When did the media become so RW?

[fujiyama]

Over time we were fed so much crap about the media being biased against the right, and while I was never able to see this supposed bias, the right was able to convince the American people there was one. Through authors like Coulter and that ex CBS executive (I think his name is Golberg), they repeated this lie so incessantly that they were able to convince many Americans, even those that were moderate or center left, that there was an inherrant bias...And they used some polls showing that may journalists considered themselves liberal.

Never was the fact that in an increasignly conglomerized media, the journalists' views themselves mattered very little. It was about what the corporate execs wanted, and it was about their bias, which has always been toward the right.

So how was FOX able to create a network so obviously biased, and become so sucessful? Was it because they used catchy graphics and sensationalized footage? Was it because many people in "middle America" were tired of "Northeastern liberal elites" telling them what was going on?

How has the GOP become so sucessful in getting their message out and stifling opposition voices? Is it because this administration has made promises to remove restrictions on media ownership in local markets?

This is a very important issue for any future democracy in this nation. I'm curious what others think about it...and if they have some good reading recommendations...thanks!

[salinen]

1. Oh that's easy to explain

or is it?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. Anyone remember the first media anti-liberal?

I was born in the 70s, in the 1980s I remember Morton Downey Jr. - he taught me that "liberal" was a dirty word and an insult - he ranted about the "pablum puking liberals". (First time I ever heard of Al Sharpton was on the Morton Downey Jr. show) Downey's character was of a "Reagan Democrat". The show went to Jerry Springer extremes at times, and was never a considered serious politics, but after watching that I never wanted to be called a liberal.

[Scott Lee]

27. I think Morton Downey Jr was predated by Wally Shawn

Although I may not have his name spelled correctly. Remember him? He just recently died. Blond guy who had a liberal bashing CA. local access TV program for years. He'd go balastic on liberals, end up screaming at them.

He probably deserves the title of "First RW Media Moron".

[calimary]

36. That was Wally George. Blond guy who was a REAL knuckle=dragger.

He was also Rebecca de Mornay's FATHER!!!!! (Little trivia bit for ya.)

A real cretin.

Actually, we had Joe Pyne and Ray Briem and a few other Neanderthals MANY days before Rush and his pals.

I think it all started going downhill with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine - in the late 80's (THANK YOU Reagan/Bush), when stations were no longer compelled by law to offer equal time to opposing points of view. This, of course, was mainly applicable to political campaigns, but it was fairly broad-based in other arenas. But it's gone. And so is objectivity and genuine fairness and balance.

And it won't be back anytime soon.

(sigh)

[Scott Lee]

37. Wally George! Yes! Thanks.....

What a fruitcake. I remember, as a kid, watching one taped episode in which one of his liberal "guests" finally got so fed up with him that the guest flipped Wally's desk over on top of him - knocking him off his chair and back against the american flag wall.

It was hilarious.

[The Zanti Regent]

49. I remember when Rick Dees hit Wally George in the face with a pie...

Rick Dees and Wally George had a "staged feud" back in the 80s. It "climaxed" when Rick Dees went on "Hot Seat" dressed as Elvis. At the end of the show, "Elvis" Dees whacked Wally in the face with a pie. The whole thing was staged.

Wally George thought he could do the same shtick with Howard Stern, until Stern got all the dirt on George. Stern found interesting dirt, such as Wally George was married to three women at the same time...

[calimary]

52. Hey, don't we produce interesting folks here in California?

Gotta love us, 'eh? No wonder the rest of the country rolls its eyeballs at us. Can't wait for Schwarzengroper to make us even prouder...

[NJCher]

2. very simple

They are the conglomerates running the country.




Cher

[frogbison]

3. Wealthy control the media

My daughter was watching the American Kennel Club's dog competition today and it was actually interrupted for a *NEWS FLASH!* telling about pResident Bush's stop in Iraq to greet the troops. Used to be, this was done for newsworthy events, such as the assassination of a political leader, or an event of real magnitude, such as the explosion of the shuttle Challenger. Now, it seems, those in control can put whatever message they want out wherever and whenever they choose.

Makes it even more important to prevent the FCC from allowing more control by a chosen few.

I believe that the only hope we have for the voice of truth are small, independent news outlets and the internet.

[maggrwaggr]

4. watch the movie "The Insider"

it does an excellent job of documenting the transition from journalism to corporate info-tainment.

It's scary. Probably the most important movie of the generation.

[durutti]

29. GREAT Movie

I'm surprised a major studio put it out. :-)

[maggrwaggr]

54. yeah, me too

I'm not sure how they pulled that off, but I'm glad they did.

I doubt they could/would do it now.

[TexasMexican]

5. IMO

it was when Bush was declared the winner.

I dont think the media is really biased in any particular direction (except maybe FOX), they are biased torwards the people that are percieved to be in power.

They want access and will do whatever they need to, to get it.

[Kat45]

7. But they were not kind to Clinton when he was president

[maggrwaggr]

8. It started before that. It really got rolling in the 90's

and got up a full head of steam during the Clinton impeachment.

And it seems to actually get worse by the day.

CNN has become the biggest whore of all, just in the last two months or so. They've gotten worse than Pox News.

Imagine ... just imagine for a moment if there was ACTUALLY a news network as "liberal" as Fox News is right wing.

Just imagine what the stories would look like. What the focus of the news would be ......

Keep imagining. ........ It is SOOOO different than anything we see now, isn't it? It makes you realize just how godawful they ALL have become.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Read my post #19 below.

[0007]

34. MSNBC isn't? And ya better believe CNN has an agenda for junior.

(except maybe FOX) Gvie me a fucking break, 'eh? :grr:

[onehandle]

6. When Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine. nt

[maggrwaggr]

9. yes, that was when it truly started. It's grown exponentially since

and I feel it is the biggest threat to our country, and our democracy.

It's the biggest threat because there's almost nothing we can do about it except compete. But you can't compete with a gazillioniare like Rupert Murdoch.

Most Americans still trust the media. I did, until not too long ago. I grew up in the Watergate days, and I always figured that if the government did anything too horrible, or too blatant, that the media would be there to expose it.

That is no longer true. Most Americans don't realize it.

[VOX]

56. Precisely.

This is when it all began to go downhill.

[Zomby Woof]

10. their real ideology is profit

It's not a RW/LW thing, it's a bottom-line thing.

[maggrwaggr]

11. I disagree. I think it's control.

If they really wanted to be profitable, they could find ways to be fair and honest and profitable at the same time. They're more interested in controlling the people, so they can control what people think, and want they want.

It takes the guesswork out. It's the corporate way.

It's like the movie business. They'd rather spend $130 million making a rehash of a 60's TV show than come up with something original. Why? Because they know they can market it. They can control it. They know it's the little-known breakout movies that have the highest profit margins, but they don't care. They want to lower the risk as much as possible and work in the margins.

[rman]

16. that control is used to confiscate wealth

They *could* find ways to be fair and honest and profitable at the same time, but it's easier to increase wealth by being unfair and dishonest. All you need is lack of morality, and you better be smart about it so that not to many people notice what you're doing.

[cryofan]

12. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

There is no LW or RW when it comes to the major mass media or even in powerful positions in govt. Bush, Clinton, CBS, Dan Rather,NBC, Tom Brokaw, Daschle, Hastert....none of these are LW or RW. THey are Establishment, and their ideology is corporate capitalism. They believe in the GDP, the stock market, Treasury Bonds, real estate.

Their politics is whatever accomplishes:
1. getting more labor into the work force.
2. getting more people into the USA.
3. getting Americans to work longer and harder.
4. getting more profits for investors.

The elite media uses a "liberal" facade as camouflage, but they are really all about Establishment Politics.

[leftofthedial]

13. it has been a systematic plan by the neocons, started in the 70's

Get a few neocon fascist billionaires to fund RW neocon "think tanks" used to prepare propaganda and give it an air of intellectualism.

Defeat the Fairness Doctrine.

Plant as many RW voices as possible on the airwaves, brook no dissent.

Encourage and enable as many media outlets as possible to be acquired by a few RW conglomerates.


Not only do the neocons control the media almost completely, we are now up against an entire generation of disinformation and brainwashing. It won't be easy to overcome.

[cryofan]

17. we need to embrace and extend their terminology

Been reading Chomsky, eh? He has nailed it. BTW, I got an email from him a few days ago.

Anyway, because of the onslaught of neo-con/neo-liberal propaganda, we now have the majority of the populace thinking that the "free" market and corp-think is the second coming of Jesus.

What we need to do is to take that corp-think and turn it back around on them to the advantage of the citizenry. I want to put forth a new paradigm, one where the country is owned by the citizenry, and dividends are paid to the citizen. The dividends are social services much like those available to citizens of the european social democracies.

Corporation, thinktanks, individuals or other entities who seek to deprive the citizen-owners of social benefits would be considered thieves.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Sorry, but no. It actually started in the late 1940s...

Operation Mockingbird
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html>

Excerpt:

Under the guise of 'American' objectives and lack of congressional oversight, the CIA accomplish their exploits by using every trick in the book (and they know quite a few) that they actually teach in the notorious "School of the Americas", nicknamed the "School of Dictators" and "School of Assassins" by critics. The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former State Department official William Blum. In 1948, the CIA recreated its covert action wing called the Office of Policy Coordination with Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner as its first director. Another early elitist who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961 was Allen Dulles, a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other trusts, corporations, and cartels.

Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

[maggrwaggr]

21. Wow. That explains Lou Dobbs .... and Paula Zahn ....

and others who I listen to and go "they MUST be on the payroll".

Well, they probably are. Hell, if the US can find mullahs in the Middle East who they pay to preach "moderate-ness", it sure would be easy to pay people here to preach whatever the hell they tell them to preach

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Here's a guy that's a classic case...Bob Woodward of the Post...

Bob Woodward
<http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-woodward.html>

I won't put any excerpts here...I'll just let you read it and see what you think.

[leftofthedial]

48. It's teally a convergence of two separate movements

The OCS CIA disinformation and propaganda efforts you describe is one.

The neocon GOP coopting of the media began in the 1970's.

The two converged largely during the Reagan Administration. But there is still a non-neocon contingent within the CIA.

[jiacinto]

14. My answers

1) Talk Radio. It emerged over the late 1980s and the 1990s and the Democrats literally fell asleep at the switch here.

2) Fox is successful because of its "tabloid" style of journalism. It is more "entertaining" and "lurid" than the other channels.

3) Media personnel became so concerned about being too "liberal" that they swung right.

Also I think I first saw it when Bush and Gore were running. And it got progressively worst from there.

[SOteric]

15. Clear Channel and the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

Learn 'em, know 'em, own the knowledge.

[Scott Lee]

26. I've had first hand experience with Clear Channel. They are Borg.

The radio station I work for has a light association with Clear Channel (we run some programs that are rebroadcast on Clear Channel stations). In that capacity we occassionally have some of their hosts in studio to broadcast from our facility. You should hear the horror stories these people have in working for that creepy organization. The control is legendary, I mean iron fisted. And blatantly, blatanly rightwing.

The owner of our station is a rare bird - he's a Utah democrat who despises rightwingers with a passion, and personally called the local Clear Channel general manager (KALL 700) just to laugh in his face when Congress reversed itself on that "free hand" legislation that would have allowed more monopolistic rightwing control of all media.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Ask the Dixie Chicks about Clear Channel...that was the group that...

...started the short-lived boycott against that Chicks, to include ordering their DJs to stop playing the Chicks' music.

[Scott Lee]

39. Yeah boyeeee, they really showed the Chicks, huh?

The Dixie Chicks were so wounded they went on to play sell out concerts and grab a Country Music Award, while Toby Keister got zilch.

Awwww.

[Eric J in MN]

42. Congress has yet to send to Bush legislation reversing the FCC

Congress has yet to send to Bush legislation reversing the FCC.

When they do, it will probably just lower the tv station ownership limit the FCC has raised from 25%-to-35%-to-45%, down to 39%.

The legislation probably won't address the issue of a company owning both the newspaper and the tv station in a town, as the new FCC rules allow.

[Scott Lee]

50. They've "fixed it" only cosmetically..but its interesting nonetheless

..because I didn't think the average American gave a rats ass about media ownership and fair access. It turns out, happily, that they do. Although as you state, in the end all they may end up with is a madeover version of the same damn legislation that does not change the core issue.

Oh by the way, have I told you what den of slimeburgers Clear Channel is yet today?

[elperromagico]

23. It's been that way for years

Newspapers, at least, have been historically conservative.

In 1932, 55.5% of daily newspapers endorsed Herbert Hoover for President, while 38.7% endorsed FDR. The number has remained in favor of Republicans ever since then (with the exception of 1964), although the number of independent papers have increased and partisan newspapers have decreased.

[Piperay]

24. It's never

been liberal, that was just alot of bullsh*t propaganda put out by the RW. At best it was moderate-conservative and now it is nothing but a mouthpiece for the RW. :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Scott Lee]

25. What "made" CNN? Gulf War I

I remember it well. CNN can thank Gulf War I for it's existence. It put the fledgling cable news experiment on the map. Remember all the staging, the war-drum audio imaging? That was a major turning point in the RW media. War not only sells, but sells big.

When war on the world became a stronger and stronger RW mantra, it's clear which way the media had to go in order to keep milking that cash cow. People would huddle around big screens to watch the next living room war, their eager faces bathed in green night-vision live images over Baghdad as the tracer fire went up and the Iraqi night was punctuated with anti-aircraft explosions.

In one surreal moment, I was doing a bit of Christmas shopping at a local mall that had a large screen TV in the food court area that always carried CNN. This was when Clinton launched an attack on Iraq. Well here I was, surrounded by tinsel and all the trappings of the Season of Goodwill to Men, christmas carols wafting over the PA system, and an attack on Baghdad playing itself out to curious shoppers. I turned to a woman standing behind me and asked "Um, excuse me but can I ask you, do you see anything wrong with this picture?" gesturing to the widescreen war and then Christmas mall. She blinked at me a few times, then just looked back at the screen, slightly shaking her head in bewilderment.

[slaveplanet]

28. 'Serpent's Walk'

A little known Nazi publication from the same great folks that brought you "the Turner Diaries"....Makes an interesting point on our present predicament.

Zoellick’s partisan role on behalf of Germany during the closing phase of the Cold War, his pivotal role in the creation of the WTO, and his significance in the Bush/Baker milieu would seem to augur well for conditions in America for German corporations. Given FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s recent actions on acquisitions of American telecommunications companies, Zoellick’s actions have helped to open up the American telecommunications landscape to German corporate predators. ("US Ruling on Telekom Could Lead to Wave of Investment" by Peter Spiegel; Financial Times; 5/2/2001.)

13.       This, in turn, is to be evaluated in terms of the scenario presented in the Nazi tract Serpent’s Walk. Mr. Emory believes that, like The Turner Diaries (also published by National Vanguard Books), the book is actually a blueprint for what is going to take place. It is a novel about a Nazi takeover of the United States in the middle of the 21st century. The book describes the Third Reich going underground, buying into the American media, and taking over the country. "It assumes that Hitler’s warrior elite - the SS - didn’t give up their struggle for a White world when they lost the Second World War. Instead their survivors went underground and adopted some of their tactics of their enemies: they began building their economic muscle and buying into the opinion-forming media. A century after the war they are ready to challenge the democrats and Jews for the hearts and minds of White Americans, who have begun to have their fill of government-enforced multi-culturalism and ‘equality.’" (From the back cover of Serpent’s Walk by "Randolph D. Calverhall;" Copyright 1991 ; National Vanguard Books; 0-937944-05-X.)

14.       This process is described in more detail in a passage of text, consisting of a discussion between Wrench (a member of this Underground Reich) and a mercenary named Lessing. "The SS . . . what was left of it . . . had business objectives before and during World War II. When the war was lost they just kept on, but from other places: Bogota, Asuncion, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Colombo, Damascus, Dacca . . . you name it. They realized that the world is heading towards a ‘corporacracy;’ five or ten international super-companies that will run everything worth running by the year 2100. Those super-corporations exist now, and they’re already dividing up the production and marketing of food, transport, steel and heavy industry, oil, the media, and other commodities. They’re already dividing up the production and marketing of food, transport, steel and heavy industry, oil, the media, and other commodities. They’re mostly conglomerates, with fingers in more than one pie . . . . We, the SS, have the say in four or five. We’ve been competing for the past sixty years or so, and we’re slowly gaining . . . . About ten years ago, we swung a merge, a takeover, and got voting control of a supercorp that runs a small but significant chunk of the American media. Not openly, not withbands and trumpets or swastikas flying, but quietly: one huge corporation cuddling up to another one and gently munching it up, like a great, gubbing amoeba. Since then we’ve been replacing executives, pushing somebody out here, bringing somebody else in there. We’ve swing program content around, too. Not much, but a little, so it won’t show. We’ve cut down on ‘nasty-Nazi’ movies . . . good guys in white hats and bad guys in black SS hats . . . lovable Jews versus fiendish Germans . . . and we have media psychologists, ad agencies, and behavior modification specialists working on image changes.” (Ibid.; pp. 42-43.)

15.       Before turning directly to the subject of music, the broadcast addresses the gradual remaking of the image of the Third Reich that is represented in Serpent’s Walk. In the discussion excerpted above, this process is further described. "Hell, if you can con granny into buying Sugar Turds instead of Bran Farts, then why can’t you swing public opinion over to a cause as vital and important as ours?’ . . . In any case, we’re slowly replacing those negative images with others: the ‘Good Bad Guy’ routine’ . . . ‘What do you think of Jesse James? John Dillinger? Julius Caesar? Genghis Khan?’ . . . The reality may have been rough, but there’s a sort of glitter about most of those dudes: mean honchos but respectable. It’s all how you package it. Opinion is a godamned commodity!’ . . . It works with anybody . . . Give it time. Aside from the media, we’ve been buying up private schools . . . and helping some public ones through philanthropic foundations . . . and working on the churches and the Born Agains." (Ibid.; pp. 42-44.)
www.spitfirelist.com/f302.html

[mvd]

30. I don't think they were ever liberal

They just cared more about journalistic integrity. Things started going bad under Reagan when fairness in broadcasting was underminded. And then, under Clinton, I think the neo-con movement got to the media, making things worse. Even Clinton's non-sex "scandals" were covered ad-nauseum during Clinton's era, so I don't think that people can say that the media isn't covering Bush's misdeeds because of how the media's gotten more sensational.

Even before 9/11, Bush was given too free a ride and Gore was put down. So I don't buy that the media saw what happened to Clinton and changed their style, or that patriotism is the cause.

We need to keep the pressure on the media. I've written quite a few angry e-mails.

[durutti]

31. It isn't.

At least, I don't think it is. That's not to say it isn't biased -- it obviously is, in many respects. But "right-wing" is the wrong words for it. There are numerous "pressures" or "filters" that create these biases. Some of these pressures have always existed. Others are more recent.

The biggest pressure is, of course, the profit motive. That's why so much "news" is really entertainment now. That's why so much attention is given to sports. That's why there's so much sex and violence. That's why there's so much sensationalism. That's why CBS news programs do half-hour segment on Survivor. That's why so much time is spent on Lacey Peterson, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, and Elizabeth Smart. Anything that will get people to watch.

Of course, the biggest source of profits for media corporations is advertising. The media have to stay away from doing stories that will offend advertisers in order to stay profitable. And with the general consolidation of big business, the tendency to avoid offending certain advertisers has become a tenency to avoid offending business in general.

There's also pressure to avoid offending the boss. 7 media corporations with interlocking boards of directors control most media in the United States. The people who sit on the boards of these corporations also sit on the boards of other (non-media) corporations. They go to the same parties, send their kids to the same schools, and belong to the same clubs as the rest of their class. It's only logical to assume that the interests of that class will be reflected in the news.

Another factor is the influence of the PR industry. Corporations spend huge sums on PR. And overworked, underpaid journalists often do little more than copy and paste press releases. America's power elite have an army of propagandists ready and willing to do their bidding.

"Flak" is another factor. The wealthy pour large sums of money into groups like Accuracy in Media and similar groups. These groups pose as grassroots citizens groups. They fire people up, mobilizing massive letter-writing campaigns and the like, bullying the media into drifting ever rightwards.

There's also the matter of reliance on government and corporate officials for information. Journalists are typically encouraged to accept such information without skepticism. Remember how every talking head seemed to masturbate to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN last February.

The rich also fund think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation that produce phony research to back up positions favorable to them.

Then you have the matter of direct government intervention in the media. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, a number of prominent journalists and writers (including Bill Moyers and Gloria Steinem) were secretly employed by the CIA. During the Kosovo bombing, PSYOPS operatives were employed at CNN.

Finally, there are the "national religons": things like the Cold War, and now the "war on drugs" and "war on terrorism". The media accepts them uncritically. No one ever wonders, for example, if the "war on terrorism" is really just a massive farce.

[mvd]

32. The term "media" is so vast that

you can find different situations - like Leslie Moonves from CBS is a Democrat - but it's so hard to find left-wing reporting anymore, partly based on things you said. So I'd have to say that at least the reporting is right-wing.

[arewethereyet]

35. I always find these discussions interesting

When I get bored at work I dodge over to CNN to see whats happening and 8 times out of 10 there is a story with a clearly liberal bias somewhere on the home page.

OK thats only one outlet. I seldom watch network news but whenever I do I see about the same percentage of cases where a story is pitched with a liberal bias.

Now obviously FOX almost always pitches its storied with a conservative bias (so much for fair and balanced). I understand MSNBC is the same but I never watch that.

NYT and Wash Post, same story.

I really don't get where you guys come from on this.

[maggrwaggr]

38. well here's one nice example, by the associated press no less

Using internet chat rooms as a news source, in order to smear a Dem candidate:

"Internet chat rooms and several news stories speculate that Clark played a role in the tactical planning for the operation that ended with the deaths of about 80 followers of the Branch Davidian religious sect and its leader, David Koresh."

http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2003/11/28/clark/index.html

[maggrwaggr]

40. here's another from CNN's page right now

(where's the equal time? It's not there).

Rice: 'It was a very important thing to do'

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/28/cnna.rice/index.html

[arewethereyet]

44. here's the whole front page as of a minute or two ago

go to the main page
www.cnn.com

go to the bottom and I think I counted 7 or 8 stories out of 26 with an obviously left slanted headline. Of the rest 1 was possibly right slanted and the rest neutral. And the Rice story is not one of the two shown under "politics" and both of the ones that are there are left leaning. Thats part of the deal, there may be a dozen stories over on that page and maybe 8 are about republicans but the subtle part was that people who only skim will never see them.

Its subtle sometimes and 2x4 blunt other times but its there all the time.

[durutti]

47. Ridiculous

Again, this is an absurd method of ascertaining bias. You not only look at the headlines but read the articles. And of course, what you perceive as "left" headlines, other people won't.

As someone who's worked for a newspaper, I can tell you that coming up with headline titles has more to do with fitting it into a certain amount of space and being succint than any kind of political bias.

Let's take a look at the "Inside Politics" page; I'll examine only the headlines that I don't see as necessarily neutral.

"Iraqi leader speaks out": a pro-U.S. "leader", of course, but they omit that fact, creating the impression that anti-U.S. Iraqis are an anomaly.

Under Opinion & Analysis, we have "GOP's political inoculation" by Robert Novak, "Looking closely at Dean" by Robert Novak, "The AARP and the GOP" by Mark Shields, and "Missing Mary" by Mark Shields.

There are two political cartoons, two criticizing the recent Medicare bill, one criticizing the Democrats, and one criticizing nothing in particular.

So what on Earth are you talking about?

[arewethereyet]

57. maybe so but not really

most people skim and then read what they think may be interesting. Of course headlines have to fit and be succinct. People may not even go to the INside Politics page unless they see one or the 2 or 3 headlines that interest them. If you actually worked for a paper you would realize that most of it goes unread and that its vastly different than on-line media.

So what on earth are you talking about ?

[arewethereyet]

41. controversy sells

you always hear about somebody getting caught with their pants down and never helping a child, right ?

THe race for sensationalism is here to stay as it always has.

The big political story is the democratic nomination battles. But if Tom DeLay got caught with Michael Jackson (or even an intern) doing the nasty you can bet it would be all over the media.

Try looking at just how non-political stories are presented, see the bias behind that. That is the sort of stuff Goldberg etal talk about.

And they're right.

[durutti]

45. Wow.

CNN is Fox Lite. CNN was clearly pro-war.

When it was discovered that Hussein Kamel said there were no Iraqi WMDs, did CNN report it? No.

Did CNN exercise any skepticism toward Powell when he addressed the UN last February? No. In fact, I distinctly recall one anchor referring to his "evidence" as "overwhelming".

CNN routinely parroted the administration's lies. Saddam "had" (not "allegedly had") WMDs. He "kicked out" inspectors in 1998.

And let's not forget that CNN hit the big time as a Pentagon cheerleader during the first Gulf War.

There are no progressives on CNN -- at least none who are permitted to editorialize. They have Robert Novack, Tucker Carlson, and myriad other well-known conservatives. For the "liberal" side, they have New Democrats.

Let's take a look at CNN's "Reliable Sources", supposedly a show about media criticism. The guest list consists overwhelmingly of people who themselves work for mainstream media outlets, rendering the show fairly ineffective as a source of media criticism. Very rarely does the program host independent scholars or media critics or activists. More guests are culled from host Howard Kurtz's two employers (CNN and the Washington Post) than from any other source.

After those two sources, where do most guests come from? The National Review, with 12 NR guests over a one-year period. The most frequently appearing guests over that period were Laura Ingraham. The second most frequent guest was NR editor Rich Lowry.

The show's left-of-center guests were also less activist and ideological than their right-wing counterparts. There are National Review staff, but no one from The Nation or Mother Jones.

Or let's take a look at Crossfire. For their "left" hosts, they've had Tom Braden (ex-CIA), Michael Kinsley (who promoted Margaret Thatcher for President), Geraldine Ferraro (a moderate who supports the death penalty, school prayer, a bloated military budget, tax exemptions for religious schools that discriminate on the basis of race and sex, and criminalizing homosexuality), and New Democrat Bill Press.

During the Iraq war, CNN refused to cover civilian casualties, dismissing such coverage as "perverse".

And if you'll remember, at one point CNN wanted to have Rush Limbaugh on the network. In August, 2001, CNN chairman Walter Isaacson met with Republican legislators to discuss improving the relationship between CNN and the GOP.

Merely looking at headlines on CNN's Web page and somehow magically divining "bias" from them is unscientific and absurd.

As far as the Times goes: the New York Times has a reputation as the best, most important newspaper in the world. It wants to hold on to that reputation. Thus, it does showcase more diverse views than the media generally. However, it is by no means an organ of the left -- remember the Judith Miller articles of earlier this year? Its editorial line is that of establishment Democrats.

I don't read the Post enough to say much, but I can say that that paper was absolutely silent when 600+ protestors were illegally rounded up and hogtied last year.

[fujiyama]

46. The Washington Post editorial staff

was behind the war.

'Nuff Said.

[arewethereyet]

60. the country was behind the war

they need to sell papers

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. "The country was behind the war"??? To which country are you referring?

[arewethereyet]

66. the greater percentage of the population os America

Were it otherwise, Congress would not have had to say OK.

You don't have to be for it yourself but to deny the reality of the day is not rational.

[maggrwaggr]

53. nice post. n/t

[arewethereyet]

59. firstly, its not their job to be suspicious

its their job to report what is known. Not what is speculation. Thats what they did. Gulf War 1 made CNN the premier news outlet in America. Did they milk Peter Arnet ? You bet your ass they did, and its repaid them billions since.

They were not pro-war, they covered the news. The war was news. Even if they didn't like it they had no choice but to cover it and even if they didn't like it they populace was for it so coming off as having a negative feel for it just gets the channel changed.

The NYT lost that reputation with Jason Blair and it has ALWAYS been seen as a left leaning paper.

As for progressives, they are too fringe to bear representation in a major media outlet. Bad for sales.

Try thinking like the average Joe for a change and see things through his eyes. He does not read the whole paper, only whats interesting and he is generally disinterested in politics and his attention is caught by spectacle and punch.

Do that and you'll see the truth of the matter.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

62. What???? "...not their job to be suspicious"????.......

Maybe you could help me understand what went on during the Clinton Presidencies when every rumor, large and small, was grist for rampant speculation, innuendo, and outright lies.

Maybe you could help me understand the constant bashing of Democrats by the rightwing NYT editorial staff over the last several years.

NYT a "left leaning" newspaper? Since when?

You do understand that very large and very conservative corporations own the U.S. mainstream media, don't you?

[arewethereyet]

67. once the Inquirer found it it became news

once it becomes news, everyone is obliged to report it.

[maggrwaggr]

65. but it IS their job to be skeptical and to question everything

and that's what they've quit doing

[arewethereyet]

68. and if they find facts to corroborate, they report

otherwise they keep digging or declare it a dead end. They report what they can verify (if they are doing their jobs correctly).

[SEAburb]

43. Ted Turner's threat to buy CBS, if it didn't take a less liberal stance

in it's news coverage. Ted thought CBS was being biased and to hard on Reagan. That opened the eyes of right leaning corps to what was possible during the '80s corp take over mania. Which led to Cap Cities take over of ABC.

[UTUSN]

51. When It Started to Such? Good Anwser? n/t

[Skittles]

55. haven't you noticed America LIKES GARBAGE???

witness the success of such shows as Survivor, Fear Factor, American Idol. It's all garbage and America eats it up. Why WOULDN'T they like slick propaganda crap like FOX ?

[arewethereyet]

61. give that man a cigar

lowest common denominator.

When the average low income family gained access to tv in the 60's or later (I remember that tv was not common till then) then the calibre of coverage began to decline so as to compete with the Inquirer.

[Sterling]

64. You realy need a clue don't you?

Joe Six pack would be proud.

[Ksec]

69. I believe it was also an overreaction to the liberal sixties seventies

When supposed morality took a nosedive with the sexual revolution, political correctness, by becoming more conservative to counteract . The trend kept going until it turned into extremist right wing which is where we are at today. Maybe its a circular thing that will come around. Just a theory of mine

[arewethereyet]

70. can't argue the point can you

Cronkite, Morrow, Hundley and Brinkley spoke to and for the middle and upper class becaust that was their audience. Educated and interested. Uneducated and disinterested require a different marketing approach. You have to get their attention with glitz, sex or scandle. Ask Madison avenue...

[spanone]

58. When America became a facist state.

The corporations run the white house and therefore are favorable to their "leader".