liberals.” My fiancée made me watch Maid in Manhattan. Same recurring theme. Did it surprise anyone that the villain in Monsters Inc. (I loved that movie) was the corporate executive? Or that the hero was the “working-man”? These movie themes recur over and over. I have known a number of “rich” people. I have encountered a miniscule percentage that act as evilly and snobbishly as they are portrayed in many, many movies.

I suppose that creating and fostering resentments against a group of people makes it easier to justify taking their money. It makes it easier for some “liberals” to believe that giving people back a small portion of a very large contribution to society is unjust. It makes it easier to believe that these “rich” people aren’t paying their “fair share.” It makes it easier to vote for people who will tax those other people. For some, it appears as if it is easier to feel morally superior if you never question your beliefs.”

“I caught part of a panel of journalists on C-SPAN early this AM, and they mentioned that Fox News had played (or might still be in the habit of playing) some sort of 'patriotic music' to while running footage from the Iraq War.

Is this true?

Each one commented that adding a 'soundtrack' or anything like that was explicitly forbidden in their organizations by policy.


(maybe 'cause they're all 'lefties,' <G>)”

“So because Goldberg presented some anecdotal evidence of liberal bias in the media, the report by PIPA is wrong? Don’t make us break out the logic book on you again young man.

If that is your argument, I’d have to say I’ve seen you do better arclite. You’re recent attachment to Goldberg’s “Bias” appears like a schoolgirl’s crush or perhaps even cult-think. Perhaps you need to examine your attraction to his book with an eye to what emotional need it fulfills.”

“Arclite - you're whole argument is once again based on very little substance.

Not forgetting of course that I'm closed minded as I wouldn't accept your reading list.

What is one plus one. You seem to like asking questions yet draw the stragest answers from the simplest of puzzles.

Pretty Woman, Monsters Inc. and Maid in Matthatten are not great movies to base your theories around, (I'd widen your viewing choices there) - there's just room in the market for rags to riches stories, just as there is room for movies about Killing Bill, Naval Commanders and Black Hawks Down. It's whatever puts butts on seats in the theatre- there's no conspiracy there.

Again you try and dress up an exceptionally weak argument with "evidence" of little relevance. Maybe looking at some books other than those on the good right-winger readership list may help you out there.

So lets detail what you come up with there - some point about Nixon getting elected and one voter - not sure what "anti-liberal" point you were trying to get across with that one.

That Hollywood has made a couple of movies that glamorize a poor hooker and a latino maid, and some monsters winning out over a corporate exec.
I hate to tell you this Arclite, but stories where Rich CEOs get even richer don't play that well with the viewing audience. Surely you can understand the needs of the free market on that one?

Well - then you go off on some rant about taxes, which you provide no evidence for .... substance Arclite, please.”

“"You’re recent attachment to Goldberg’s “Bias” appears like a schoolgirl’s crush or perhaps even cult-think. Perhaps you need to examine your attraction to his book with an eye to what emotional need it fulfills."
undead flesh eating Violin
09:07:59 AM

Well said, Mellonhead ;^P

"The head that won't speak out is a pumpkin."
(old world saying)”

“The danger of the preacher is lest he denounce without knowledge, or lest he praise on the basis of some one book he has lately read. There is perhaps no person less helpful than the man who has read one book and imagines that he knows the subject.


-Edwin S. Gorham
from Project Canterbury, 1926”

“"The head that won't speak out is a pumpkin."
(old world saying)"

Tom Terrific
10:44:07 AM
10/14/03

Is it time for me to engage in this discussion yet?”

“Sounds like a cue to me! LOL”

“I think arclite and ynami are correct. Each in a slightly different way, yet on a converging path.

Is the media "liberal"? Well, in reflection of arclite's earlier discussions on this, the first question would be "what is liberal"? However, to simplify this, we can define it for discussion as "political views more similar to Ted Kennedy than those of Ronald Reagan".

Now having said that, I think the answer would be no, the media is not "liberal". I think the media would be more "conservative" as it is pure capitalism. The long and the short of it is what ynami brought out,,,what sells? Is there a reason that rags like the Enquire are not only still in business, but quite profitable? Yes, Virginia, there is a reason....people thrive on it. Do we want to hear news that the world order is good and that there are no problems in the universe. Of course not, the general population are like nascar fans, we ignore the race to watch the wrecks. Hearing about how big business is hard at work driving all things pure and simple in this country doesn't excite people. The mainstream just simply cannot, or will not identify with it. What we want is news that gives us hope that the little guy can and will rise up through the system. Something to bolster our confidence and support our fantasy. Getting the view from the "right" imparts a feeling that the natural flow will continue without interruption. Getting a slant from the left leaves a subtle impression that the chaos theory will somehow lead to a reversal of fortunes that benefit us individually instead of globally.

So, is the media "liberal". Well, in light of the definition we use and in light of the intentional effect, yes, it is. But IMHO, it is "liberal" in effect in order to drive conventional "conservative" values....big business and capitalism.

In short, I feel the "liberal slant" is a function of the process, not the mindset of the players.

So arclite, while you are right, I feel you are right for all the wrong reasons.

In the words of Justice Brandies in a very short statement on an opinion...."I concur in part, I dissent in part."”

“"Most news services at least attempt to remain objective. That can't be said for Fox in most cases."
Fear Drugs
11:02:02 PM
10/12/03


That's funny, I see it just the opposite.”

“Thanks for speakin' out, pumpkin!

Isn't it almost time for Linus to stake out the pumpkin patch?”

“Pretty darn close, TT.”

“Arclite: I looked through Bias for interesting parts and skimmed. There are many thousands of books to read, I'll read the ones that hold out promise to me.

Of course Rocker had a legal right to say what he said, to express disgust or annoyance at anything he wants to and other people have a right to be disgusted by what he says. You have returned to harp on him, but seem to have no problem with the PC movements of the right wing who bash Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks or Steve Earle. Are you mad about the criticism Rocker got, but happy with the ad boycotts and cd burnings aimed at Maher, the Chicks and Stever Earle?”

“Anecdotal- Based on or consisting of reports or observations of unscientific observers.

That’s correct violin, Goldberg is not a scientist. He does however report factually.

Factually- Based on or consisting of facts.

No one disputes the fact that Bernard Goldberg won seven Emmy awards for his work. No one disputes the fact that he was forced to resign from CBS after he wrote his op-ed piece in the NYT exposing the media’s “liberal” bias.

No one disputes the fact that, while supposedly delivering a factual news report about Steve Forbes, Eric Engberg, a Washington correspondent for CBS, called the idea of a flat-tax, “Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us.” Or that he then interviewed three different economists who opposed the flat tax. Goldberg did notice, however, that in this “balanced” news report, he failed to interview two supporters of a flat-tax, Milton Friedman and Merton Miller, both from the University of Chicago and both Nobel Prize winners in economics. In fact there were (and still are) many economists who supported a flat-tax, but Engberg didn’t interview any. Then Engberg went on to finish his report with the following: “Forbes’s Number One Wackiest Flat-Tax Promise is the candidate’s belief that it would give parents more time to spend with their children and each other.”

This was delivered on a CBS news show. This was not an opinion piece. No one disputes this. In fact, in reviewing Bias, the NYT wrote: “Mr. Goldberg has done real homework…He asks questions that are worth asking.”

And so, vioin, your ignorance continues. You have not disputed anything that I’ve said. You merely attack Ad Hominim. Look who’s talking about doing better.



Yanamush-mouth. “Pretty Woman, Monsters Inc. and Maid in Manhattan are not great movies to base your theories around,” Ooooooooh, that’s relevant. Name me five movies where the rich corporate executive is the hero and I’ll list ten where the rich corporate executive is the villain. Yeah, “…market for rags to riches stories” what you said.

Why are you obsessed with conspiracy theories? Bias does not conclude that is the cause of “liberal” bias in the media and you are too ignorant to know what the argument is about. “…some point about Nixon getting elected…” You really don’t know what my point was do you? “some rant about taxes, …” Bias does mention that many “liberals” find opposing views to be, “…the rantings of right-wing nuts.” You sure have proved that argument. Trouble is, ynumby, I have provided evidence. You may not agree with it, but I have provided it. I assume that you refuse to see it. I have also provided an opportunity to explore new information. I assume that you enjoy your ignorance. What specific left-wing articles would you suggest for someone like me, who truly doesn’t enjoy his own ignorance?



Gee FD, that’s clever but inaccurate.

“Be wary of the man who knows not what he talks about. Be open to all ideas but treat few as the absolute truth. Be wary of the man who lacks imagination by posting the thoughts of others to express ideas about which he has no knowledge. Be wary of the man who, upon disagreeing with you, tells you that you think you know it all despite all past evidence to the contrary. Fear these ignoramuses.”

Arclite
from Right-Wing Rantings



Let me ask you a question, pumpkin36. Do you detect any slant in the NYT editorial page?

In a now famous 1996 survey conducted by Freedom Forum and the Roper Center:
89% of journalists voted for Bill Clinton compared to 43% non-journalists
7% of journalists voted for George Bush compared to 37% non-journalists
2% of journalists voted for Ross Perot compared to 19% non-journalists

In 1995 the Los Angeles Times conducted a nationwide survey:
23% of the public said they were liberal; 55% of journalists described themselves as liberal.
56% of the public favored Ronald Reagan; 30% of journalists favored Reagan.
75% of the public was for the death penalty; 47% of journalists favored it.
50% of the public wanted stricter gun control; 78% of journalists.

50% of journalists said they were Democrats
4% of journalists said they were Republicans

You can disagree all you want, pumpkin, but the information paints a different picture from your belief.


NoProb, it may look that way but I actually agree when Fear Drugs says, "Most news services at least attempt to remain objective. That can't be said for Fox in most cases." From the way Goldberg sees it, most of the “liberal” media see themselves as “mainstream” and so don’t consider their views slanted. He doesn’t see any “vast left-wing conspiracy” as some nameless doofus here suggests. Goldberg even says that “liberals” ridicule Fox because it’s one of the only places where you will get any point of view from the “right.”



Ped, why do you assume that I, “seem to have no problem with the PC movements of the right wing who bash Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks or Steve Earle.” In making a point about the left, I have just not mentioned them. Of course that bothers me. Any slander bothers me. Willful ignorance bothers me. I don’t understand why you would wish someone economic or personal harm because you don’t agree with their ideas…idiocy! As a matter of fact, there’s a book out that talks about how ”liberals” use slander … It’s just that I enjoy pulling “liberal” chains because so many of their policies (especially their socialist economics) set themselves up to be the arbiters of morality, just like the religious right they so despise. But I repeat myself. Back to the tax issue which some nameless doofus here just doesn’t get.”

“Arclite, I prefer Diet Coke to Pepsi.


Know what I do....???


Yep, I go with the Brand I prefer.

If the conservatives think that the media is so liberal and unfair, why isn't it that a truly conservative reporting media hasn't swept the country?


Well, I realize I am sort of slow on these things, but I highly suspect that is a little thing called economics .

I do observe with some humor, that the same people #&%!$ing about how liberal the media is, are the same ones reading the paper.....

Is it irony? or is it that the paper knows how to sell its product?”

“Could it be that the journalists support more liberal policies than the general public because they are better informed? Have you seen the stats on how many books the average person reads?”

“Let's face facts...

Jobs that appear to be a service appeal to people with liberal mindsets. Teachers, journalists, nurses, etc. tend to be more liberal than not. They are more concerned with helping people than with making money. Conservatives tend to gravitate towards professions where the most money can be made.

But, the people who own media outlets are a different story”

“wron-o dan-o....


liberals want to rule, not lead....so they gravitate towards jobs that thay can influence poeple....teachers, journalist, entertainers....they believe in government solvong problems and many are actually socialist and even communist...they don't trust the people to make decesionsbecause it won't allow them to keep ruling. they create a dependant class to maintain power.



the left wing bias that exist in the mainstream press is undenyable. i've said it a million times and no one on here has EVER responded......journalist vote right at 90FAWKINGpercent democrat. it's laughable to say it doesn't exist. critical thinking tricks and picking away at samantics to deflect the obvious gets so tiring to deal with over and over.

ya'll believe whatever you want, i don't care...”

““If the conservatives think that the media is so liberal and unfair, why isn't it that a truly conservative reporting media hasn't swept the country?

Well, I realize I am sort of slow on these things, but I highly suspect that is a little thing called economics.”

Yep, you’re a little slow, pumpkin. According to those polls (and why would they have reason to give false info), the media is a lot more “liberal” than the general public. It’s not just a case of “conservatives” who think it’s so.



Economics. Now there’s a subject. Haven’t y’all been reading the front-page articles about how the economy and the stock market are in recovery and have been for a while? No? Gee, I wonder why not, because it’s true.



I doubt that’s the reason, Ped. Goldberg surmises that they were “liberal” when they went into journalism. I doubt that journalism school converted them.



“They are more concerned with helping people than with making money. Conservatives tend to gravitate towards professions where the most money can be made.”

DonOfTheDeadMan
07:26:47 PM
10/14/03

I just love it when I reach the correct conclusions. There’s that pesky moral relativism again. “Liberals” help people, “conservatives” don’t. Yessiree, many “liberals” have dogmatic faith in their own moral superiority just like the religious right whom they despise. The hypocritical denial is astounding.


I see it the same way, strat. I live in a “liberal” town. Most "liberals", who I know, are control freaks who don't trust people to make their own decisions. Mainly because "liberals" have faith that they know best what is good for other people. And they have dogmatic faith that their intentions are good because of their moral superiority. One way that they show this is by appropriating, and spending, other people's money. Then they can create all sorts of “Big Daddy” government programs to redistribute wealth because all they really want to do is help other people. Meanwhile, they take extra care not to pay attention to any ideas that might conflict with their dogma.”

“Dewd, I think journalists are more Liberal because they aren't as greedy, LOL...

Do you know how much an entry level reporter makes?

Conservatives don't want to 'throw money at the problem' by paying teachers either....”

“"“If the conservatives think that the media is so liberal and unfair, why isn't it that a truly conservative reporting media hasn't swept the country?

Well, I realize I am sort of slow on these things, but I highly suspect that is a little thing called economics.”

Yep, you’re a little slow, pumpkin. According to those polls (and why would they have reason to give false info), the media is a lot more “liberal” than the general public. It’s not just a case of “conservatives” who think it’s so.


arclite
06:26:53 AM
10/15/03

Obviously I am not the only dull tack in this box. Closer examination would indicate that I concur the media is liberal.

Further examination should also reveal that apparently liberal media sells rather well.”

“Let me get this straight:

Running stories about the economy and stock market in the business section shows that the media has a liberal bias.

If they ran good economic news on the front page more often and kept the rest in the business section would that make them conservative or more middle of the road?

How about the sports section? If a paper keeps all sports related stories in the sports section does that make them biased or just organized?”

“In the south it would make them stupid.....


we like to read about NASCAR and College Football on the front page, dammit.”

“Just for fun, I ran a google news search for “jobs” and “employment”. I came up with these stories:

Job market remains flat
State job gains slide

US job market recovery still unclear
Unemployment holds steady as jobs remain scarce in state
Good sign: Jobless rate steady
State jobless rate holds at 7.6 percent
State unemployment rate steady at 7.6 percent
Unemployment steady in state
Bay Area unemployment falls
Jobless rate drops in East Bay
Market ignores employment warnings, gains 500 points in October
Florida may be leading the nation in nonagricultural employment growth...
but a large percentage of those jobs in the private sector are considered low wage because they compensate well below the state's average annual pay.





I admit that this is a less than scientific study but it does appear that the “media” has buried all this great economic news IN THE BUSINESS SECTION!

Consider me converted brother arclite. Those monsters are trying to control our minds.”

“If the miedia is so Democratic how come the Democrats don't win every election?
It must be a case of those brave Republicans fighting the good fight against the stream is misinformed biased reporting.

Arch-right - lets have a look at what you actually say again.

You seem to be the one going on about left-wing bias in the media - you even seem to take that further to say that Hollywood is biased against the wealthy. With little to no "factual" evidence to back this up it becomes little more than a conspiracy theory - if you don't like the way things happen in the world then blame the messenger.

Your movie choices. I admitted that there's not many movie's about successful CEOs, but I think I explained why. It's about what sells - you seen to understand the concept of free markets. I can't see how you can't manage to apply this in this instance. I think you're the one who needs to think about relevance in the examples you give.

Ok, well lets talk about your next point. I'm sure we can all go out there and find examples of punditry that has seemed biased and hasn't accounted for all sides - they're out there. As well as considering covering all sides these panels has to take account of who is available at the time. You don't seem to understand the fact that news moves fast and on many occasions the panelists you get are not your first choices, but who is available.
And any panel can be unrepresentative.

Lets give you an example. You're talking about a business in trouble. You'll talk to Wall Street Experts, maybe a senior exec from the company, but what if it's a unionized company, you'll rarely see a union rep on the panel as often the story is covered from a purely business angle. Does this mean that this is biased. No - it means that the time to talk to the union rep would come when jobs are to be lost.

You could list numerous examples where certain viewpoints have been excluded from covering a story. Every day you see dozens more fairly representative news items covering all sides.

Then you're left with you're surveys. 4% of journalists are registered republicans. Not sure about the validity of that one. Even if journalists are overwhelmingly left-leaning, you seen to go further to suggest that bias makes them incapable of performing their job. Would you take this further and say that a lawyer who believes a person is guilty is incapable of mounting a strong defence?

And lets look at Fox. The problem with Fox is that it sets out to be biased. It makes conscious decisions about what it will and will not cover. For example, During the Iraqi conflict it decided to stop showing pictures of Iraqi casualties - a memo went out saying they would not be covering these stories. Most news organizations I know try to make the judgement about what they cover on a day-to-day basis.

Fox knows it's audience - I give it credit for that. There is a market out there, for people like yourself, who like to be told news in a way that matches their view of the world, rather than trying to get to the true picture of what happens.

The whole problem is just that you find your views are so far to the right of almost everyone else, that even Dick Cheney must seem like a "liberal" to you.

This quote of yours: "And they have dogmatic faith that their intentions are good because of their moral superiority. One way that they show this is by appropriating, and spending, other people's money," would seem to fit the present administration. They're just so "liberal"!”

“and of course it would help if I could spell media ;o)”

“I'm of the opinion, at this point, that the media is locked into a "liberal" slant due to the nature of the business, in agreement with Chili.

Webster defines a liberal as the following:

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
Date: 1820
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

So what we're really talking about here is whether the media has a bias AGAINST the status quo as a rule.

That being said - and if I've misinterpreted anyones definitions, please let me know - The media is locked into a liberal reporting slant based on the economics of selling their media!

Take for example, a local news team. Let's go with the old "if it bleeds, it leads" mindset of local news. Why do they do this? It's obviously a way of captivating viewers, and it is misleading in its representation of local stories. Why is this format so prevalent? Because it engages viewers, and sells the product.

Throughout the '90s as crime actually dropped, Americans' fears of crime stayed the same or even grew, according to studies by Richard Morin, published in the Washintington Post in June of '97. The disproportionate coverage of violent crime is one example of how the media, in its attempt to sell itself, misrepresents the how broken the current system actually is (thus by definition, making itself "liberal").

Imagine a local news station leading with the weather. Imagine how well they would do in the ratings versus their competitors.

In The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner, he points out that the leading cause of death in the US, heart-related illness (which causes 30% of all deaths in the US each year), received about 50% of the national and local news coverage as the 14th leading cause of death - Homicide (which accounts for less than one percent of all deaths). Here's a link to the CAPC manual for verification.

So the media overhypes death tolls around violent crime while playing down more realistic dangers of societal living. Let's see a news story lead with pieces on what you can do to avoid heart disease and see how long they last :)

There are dozens of examples like this, and a few good pieces on the subject are Believing the Good News by David Whitman, which appeared in US news and World Report in January of '98 (This is one I think you'll really like, Arclite, due to the convervative author), Scapegoat Generation by Mike Males, and The aforementioned The Culture of Fear.

So now that we may have established a link between a seemingly market-based need to point out the flaws and overdramatize the horrors of the status quo, it becomes a little more appareant that the liberal slant to which you refer may be market-driven.

I've used just one example - violent crime - among many to choose from. There are, of course, plenty of observable similarities in conservative media outlets, as well. Nothing sold papers faster than Monica Lewinski's face during the Clinton era!”

“Thanks, phaedrus. I was beginning to think my point was lost on this crowd.”

“Now as far as politics goes, I'd love to see a study on democrat/republican slant in the media... Does anyone know of one?”

“That question is much more relevant than the liberal/conservative slant, IMHO.”

“Just a quicky, sorry I don’t have time to respond to everyone’s thoughts at the moment. But I’ll most assuredly get back to this now interesting discussion.



Sorry, pumpkin. I sometimes speed-read. As a result, I miss a lot of important information



So how come the media BURIES news of a sluggish economy on the front page, violin?



To be fair, some of our “liberal” minded friends have made some wonderful points. Take ynami’s contention that there is a market for children’s rags-to-riches movies where the moral “working-man” overcomes the evil “rich-guy”. I never realized that the writers and producers who made Monsters Inc. did the research, and discovered that children (towards whom the movie was targeted), would want to hear this type of story. Personally, I have never met the children who were a part of this particular market, but I’m sure that they exist. Most of the children, whom I have met, are merely impressionable vessels waiting to be filled with ideas and philosophies that they observe throughout their growth into adults. Maybe many of these same Hollywood types have observed this market in their own neighborhoods. How these children developed these particular marketable attitudes remains a mystery to me. But it’s an interesting point to consider.

Do you suppose there’s a children’s market for stories where the “economically disadvantaged”, Jewish, black, drug-dealing-pimp is shown the error of his ways by the “rich”, Catholic, white, male, banker? Golly, what a concept!



Anyone read William Raspberry’s column titled, A formula for academic failure? Turns out that racism and family wealth may not be the leading causes for a gap in academic performance. So why aren’t we hearing about it in regular news stories? Go figure.

Anyone read John Leo’s column titled, Media turns disgraced perps into personalities? Say it ain’t so.

Anyone read the op-ed in the Wall St. Journal titled, Isn’t This Rich? Wealthy Boost Economy. That one will come as a surprise for many folks. Who knew that giving back some of their own tax money would spur “the rich” to spend?



There’s a chapter in Bias called, “How Bill Clinton cured homelessness.” It’s about WHAT stories the media chooses to cover. “…a Village Voice study that showed that in 1988 the New York Times ran fifty stories on the homeless, including five on page one. But a decade later, in 1998, the Times ran only ten homeless stories, and none on page one.”

Recently, my local paper, a NYT affiliate, has been running a number of stories about the homeless. This week alone, two were on page one. And these articles are focusing on regular folks who are “down-on-their-luck” due to “inadequate” public housing and a depressed economy. Not a word about drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness which, studies have shown, are the two main causes for homelessness (but, apparently, are much more difficult issues to assign blame). What an incredible surprise. Maybe I need to be better informed so that I can watch for these patterns. Or have I become comfortably numb?”

“Arclite, I'm beginning to think you're all hat, no cattle. You're going to have to back up at least SOMETHING you say with some facts, and pointing out other opinions doesn't count.”

“It's that pimp a$$ new ride of yours, arclite.

It's blinded you to reality.



;-)”

“And to be fair Arclite, I think you do raise some important questions. I think the media should be more aware that bias may exist and I think it should be an ongoing battle to try and listen to every side of the story.”

“Well, under my theory, yanmi, that is the last thing they will do.

Circulation sell advertising, advertising brings in the bucks, the right slant on reporting improves circulation.


See a circle forming here?”

“Tilt Tale, I think what we pay people to educate us vs. what we pay people to entertain us is a shame. But low teacher salary is not just a “conservative” problem. If you can’t get folks interested enough in learning, to read one small book, what the heck kind of importance is society placing on education?




It may be market driven, Fear Drugs, but they must be listening to the wrong marketers. The three major TV news shows have been loosing viewers for years. Goldberg points this out. In his research, he believes that it may be due to people no longer trusting the news to be presented objectively. In my own informal research, I find that to be true. The proliferation of right-wing talk shows and blogers may be a reaction as well. The “liberal” media is losing market share.



Gosh, FearD, I’ll try to post some facts that meet with your approval. Try this: Go to the bowling alley and grab a ball. Hold the ball at arm’s length. Place your foot under the ball and drop it. Polls will show that most people think this is a bad idea. Actual instances that have been witnessed, with regards to this particular phenomenon, have shown that this is not a good idea. I have read books that have convinced me that people who know more about this subject think it’s a bad idea. But I bet you don’t believe it.”

“Place your foot under the ball and drop it. Polls will show that most people think this is a bad idea. Actual instances that have been witnessed, with regards to this particular phenomenon, have shown that this is not a good idea. I have read books that have convinced me that people who know more about this subject think it’s a bad idea. But I bet you don’t believe it.

Same could be said for you.

So the ratings loss of the major news shows (of which you have attached no supporting evidence) can be attributed to their liberal slant? Fascinating. Evidence?”

“I watch Fox ever chance I get (I don't got no cable).

Whom ever begun this thred is a...
a...
A GARDDARNED POO POO HEAD!”

“"William Raspberry’s column titled, A formula for academic failure"

I couldn't find this on a google search, got a reference?”

“LOL! Before watching Fox, gojo was eloquent. I guess that proves me wrong in my distinction regarding stupidity and ignorance.”