Why do cons and neo-nazis fall for the "liberal media" myth?

Question

I mean, they got their Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill OReilly, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage, etc, etc.

These guys are self-described conservatives/traditionalists whose job is to bring up (and sometimes make up) stories that make liberals/Democrats look bad and defend conservatives and Republicans. For example, I remember Bill Oreilly once had two guests on his show. The topic was Rush Limbaugh getting caught and arrested on drug charges. The first guest defended Rush Limbaugh. The second guest defended him even more and blamed Democrats. Oreilly and this second guest were both screaming at each other even thought they were both saying the same thing: Rush Limbaugh did nothing wrong and it's just Democrats making stuff up. It was surreal.

Now, the supposed "liberal media" spent what must have been a year on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. They spent weeks on the Dean scream that cost him the nomination. They spent weeks on Gary Condit and Grey Davis for nothing. Gary Condit was never charged and Grey Davis was not responsible for the California black outs. It was Enron purposely closing down power plants to make the price of electricity skyrocket. The same liberal media practically ignored the Jeff Gannon story. Just imagine if a fake reporter with a fake name who threw softball questions at the president and who criticized gays was caught posting naked pictures of himself at military gay escort websites. The media would have had a field day if it had happened under Clinton.

Answer 1

Do conservative media outlets forge documents about the President?

Do conservative media outlets use PhotoShop to doctor up pictures from Lebanon?

Why did 89 percent of Washington DC news bureau chiefs support Bill Clinton? That's a grossly distorted percentage, compared with the general popular vote.

Why do libs ignore the evidence of liberal media bias?

And in keeping with your effort to link Group A with Group B, Why do libs align themselves with NAMBLA pedophiles?

Answer 2

It is no different than when you used to play with your little brother. You would throw a piece of candy high in the air, and when he looked up, you would then bean him in the chest with a water balloon.

Most Americans feel alienated from the press - they seem like they have some sort of "better than thou" chip on their shoulder, always more educated and always able to have their opinions heard when the common man does not. It is the same basic reason why everyone seems to hate lawyers until they actually need one. Remember how much emphasis there was on John Edwards legal background in 2004? Disgusting, unfair, but BRILLIANT negative marketing.

The repubs were very smart on this one. Associate a group that polls low with their target market (the press and the lawyers) and then use every opportunity to associate their enemy with the disliked groups. It may be wrong, but it is brilliant mind management of the uninformed voting base.

If the dems could just find a similar linkage, they could get some of the middle of the road repub vote back. I'm thinking these are the best options:

Mitt Romney - Jeff Gordon fan! ("I knew there was something wrong with that boy")

John McCain - Vegetarian! ("I'd never vote for someone that didn't eat meat")

Rudy Guliani -

Tom Tancredo - Atheist. Enough said.

Fred Thompson - Once joined the ACLU.

If they could just learn from the masterful repub negative association strategy, the dems could win every election.

Answer 3

Oh it's there... it's just that NOW there is a "right-wing" branch of the media for the liberal to complain about.

STILL, the Major Networks all have a liberal slant to them... they are headquartered in New York.

MY basis for saying that: during the "Tailhook" story of 1991-1992, the media ALWAYS showed pictures of enlisted sailors while describing the story... yet all those involved were commissioned officers. At the beginning of both Gulf Wars, the networks CONSTANTLY mis-identified aircraft in video... calling a VIKING a TOMCAT !! They cover the illegal-alien rallies, yet never do a program on La Raza and it's stated goal of taking over the Southwest.

Answer 4

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, the New Yorker, 5/22/95

"In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal." Noam Chomsky

the liberal media that.........

have helped create the myth that social security is failing, paving the way for the realization of one of the right's political wet dreams: privatization of social security

perpetuate conservative myths about welfare and simultanously turn a blind eye to corporate wellfare

sensationalize street crime and ignore corporate crime

treat religious right groups such as the Promise Keepers with kid's gloves and thus help legitimize them in the public perception

generally avoid reporting on the lunatic fringe of the right, such as militias, neo-Nazis and anti-abortion terrorists, and in particular, avoid examining the personal and ideological connections these groups have to the Republican party

created the perception that there is widespread popular opposition to affirmative action when in fact most people support it

all but ignore waste, mismanagment and corruption in the military-industrial complex

downplayed protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO by portraying protestors as leftist fringe groups, communists and anarchists

report corporate PR as legitimate scientific research.

Answer 5

It's no myth. In recent years, especially with Talk Radio and Fox News, the media has become more varied, but the "mainstream media" (ABC, CBS, NBC, NYTimes, Washington Post, most large newspapers, Time, Newsweek, most major magazines) have always leaned strongly to the left. The fact that there are now a handful (and a growing number) of rightward leaning journalists doesn't mean that the aforementioned media doesn't still lean leftward. However, now that there's competition, even those have to create a veneer of balanced reporting. Still, I think you'd be surprised if you looked into the voting registration of most of the media dignitaries. They're all Democrats.

So, yeah, you've mentioned a few Republicans among the many, but these are all opinion journalists. These people are SUPPOSED to be biased. Their JOB is to express an opinion (with the exception probably of Cavuto and Hume). It's not those people we expect to be unbiased. It is the reporters like Mike Wallace and Dan Rather who have twisted the truth for years to present the facts in a leftward slant. That's the complaint. Opinion shows can do whatever they want. No one is complaining about Colmes or Stephanopolous. The problem is when the basic news becomes a slanted, biased report. And that's been going on for years.

If you're young, you may not understand that, and perhaps we are reaching a point where more balance is available, but it's clearly not complete. Don't condemn something you don't understand. Look back a ways, and you'll see where the concern comes from. Fox wasn't even a network for most of our lives. If they hadn't lucked out with the Simpsons they probably would never have survived. Funny how the Simpsons are responsible for balanced reporting in media, huh?

But seriously, it's still not very balanced. Ron Paul still can't get an even break. Aside from Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, and Ariana Huffington, most of these guys haven't even mentioned his existance. That doesn't sound particularly unbiased to me.

Oh, and by the way, most of us who are "cons" as you call us don't recognize George W. Bush as a real conservative. The Neo-Cons are a rebellion against old-time Republican and Conservative principles. Ron Paul is the best representative of traditional conservative values, which is why its interesting that he still can't get equal time. Hmmm...maybe there IS a bias after all. It's just that no one knows what liberal or conservative means anymore. George and the Bush league have done such a wonderful job of confusing everyone.

Answer 6

What was moderate 12 years ago is now considered far left, since the Right wing echo chamber has had so much success, at dividing the nation and trivializing any legitimate, opposition by slandering, and molding the dialog around their issues. This has been done as cover for media consolidation, and Corporate control of more and more of our government. They get paid millions of dollars to spin each new loss of freedom and bartered away human right as good old American patriotism.

Answer 7

Who should the Liberals prop up to challenge any of the individuals you mentioned... that comedian Al Franken? That even worst comedian Rosie ODonnell? How bout that Michael Twisted Moore? All these guys resemble more as clowns than anything.

Answer 8

Look. Listen. Learn.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Answer 9

You've got to be kidding me. It takes one day and even less, of reading the garbage that some of you neo-libs spout to wake up anybody with an IQ above the room temperature of an unheated igloo. Who needs Fox when we've got the neo-libs?

Blame yourselves when we have another Republican sweep in 08.

Answer 10

Well, you did mention what Conservatives there are in
the Media. However, all the rest ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN.
MSNBC, are all "liberal media". I don't have to mention all
their names as I'm sure you know them well. So, to answer
your question, the liberal media is alive and well and there
is no "myth" here>