Al Franken's Hummus theory: there's no political bias in the media

[robbedvoter]

only "the profit motive" and biases such as "Easy and cheap to cover" or "Sensational Scandal"
In light of the silence on Gannon, please discuss.
"Asking whether there is a conservative or liberal bias in the mainstream media is a little like asking whether alQuaeda uses too much oil in their humus"

[Selwynn]

1. the Profit of media's corporate owners is the number one factor

There are occaisionally exceptions.

[seabeyond]

2. no bias, not a single positive said about kerry whole campaign

bush fuck ups all over the place, little coverage and always, but the people would prefer to have a beer with bush

bullshit to al

[ALago1]

3. True to an extent

But, doesn't he also conclude (I haven't read his book in months) that this profit-driven motive would obviously provide conservative biases in favor of corporations, big-business, and reckless fiscal policy?

I also seem to remember him making the point that when conservatives deride the media as "liberal", they are reacting to simple stuff like the fact that a gay man can be a main character in a television show, or that a television reporter will talk about interractial marriage favorably, and that big issues that should really be focused on don't get focused on by the people whining about liberal bias.

[bryant69]

6. That's the way I usually put it

The media skews left on some social issues (particularly issues they can get a good heart warming story out of), but skews right on almost all economic issues.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[robbedvoter]

7. Social issues such as...social security? Civil rights? medicare?

Somehow I missed them "librul biased" stories.
Unless you mean "little girl trapped in a well" type of stuff....and you lose me completely.

[bryant69]

23. No like Gay Rights, Abortion, Freedom of Speech

Even Civil Rights to a certain extent.

Social Security and Medicare they often frame as Economic issues, ignoring the human element.

[LSdemocrat]

4. Excluding Fox, I think he's right

[robbedvoter]

5. My older arguments: losing outlets subsidized: Moonie Times - to

the tune of 100 mil a year, NY post - 20 mil a year. Succesful shows cancelled, mutilated - Donahue, Spin Room, Crossfire.
Then the paid "journalists came - from Karen Ryan to Armstrong Williams.
Now, you have that wonderful 'easy and cheap to cover" "sensational scandal" poll tested for interest (MSGOP) - and ....silence. Discuss.
Is the Gannon story less profitable than Michael jackson? Why forego the big profit potential? There's no bias, only profit. then why, oh, why?

[mattclearing]

8. Perhaps we should start referring to it as a corporate bias.

Corporate is less partisan, and more accurate.

[robbedvoter]

9. Why? is Gannon a corporation? More like a "small business" to me

[mattclearing]

20. You miss my point.

The corporate media hesitates to criticize Bush because he is the corporate ringer.

You don't want to hurt "your" guy, when "you" (being corporations) are the media.

[AndyTiedye]

10. They Ignored Hundreds of What Should Have Been Sensational Scandals

If they just wanted to go after scandal, the Bush** adminstration
has given them more opportunities than any administration in history.
But any dirt involving the regime sinks like a stone. Reagan never
had Teflon® like this!

Their corporate owners have more money than King Midas ever did already.
They are after power.

[No Exit]

11. Capitalism is good! It's letting the natural order of things take

precedence! The strong will fight it out, and there will be nothing left but strong things and strong people!

Weak things, like individual people and not-for-profit endeavors, will disappear, making everything stronger!

The strong will smite the weak and (~~SMITE!~~)

[AndyTiedye]

12. Here It Isn't About "Strong", It is About Dynasty

Bush** himself is a prime example.
It isn't how "strong" you are, it's who you are related to.
It isn't what you know it's who you know.

It isn't capitalism anymore when somebody buys the government.

[No Exit]

16. "At Play in The Oil Fields of the Lord"

You make a good point. Bush was a failure at that capitalism thing. Yet he has been given a free ticket to Successville because his daddy is a successful capitalist.

(Successful at cheatin, stealing, and killing, that is. Isn't that what makes a good capitalist player?)

[robbedvoter]

19. Precisely. Moonie Times, NY Post should have folded - but they are being

subsidized. Someone said that these capitalists turn into communists as soon as things go badly - government starts subsidizing the "weak". If it's the right sort of "weak" - and we go back to bias. Is there a political bias?

[Stop_the_War]

13. It's spelled hummus, and it's very delicious with pita bread!

:silly:

[robbedvoter]

15. True that and mea culpa. It's still a lame joke by Franken trying to

illustrate that political bias is irrelevant to the media. And if any of you is scratching their head over the silence about Gannon - maybe you need to revisit the "hummus' theory.

[No Exit]

17. Yes--George is a "good eater" and he loves pita bread with his hubris!

[JohnyCanuck]

14. Watch Your Metaphor's

Watch Your Metaphors
By Frederick Sweet

On the February 11th PBS “News Hour,” host Jim Lehrer darkly cautioned syndicated journalist Mark Shields to “watch your metaphors, please,” after Shields made an allusion to the Kool Aid that the Rev. Jim Jones used to kill his followers at the Jones Town colony in Guyana, decades ago.

This is just another troubling example of journalists being told to watch their mouths when criticizing the President.

<snip>

This was on PBS, the American citizens’ television station. I was witnessing the chillingly tragic consequence of the Bush Administration’s attempts at public mind control.

This dawned on me because I’d just returned to the 'States' after having spent three weeks working on a project in recently freed Eastern Europe. The irony of this is that pre-Cold War communist countries were repeatedly accused by American leaders of brain washing their people, of using state-sponsored propaganda, and a plethora of other approaches to public mind control. Now, the Bush Administration had successfully accomplished with subtlety what the Soviet Union had been unable to do with its heavy handed approach.

www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1021

[tom_paine]

18. Bullshit, Al...bullshit. Read up on Gleichschaltung, and the Afrikaeners

how they kicked out the Liberal British in the 1940s. Both groups used a similar strategy of bullying, parasitization and self-reinforcing "Party-based promotions" to do to their medias what the Busheviks have done to ours.

My ASS there's no bias in today's Corporate TV Pravda.

EXAMPLE:

I almost never watch Corproate Tv Pravda, but sometimes out of morbid curiosity I tune in to sort of see how swiftly they can serve their Bushevik Masters.

And yes, CNN is about as bad a Faux.

So, this is about September 2004, and I decide to flip on to CNN. Some Asian anchor (Linda Chao?)

The story starts off innocuously enough: First ladies throughout History.

I have just enought ime to think to myself ("well if Compliant News Network is what I think it is, the only reason to bring this up would be to serve the Imperial Family by getting a dig in at Theresa Heinz-Kerry")

I scarcely had time to get that thought out when the story's conclusion was how unsupportive and opinionated Mrs. Kerry was, and how like Hillary, the Imperial Subjects wouldn;t accept her because of that.

Day after Day after Day, almost without relent, CNN and Faux do this about any number of topics...about all of them, really. It is so one-sided and constant that there is absolutely no dohbt that one some level it is purposeful, whether it is ust taking "the path of least resistance" (ie there is no personal cost to fabricating about Democrats, while even telling an unpleasant truth about an Imperial is apt to get you into trouble) or straight-up propaganda (CNN had PsyOps people working there in 1998, anyone think they got rid of them since then?)

It is, in it's own way, as odious and one-sided as Nazi or Soviet media, just more subtle and more self-imposed.

[Armstead]

21. There is a corporate bias

The media's bias is not liberal or cponservative. It is corporate. profit and power is all that matters.

If they felt that real investigative reporting were profitable they'd do it. But it costs money and risks offending those in a position to give favors, and alienating viewers who don't want to know.

Frankin is corect in that sense.

The corporate bias is conservative in a sense. But it is ultimately apolitical. Anything thatfeeds the corporate beast is seen as desirable.

[robbedvoter]

24. Franklin said nothing about corporate. The smothering of Gannongate

in favor of the blander made up " Bush's secret tapes" has nothing to do with corporations. It's b;atant propaganda supplanting real news. real news about using propaganda.
That some of you still refuse to see it today galls me. And made me realize what dangerous Franken's myopy is.

[bloom]

22. Profits...

The WSJ's publisher wrote a big essay about how their news represents "privileged people" and their editorials reflect that. Their choice of stories reflect that.

I think newspaper/station owners have a point of view and they are going to express that.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC have all said they are influenced by conservative pressure. (This could be by people paid for we all we know). (We know about FOX and their POV).

Others have written that the B**h organization pressures to have things worded as they prefer, have stories prominent or not as they deem suitable.

Maybe any commercial news/station is corruptible to some degree - because the audience of their advertisers will be those who appreciate materialism, etc.

That would make Air America corruptible as well.

I like "Democracy Now!" / & other sources.