English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Who actually believes the propaganda that the major media is
liberal. And support your argument, baring in mind that most media is owned by major corporations, GE, Westinghouse, News Corporation...so what are the facts, what passes for liberal today?

2007-11-19 07:17:24 · 33 answers · asked by Scott K 2 in Politics & Government Politics

33 answers

The Liberal Media myth is a propaganda tool employed by conservative radio hosts, columnists and pundits as a convenient excuse why after 20 years their ideology has failed to convince the public at large, and as a memetic inocculation of the public against the evidence that the media bias is in fact a conservative one.

Not only does the liberal media claim have no basis in fact, it also does not make sense considering the issues of media ownership and influence of advertisers. Most media outlets are owned by a handful of conservative corporations and individuals, and funded by usually economically conservative advertisers who have no need for an educated, alert, independent and critical citizenry. What they need is a dumb, bored, cynical and apathetic public that has abandoned all critical faculties and is easily distracted by celebrity gossip and mindless sports games. A public that will believe anything it is told, or nothing at all, which amounts to the same end result. This pro-corporate conservative bias of the media is well-documented and shows itself in consistent under-reporting or ignoring of any information that would lead people to question the fundamental status quo.

2007-11-19 07:31:20 · answer #1 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 10 6

It is common knowledge that journalists tend to be liberal.
Their writing and reporting is going to be slanted in that direction because of their beliefs. It's just human nature. However, the journalists have been educated to work to minimize the bias found in their reporting. Just because a journalist is liberal and there may be bias does not mean that their report should be written off. It means more work for the reader in terms of being critical. You should not accept any one report as completely factual and without bias. (Fox news is 100% wrong because their reports are biased. You cannot eliminate it. It will be there. They aren't even really a news organization. They promote popular culture.) The corporations behind the media organizations actually have little to do with the reporting. They are more interested in strategic objectives. (i.e. the numbers, are we increasing our audience, market share, to maximize advertising dollars, the bottom line). Corporate managers care little beyond that. They come up with the plan but it's the reports that implement it. But the reporters have at least some freedom in terms of how they actually do their job because they are professionals. That is what they are paid to do. On a radio program I was listening to today, a journalist, Mike Barnicle said that political candidates like Clinton and Obama get a lot of press because of the celebrity factor. That might be an example of corporate management having an influence because the celebrity factor is going to bring in more viewers (theoretically and I'm sure evidenced by the numbers).
My point is that the reporters and the corporations have different agendas. That helps to balance the bias that will exist. As always, we all need to be paying close attention to when we watch the news and raise questions. Don't take anything at face value. Dig deeper. Probe. Find answers on the internet and through talking with other people. Life is pretty complicated and the more you know/understand, the better you see it. That's when you realize how little you actually know. It's quite humbling.

2007-11-19 07:54:40 · answer #2 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 2 4

I agree with you about the majority of the media The only exception I have Found comes out of Madison WI radio station 92.1 The Mike. Randi Rhodes tell it like it is No love for Mr. Bush and his cronies there. I know her show is carried by other stations in this country but I d not know which ones They run under what I believe is called Radio Free America

2016-05-24 05:27:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

garyb, that UCLA article is one of the most laughable pieces of drivel I've ever seen. How is comparing newscasters against Congress supposed to prove anything when Congress is loaded with right-wing extremists whose views lean much rather to the right than any Democrat's views lean to the left? All that proves to me is that the professor conducting the so-called "research" was biased himself and chose a method that would back up his original assumption.

Only a thoroughly biased and unscientific "researcher" would even think of equating mentioning liberal topics to voting on the liberal side of an issue. They're nowhere near the same thing. By that measure, Rush Limbaugh probably looks like the most liberal man on the airwaves because he spends most of his time ranting against liberals. That's just preposterous!

2007-11-19 08:42:23 · answer #4 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 2 1

I agree with you. The right wing tries to throw out some statistics about how reporters vote (more liberal than not). They completely ignore that the reporters have bosses, the bosses have owners and that the reporters are edited, directed and corrected.

Katie Couric told a story about when she was at the Today show and was told not to be hard on the administration because the network needed some regulatory favors. So even if Katie voted Democratic (which I have no idea if she does), it wouldn't have mattered, would it?

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp

2007-11-19 07:31:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 8 2

Lets start with NBC, they did the story about President Bush's Guard records right before the 2004 elections. Unfortunately for them the alternate Media found out the truth and put it out before the election. Dan Rather took the fall for the network, but they had backed the forged documents and story the whole way. If they had not been so liberal and anti-Bush they would have fact checked the story before putting it on the air and would have been able to find out for themselves it was all a lie. The New York Times printed a story the week after Rush Limbaugh's comments about a war protester who claimed to be a decorated Marine who had served in Iraq. Rush was discussing how the main stream media had taken this guy's story as gospel and had not checked his credentials, and Rush called the guy a "Fake Soldier". Then the Senate Majority Leader drew up a letter and had a bunch of Senators sign it castigating the free speech of a private citizen based on the story that Rush had called all war protesters who had served in the military "Fake Soldiers". Well the story with the obvious Liberal Bias was completely false. Rush let it be know the next day after making the comment, the the actual transcript and audio was available for free download to anyone who wanted it at his web site. The New York Times had a whole week that they could have checked the facts of their story before they published and either chose not to find out what was actually said, or they knowingly printed an out-right lie. Liberal Bias in black and white.

2007-11-19 07:36:45 · answer #6 · answered by MSG 4 · 1 7

Technically liberal means change. That would mean that liberals would be against Roe vs Wade in the U.S. and would be pro slavery.

This means the meaning has changed. What they really mean is they are part of the Progressive Movement which started off in the Industrial Revolution. Their mission is to cure "social ills." Some social ills, such as world poverty, are expected to be cured by taxing the rich and middle class.

2007-11-19 08:36:32 · answer #7 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0 3

Profit hungry Capitalists who love the war because it sells ads and most own a war division as well as a media outlet.
Not a liberal in the bunch.

2007-11-19 07:29:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8 2

I haven't seen any sign of a liberal media since the 80's. Some people are living in a dream world. When the media reports that Bush has screwed something up, is that Bush bashing? What are they supposed to report? I can't think of anything Bush hasn't screwed up.

2007-11-19 07:22:56 · answer #9 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 13 4

The fact that mainstream media presents only one political philosophy in it's coverage of the news is proof that it is slanted toward the left. The fact that large corporations control the media disproves the theory that there is an automatic correclation between conservatism and corporate America. The fact that the new media, such as FOX News, is constantly under attack by the left, shows that the mainstream media fears losing it's hold on news dissemination in America, and rightly so. Hopefully someone will produce a documentary exposing bias in the media, similar to "Indoctrinate U", the film dealing with the persecution of conservative thinking in the US university system.

2007-11-19 07:28:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 9

fedest.com, questions and answers