Now, let me get this straight AC. To show that the output of the media is not liberal, you take a liberal jounalist and quote him bemoaning the fact that his bosses don't like his liberal bias. So you are proving that the bosses are not liberal but, in fact, the journalists are and they don't appreciate their bosses attempts to temper that. Ok. Good job. That's exactly how I see it too.
I love Olby's negative reaction to money being a yardstick of success.
We let broadcasting in this country develop with commercial broadcasting taking the lead and all other kinds of information on radio or television secondary or tertiary. But the protection of money at the center of everything, including news to the degree that it is now, is that as long as you make the money, they don't care what it is you put on the air.
So? Where does he think his paycheck comes from? Does it grow on trees? If his organization cannot be economically sustainable I can only assume that he is looking to be paid by taxes or donations from like minded people. Hmmm, there's a recipe for integrity!!!
What he is saying is, the kind of media that people want (ie, the kind that draws money) is not the kind that he wants to deliver. Therefore, he knows better then his consumers. He doesn't want to give them what they want - he wants to give them what he thinks they need.
Yes, you are absolutely right AC. When the old monopoly of liberal media is suddenly thrust into a competitive situation where it must survive financially on its own, its ugly underbelly is exposed. Thanks for shining that light on the situation!!
posted by babbleman at 07:31 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
The idea of liberal media bias is invented in most cases. Sure, you can point to individial parts with a liberal slant, but you can do the same for conservative slant. The right even has a TV news network that doesn't even make an effort to conceal their bias.
Anyone who watches NBC Nightly News can tell you all of the ads they were showing for Chris Matthews' MSNBC coverage of the Republican straw poll last week. The name of the program? "Picking the Next President". Hmm.
posted by joshw at 09:09 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
joshw, maybe you are too young to remember the days before the Internet and cable when national information was exclusively controlled by 3 networks.
But those days are gone and you are exactly right. The whole liberal media argument isn't even worth wasting time on anymore. That whole culture of propaganda is evaporating rapidly now that ideas are exchanged freely and competitively. This whole quote from Olbermann is evidence of exactly that. We're in a transition period now and guys like Olbermann are feeling the pain.
In the free market, there will be some news organizations successful at selling liberal bias, some successful with conservative bias and some successful at balances somewhere in between. There will be a variety of information that reflects what people want and that's what were seeing now which is a good thing because ideas are now free.
That this causes frustration and anger to those who used to control it (and those who have the same political viewpoint as those that used to control it) is to be expected. Thus the endless bashing of Fox News. What they are basing is freedom. They don't like it.
posted by babbleman at 09:35 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
So the point is that the media isn't liberal, it's corporate. Corporate happens to be liberal these days? The interview, if that's what it was, is disjointed and unfocused. I read through it and all I could get was a lot of noise.
posted by madjack at 09:48 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Well if Keith Olbermann says it, it must be the word of god. There can be no debate on media bias now that his words have settled it all.
posted by paddington at 09:50 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
My somewhat long view of history (given my age) tells me the media used to be liberal, or at least liberal/progressive views were heard more often in the past. And by past, I mean quite a few years ago.
I think conservatives took what was a fading truth and promoted it as if it were a pervasive evil foisted on the public. It was hammered home over and over on talk radio and cable news shows. That's one thing the rightwing is good at: molding public perception. At some point it went from opinion to fact, and it's taken at face value by many -- despite a clear shift in the media.
It's sort of like the tie made between the 9-11 attacks and the "necessity" of bombing Iraq. With enough repetition, the administration was able to put Saddam's face on the attacks here. A nifty job of false advertising, but effective. And to show just how skillful the deception was, the prez would step forward now and then to deny the connection, giving the untrue impression that he and his team weren't perpetuating the myth.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which side of the aisle you're on), the left doesn't have either the skill or the stomach for that kind of manipulation of perception. I don't mean by that, that I'd like to see the left set out to distort the facts of any issue -- but I certainly wish they would correct the record and fight back rather than let the right define them.
Take the swift-boating crapola, for example. The media treated those lies against Kerry as if they deserved respectful airing. It somehow became a "freedom of speech" thing. But it was anything but. It was slander, and clearly false -- an invented character flaw that was a text book example of Rovian smear tactics: take an opponent's strength and pervert it into a failing or, better yet, a faux scandal. A certain percentage of the population will believe it even after looking into it (because they'll consult the carefully constructed "facts" and talking points to support their already established bias), and another percentage will simply be too busy dealing with everyday life to examine what's being said. They just go with what they hear in the "news", thinking they can trust it. It's those two groups the rightwing targets with their messages The left needs to learn how to target those same folks with information that'll provide a mindset correction.
posted by CrankyEastSider at 10:10 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
The whole operation is a left wing propaganda organ. AC, if this is your source, then I'll start quoting Rush Limbaugh.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
posted by Erie_Island at 11:08 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
I see babbledroid's panties got into a twist here.
MSNBC is owned by General Electric.
The same General Electric that has God-only-knows how many DEFENSE CONTRACTS that are raking in the dough from the neocons in office and their happy little invasion of Iraq and so on.
Undoubtedly GE is not happy to hear Bush be criticized, because as long as Bush or his neocon pals are in office, GE stands to rake in the dough on those contracts.
As for babbledroid's "Fox haters hate freedom" comment... that's just bullshit. If Fox News actually sat up and admitted their ultraconservative slant instead of running a "we're fair and balanced" Big Lie propaganda campaign, things might be a bit different. They don't wish to be square with the American people. I've every reason to resent them for lying and deceiving the public, though since this is America you'll undoubtedly claim that "freedom" includes the ability to lie, cheat, and steal.
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:13 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
On the subject, here is a book review I wrote on When News Lies: Media Complicity And The Iraq War by Danny Schechter that deals with corporate media. Disturbing examples of the corporate mindset that has infested the major media, and Schechter is especially critical of supposedly "liberal" outlets.
Buy this book, borrow this book, or - if you must - steal this book.
posted by historymike at 11:26 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Unlike you right-wing nutjobs, I will freely admit that "my side" isn't doing such a hot job of criticizing and correcting itself. I'd like to see MediaMatters take a few "liberals" to task for spouting wrong info.
By all means, you right-wingers are free to create your own version of MediaMatters, where you can run stories like "CNN, MSNBC fail to report building of playgrounds in Iraq" and "ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times failed to criticize Clinton's comments at Dem fundraiser" and "Fark.com, The Onion falsely claim that VP Cheney eats kittens and babies".
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:47 A.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
And I'll once again recommend the little book I've read several times titled:
The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect
The book's authors are Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. The latter is or was director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which recently released its 2006 report on "The State of the News Media."
This online report covers many aspects of the media, including a piece on blogs under the section called "A Day in the Life of the Media."
Besides a general overview on the state of the news media, the lengthy but easily accessible report covers the following areas:
Newspapers, Online, Network TV, Cable TV, Local TV, Magazines, Radio, and Ethnic/Alternative.
For Cable TV:
"In a difficult time for media in general, the situation in cable news is now firmly split. Fox News, by our reckoning, is growing on nearly all fronts. CNN’s situation is more complicated, though not as bleak as some might think. MSNBC remains on shaky ground."
"The audience picture for cable is complex. Fox News is still gaining, while CNN and MSNBC continue to lose audience. But when one looks at Cume — the number of unique or different viewers who tune in over the course of a month — CNN remains the cable news leader. That means its pool of viewers is larger, but they watch less often."
"Financially, CNN remains the industry leader, thanks in part to a strong brand and more operations, but Fox News is catching up, and is likely to keep doing so. MSNBC, on the other hand, trails and the departure of Microsoft as part owner leaves the future further up in the air."
"Fox News' strength is also evident in terms of who is building their channel. For the second year in a row, it will add to how much it spends on its programming by almost a quarter, while MSNBC is cutting, and CNN is building more modestly."
Nothing but bad news for MSNBC in the intro section for Cable TV.
In the report is a section called Journalist Survey. And one survey conducted by the Pew Research Center is titled: Press Going Too Easy on Bush - Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists.
A few excerpts from the Overview section of this survey:
"Most executives at national news organizations (57%) feel increased business pressures are "mostly just changing the way news organizations do things" rather than seriously undermining quality."
"There is almost universal agreement among those who worry about growing financial pressure that the media is paying too little attention to complex stories. A majority says news reports are increasingly full of factual errors and sloppy reporting. And most journalists who worry about declining quality due to bottom-line pressures say that the press is "too timid" these days."
"In that regard, the poll finds that many journalists - especially those in the national media - believe that the press has not been critical enough of President Bush. Majorities of print and broadcast journalists at national news organizations believe the press has been insufficiently critical of the administration. Many local print journalists concur. This is a minority opinion only among local news executives and broadcast journalists. While the press gives itself about the same overall grade for its coverage of George W. Bush as it did nine years ago for its coverage of Bill Clinton (B- among national journalists, C+ from local journalists), the criticism in 1995 was that the press was focusing too much on Clinton's problems, and too little on his achievements."
"There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative)."
"Not only do many national news people believe the press has gone too soft in its coverage of President Bush, they express considerably less confidence in the political judgment of the American public than they did five years ago. Since 1999, the percentage saying they have a great deal of confidence in the public's election choices has fallen from 52% to 31% in the national sample of journalists."
posted by jr at 12:13 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Other books for reading pleasure, or displeasure:
What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman
The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader by Edward S. Herman
Note to historymike: If I steal that book, will you bail me out?
posted by CrankyEastSider at 12:43 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
AC writes: "Unlike you right-wing nutjobs, I will freely admit that "my side" isn't doing such a hot job of criticizing and correcting itself. I'd like to see MediaMatters take a few "liberals" to task for spouting wrong info. "
I'm laughing here. As a traditional Christian who's seen my values used as a stumping and stomping block over the last decade - I found that to be profoundly funny.
If some folk would take their eyes out from behind the sites they might find allies.
posted by katie82640 at 01:20 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
JR falsely claims that MSNBC is dying.
I STRONGLY suggest you take a look at the ratings numbers of Olbermann vs. O'Reilly in the last year. Hell, take a look at Fox News's ratings.
O'Reilly's viewership in the critical 25-54 segment is DOWN TWENTY-ONE PERCENT.
Olbermann's viewership in the 25-54 segment is UP FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT.
As a matter of fact, ALL THE FOX PROGRAMS ARE DOWN! WOW THAT'S REAL GROWTH THERE!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf
I believe the current slang is "You've been 0wend, suck it biatch!"
Strap on a pair and admit you've been schooled.
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:21 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
"JR falsely claims that MSNBC is dying."
Where in the hell did I say that? What are you smoking? AC, show me where I said MSNBC was dying. You are the one who is making false claims, pal. Are you having trouble reading? All I said was:
"Nothing but bad news for MSNBC in the intro section for Cable TV."
And my comment was based upon the recently-released report "The State of the News Media" by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Take up your gripes with them, not me.
From the Audience report on Cable TV:
Cable News Prime Time Median Audience by Channel
1998 - 2005
Cable News Daytime Average Audience
1998 - 2005, by Channel
Cable News Cumulative Audience
Number of Unique Viewers, October 2003 to December 2005
Cable News Prime Time Viewership
1998 - 2005, by Channel
Cable News Cumulative Audience, 2005
Number of Unique Viewers, including CNN Headline News
posted by jr at 01:46 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
"You've been 0wend..."
AC, I believe the term is more genuinely spelled pwned.
posted by babbleman at 02:14 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
I believe the current slang is "You've been 0wend...
0wen'd?
posted by thenick at 04:32 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
America's media seems to be returning in one sense to an earlier age of journalism ... which was highly partisan. This is probably the freedom that BM spoke of. You should be at liberty to run your own newspaper, even if you are a disgusting Neo-Conservative warhawk corporation-fellator. You should also be free to say you're "Fair and Balanced", even though that's an outright fabrication.
Fox News should be free to run itself as foolishly as it likes. Murdoch likes it that way.
You should also be free to run a newspaper like the Blade, which is often unable to put the word "McCloskey" to print, preferring instead to put in the much shorter word "Noe" many more times.
I'm really of two minds about the whole thing. Our REAL "fairly balanced" media positively died in the 1990s. (Hmm. Who was President in the 1990s?) Bush may be a bit of a runner, but with the mainstream media being now so subservient to the Imperial Corporate Agenda, he really only hit the ground running, so that explains the lead he's achieved, along with his "base" (i.e. the monied elite).
We can survive the new age of Primary Color Journalism. Not Yellow Journalism, but Red Journalism and Blue Journalism, and most people just choose from one or the other like they choose Coke or Pepsi.
The minority -- perhaps not liking dark and highly acidic sodas -- find themselves once again cast out and have to make do with a variety of sources. And so we come to the Internet.
Ah, the Internet. What would freethinkers do without it, now? Did it help to cause the over-corporatization of the mainstream media, or is it merely a reaction to it?
P.S. Owned, pwned, 0//n3d ... there are many spellings. W00t!
posted by GuestZero at 04:36 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Bernard Goldberg has made just the opposite claim that the media -- particularly CBS -- discourages conservative viewpoints.
I think once upon a time, the media were pervasively liberal. With talk radio coming online and the emergence of Fox News as the leader in cable, it's probably pretty close to balancing out.
Still, there is the Clinton Broadcasting System (CBS), Nothing But Clinton (NBC), All 'Bout Clinton (ABC), and the Clinton News Network. So liberals will always have a place to go get their news.
In the old days, we were stuck listening to Edward R. Murrow who made up much of what he said about Joe McCarthy and Walter Cronkite who made up much of what he said about the Tet Offensive in his coverage of Vietnam. The public did not have the resources to challenge these stuffed suits.
With the Internet busting plots like Dan Rather's agenda against the Bush family, you're going to be able to expose bias on both sides.
posted by MemyselfandI at 06:03 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Memyself - I do agree with that. There is more of a balance. I just hope the newer media outlets don't follow msm history of agenda based reporting and never letting the facts get in the way!
It could - they're gaining readership and therefor dollars. And we all know what a corrupting set of brothers success and wealth are!
posted by katie82640 at 07:14 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
I wonder why Europe and Asia and the Middle East have access to CNN and FOX News, yet American's have yet been able to access the BBC and Al Jazerra?
Because the American Media will lose countless advertising dollars on media outlets that base their stories on fact.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 08:09 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Brian - you can access BBC online here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Al Jazeera here: http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
posted by katie82640 at 08:21 P.M. EST on Tue Mar 14, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
