How is it that the GOP gets into the MSM so easily?

[JoMama49]

Why does the so-called "liberal media" pick up on these stories, when they wouldn't touch Ohio?

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050126%2F2241357531.htm&photoid=20050113WAET209

[paineinthearse]

1. It's called "we own it, we control what you read" n/t

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

2. it's as simple as how to get rich quick

step 1: identify those who have no convictions/morals/integrity.
step 2: boost their political power (in this case, by framing them in a favorable way)
step 3: receive benefits from said benefactors.
step 4: repeat as necessary.

[MarianJack]

3. Yes, and there are these rules for corporate owned media also!

Rule 1. The boss (in this case the conservative companys that owns the "liberal media") is never wrong!

Rule 2. If the boss is wrong, see rule #1!

[w4rma]

4. The AP is a big corporation. The GOP represents the interests of big corps

Media consolidation. Right-wing billionares who each own a good number of the biggest, most prominent, media outlets. They *fear* Democrats. They fear us because they are truely afraid that Dems will get into power and deconsolidate their holdings. And they're right. But in addition to that they want to expand their holdings and Republicans will allow them to buy up everything as long as they keep covering up for them.

You can't trust any huge corporation. This is the nature of such a corporation. They get past a certain size and then they want policies that allow them to bully their competitors out of buisness. Notice how it's the smaller and the start-up outlets that are promoting our side of the story while the big bullies are trying to muscle that information out of folks' minds.

The editors are hand picked by the owners to push their agenda. Also, lots of "jounalists" are being paid under the table or at least under the radar. Dems don't tend to do that. If a Democrat was caught doing that the Democratic base would have their head on a pike just like we'd try to do to a Republican who was caught doing that.

It's greed. It's all about greed and power at the expense of honest people.

That's my understanding.

[Land Shark]

5. Another aspect in addition is that media has "fast tracks"

These "fast tracks" to publication are oftentimes considered "reliable sources" but which can boil down to "someone who regularly provides news content that is interesting and at least debatable, and not readily disproven."

For example, the press releases of government agencies are often printed without seeking comment from the subjects of those press releases. Corporate news is released in video form and played by media "as is", as if the corporate "news" reporter actually works for the station playing the videotape.

Now big corporations, big government, and rich people tend not to be "readily disproven" because they have the resources to defend their positions with PR people, lawyers, and what not. So even if the corporate press release is an outright lie, chances are very good that if there is a public debate on that issue they will, at the very least, be able to confuse and obfuscate the issue, and sometimes the lies win, posing as truth.

True, a lot of media is owned by conservatives, but with the "news standards" shown above, it is much more likely that conservative stories get out than liberal ones, though liberal stories DO get out from time to time only less.

Problem is, when liberal stories DO get out, conservatives are much better are complaining about the "bias" that is then ialleged to be in the media. Though wrong in doing so, conservatives are not completely crazy in seeing "bias", there are liberal inferences in the media from time to time, and they readily spot those inferences, object to them, while at the same time experiencing conservative and corporate bias as "neutral truth" because they agree with it. The reverse is often true with liberals, we can see the corporate bias but sometimes won't see the liberal "bias". THE THING IS, THE LIBERAL FACTS AND OPINION AS WELL AS THE CONSERVATIVE FACTS AND OPINION SHOULD BE IN THE PAPER, SO READERS CAN BE WELL INFORMED.

The solution is to reframe the debate as one of freedom of speech and reporting integrity, calling denunciations of liberal bias an anti=freedom of speech because it wants to squelch news based on its tendency to rally one side of the political debate. Our demand should be that all points of view and sides of the political debate be reported faithfully and LET THE READERS DECIDE. This allows for real freedom of debate, and one CAN NOT decry as "liberal bias" the fact that liberals get some facts in the paper that support their ideas, nor do progressives need to self-censor in order to "qualify" for the MSM. Taken to its logical extreme (as it often is) those complaining of "liberal bias" are actually against freedom of speech -- for liberals. In more moderate and reasonable form, a "liberal bias" attack takes the form of asking that "opinion" get off the news pages and back onto editorial pages. That's not an unreasonable position necessarily, but it is impossible to report the news without reporting liberal (and conservative) opinion OF OTHER PEOPLE (not the reporters' bias or opinion). Consequently, news media should report what activists of all sides say, but the media is over the line when the news articles drip with attitude from the point of view of the reporter or the paper, whether it be sarcasm making fun of someone's "conspiracy theory" or whatever. Simply report the facts and points of view, and let me the reader decide.

If (like with the NY Times and election fraud) the very first thing you hear about a theory "burning up the internet" is that they are "conspiracy theories" spread "by blogs" that are "quickly disproved" without faithfully saying what the facts and allegations of the supposed conspiracy are, you are not seeing a faithful reporting of news, but rather a mild exercise in thought control where the reporter (no matter what his subjective intent) is instructing the reader in how to handle certain unspecified information -- by blowing it off as "conspiracy theory".

The frame should be: Report all the news and significant opinion faithfully, and let the readers decide.

The debate will then be whether a point of view is "significant" or not, but 30% of the public doubting the election is NO DOUBT a significant point of view, but even if only one person held the point of view but did so in a compelling way, there is a public interest in hearing so, yet again, the public can decide.

The voters, as democracy's decisionmakers, must be fully and properly informed, thus all points of view should be fairly reflected in the media.

If we frame the debate as above, we are set to win the "liberal bias" debates, the debates over whether the United Church of Christ ads should be banned by the networks, and we are poised to get points of view that are not funded by the wealthy out to all of the people.

[go west young man]

7. or to put it quite simply.....

Republicans are assholes and Democrats are too nice.

[FloridaCrat]

6. FORGET the MSM - they are CORPORATE MEDIA and they don't serve us.

As consumers of media, you have a choice. Every time you read or watch a biased source, i.e. CNN, FOX are the worst, you are contributing to the problem. My solution is to TURN OFF CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS. I can count on 1 hand the number of times network TV has been on in my house for a "news" program.

There are so many places to get news. Whining about why corporate media doesn't offer balanced and fair reporting does nothing constructive. It should get you angry enough to TURN IT OFF. I'm going one step further and having FOX and CNN removed from my cable. If enough people do that, the advertisers will notice and stop pouring money to these outfits.

[xynthee]

13. You're missing the point!

It's great that WE know where to look for real news, but most Americans believe that, when they watch Fox, ABC, CNN, etc., they're actually getting the news.

The problem is not that WE're looking to the MSM for enlightenment and information; it's that everyone else in this country IS, and they're completely unaware they're not really getting it.

[FloridaCrat]

15. I got your point. The question is, what are ya gonna do about it?

American's are getting it more now than they have in previous years -
Gallup polled recently about where people are getting their news and results
showed more on "alternative" news sources, like the internet, and away from
corporate biased stuff. And that's GREAT news!

[NationalEnquirer]

8. They OWN it..

Sure, most reporters are Democrats, I believe that much, but the people who OWN the media are fat old conservative b*astards..

[libertypirate]

9. I think we should begin to change the tune...

Around the so called liberal media. Let's not do them any favors, between the words liberal and media simply insert the word corporate. It's bullshit I know, but everyone knows that corporations aren't liberal, they exist for their own self interests.

The liberal corporate media or the corporate liberal media doesn't make a bit of a difference to me but I think we should call them how we see them!

[garybeck]

10. it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

tax cuts for large corporations.

ending of monopoly restrictions of media consolidation.

nuff said.

[RaulVB]

11. The PAY for air time

Also, THEY BUY "JOURNALISTS."

[Hugin]

12. Well... You see...

The CRM PR process is like a digestive tract.

It passes through the mouth... Through the stomach...
finally passing through the... um... media.

Never mind.

Bad analogy.

Sorry.

;)

[FreepFryer]

14. How do you spell 'love'? M-O-N-E-Y. (n/t)