Liberal media??

[Wendy!]

I'm glad to see that I'm not crazy. In a "somewhat polite" discussion that I had with some conservative family members a few weeks back, I was continually stunned at how many remarks were made by beginning with "Well the liberal media this...and liberal media that..." and I just couldn't make sense of it all. Because I don't see that our media is dominated by liberal points of view, how can it be when some of those outlets are owned by major corporations who pander to the right. I didn't really have facts to back up what I thought to be true, which is that, if something is not completely backing up the conservative agenda, then it's classified as the liberal media. So here is an article by Glenn Greenwald on Salon (who I love BTW) to lay it all out for you:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/08/msnbc/

grrr....

[Edison]

Yes, it's pretty confounding and it does piss me off.
It's a long-used strategy of conservative politicians and loony right-wing pundits, of which there are throngs. Every time Bill O'Reilly uses that term "Elite Liberal Media" (and he's one of the worst offenders) I want to punch him in the dick.

As effusive as he can be sometimes, I think Keith Olbermann is about the only one out there who sounds sane and on the mark.


Check out this related article from Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200809050021)

[matthewp]

Keith Olberman? your kidding right? The way he covered the RNC was completely unfair and unjustified especially those crocadile tears after the 9-11 intro. Chris Matthews is great though he has great insight and I dont think he was ever really out of line at all I think its a bad move for them to fire Matthews from the election coverage. Olberman is a tool just like O'reily is on Fox news they both are blowhards and its very annoying.

[macarthur31]

Keith Olberman? your kidding right? The way he covered the RNC was completely unfair and unjustified especially those crocadile tears after the 9-11 intro. Chris Matthews is great though he has great insight and I dont think he was ever really out of line at all I think its a bad move for them to fire Matthews from the election coverage. Olberman is a tool just like O'reily is on Fox news they both are blowhards and its very annoying.


Does Keith have a flair for the dramatic? Sure. However, outside of his Special Comments, all of the work on that show is documented with evidence and video.

However, I'm gonna pushback on the "crocadile tears" (sic) notion on that. If I had lost folks in that attack, and then see it being used as a political prop at a convention -- I would've lost it. I was truly disgusted, and it just reaffirmed at how much a subset of republicans (not all, of course) have used that horrible event to their advantage.

Back to the thread at hand -- to call it the "liberal" media is not totally correct. The top of the chattering classes (Halperin, Matthews, et al) enjoy "high school"-ness of our political process. They really don't care who wins, since they get paid either way. Freakin' Charlie Gibson gets to interview Sarah Palin for ABC (time to be determined of course), but supposedly he's not going to ask her about her husband's tie to the Secessionist party, or even about her family issues. However, he got to drill Obama on his patriotism, him serving on the Woods Fund board with Bill Ayers, or other similar types of issues. Excuse me? That's not the "liberal" media.

I'll accept "lazy" and "insulated", but not just purely "liberal."

[Edison]

A noun, a verb, and a whole lotta fear-mongering by exploiting 9/11.

Olbermann called it out as he should. If Edward R Murrow was doing the same thing to Joe McCarthy about his "commie fear" right now, he might be pulled off the air and marginalized as a troublemaker.

These are the times in which we live.
Welcome to corporate-controlled America.

[gotsick]

Backstage with the Eastern Media Elite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/09/05/VI2008090501238.html)

Funny video from washingtonpost.com

[davec]

I don't disagree on canning Olbermann from coverage. The media is not liberal, but liberals shouldn't want their own left-wing fox network.

I want to see people who are committed to objective truth doing my news. I don't mind people with political slants doing coverage, but Olbermann has proved over the last few months that he's got an agenda. He's not a journalist who's delving deep into the issues the media won't cover, he's a liberal commentator who is eager to manufacture outrage.

Mainstream news has left the idea of "truth" behind and has taken on the concept of "balance." It doesn't matter if one of them is lying, you've ALWAYS got to have two people arguing about any issue. Because the media is too scared to say "everyone credible, and the facts, support this story. We can just run with it."

No, right now, no matter what the story is, there's always someone who's willing to say, "Yeah? Well facts, evidence, photos, video, and unanimous expert opinion don't matter, because those people hate America! Only America-lovers like me know the real truth!" And then at the end, the anchor goes, "A complicated debate, to be sure. I'm sure we'll hear this argument continuing."

A lot of stuff is not complicated, and does not need a continuing argument, but the right has realized that if you can just complain, "liberal media" you can erase the truth and make it a battle of opinion.

And the media has totally backed down and pussified in the face of that.

[Edison]

I don't disagree on canning Olbermann from coverage. The media is not liberal, but liberals shouldn't want their own left-wing fox network.

I want to see people who are committed to objective truth doing my news. I don't mind people with political slants doing coverage, but Olbermann has proved over the last few months that he's got an agenda. He's not a journalist who's delving deep into the issues the media won't cover, he's a liberal commentator who is eager to manufacture outrage.

Mainstream news has left the idea of "truth" behind and has taken on the concept of "balance." It doesn't matter if one of them is lying, you've ALWAYS got to have two people arguing about any issue. Because the media is too scared to say "everyone credible, and the facts, support this story. We can just run with it."

No, right now, no matter what the story is, there's always someone who's willing to say, "Yeah? Well facts, evidence, photos, video, and unanimous expert opinion don't matter, because those people hate America! Only America-lovers like me know the real truth!" And then at the end, the anchor goes, "A complicated debate, to be sure. I'm sure we'll hear this argument continuing."

A lot of stuff is not complicated, and does not need a continuing argument, but the right has realized that if you can just complain, "liberal media" you can erase the truth and make it a battle of opinion.

And the media has totally backed down and pussified in the face of that.

I agree in that we don't need a 'liberal' FOX network. It just adds to the pile of bullshit that's already a mile high.
But I simply don't see much of the 'balance' you're referring to, Dave. FOX, ABC, and to a lesser degree CBS are clearly slanted to the politically conservative agenda.

And yes, the media are total pussies when it comes to actual journalism. They don't have the time or incentive to do the work digging for the truth. Nor do they want to spend the money it takes. It's about 'reporting', which, for them, is bringing on people to spew talking points, or hand-picking stories that are compelling to viewers, to fabricate urgency or stir controversy. It brings more viewers and they can parlay that into charging more money for commercial spots.

[davec]

I FOX, ABC, and to a lesser degree CBS are clearly slanted to the politically conservative agenda.



I didn't mean to infer that this coverage IS balanced. What I'm saying is that the media has developed a concept of "balance" that means that no matter what the issue is, it must have a counter-point.

What that's done is create a media where every argument seems to be equal, even when one side is completely wrong.

Like evolution. Scientists do not consider Creationism, Intelligent Design, or any other christian theories of creation to be valid in the slightest. But according to the media, there's a raging debate about the validity of evolution.

Our country has so little respect for politicians that we've decided that "both sides are lying, so the truth must be in the middle."

But when one side is 90% wrong, and the other side is 90% correct, the "moderate" point of view is mostly wrong.

This isn't to say that the left is "90% right." I'm just saying that the media treats any issue as a debate rather than an exploration of truth.

[Edison]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[speedymarie]

Lewis Black, The Carnegie Hall Performance:

"We don't get information. Whatever you hear, any information we get now is just spun. The Democrats, you know, they talk about Social Security, the Democrats have one set of facts, the Republicans have another set of facts. They talk about education, two different sets of facts. Every time anything is discussed, there is no basic, just tell me what the fuck is going on. There's no fact-facts. You can't have two sets of facts, there has to be some fact-facts!"

This is so sad but true - it's like Dave says, the press, in pretending to be unbiased, will present both sides' talking points, as if both are equally valid, rather than breaking through the spin and actually talking about reality.

[Biddle]

I think that one step in the right direction is to get rid of ratings for the evening news. If television channels can look at their local news as "community service" hours, instead of commercial real estate that can be sold, that would free the local news reporters from sensationalism and fear tactics to disseminate the news.

That's a good start.

Additionally, there needs to be a legal definition of what separates "news programming" from "opinion programming". The two are blurred together. There should also be a standards board in place to make sure that ANY new agency is factually correct. Consider it to be like the Comics Code stamp on comic books. If a news program isn't currently "News Agency Board Certified", it can't be considered to be a "news program".

Jon Stewart believes that the evening news programs are going to continue getting smaller and smaller and eventually will disappear completely. Swallowed up by the 24 hour cable news networks. Which might not be a bad thing. Except, the 24 hour news channels are STILL fighting to sensationalize the news to get viewers. (Again for commercial sales.) That's why any event, now gets that breathless, idiotic, talking-head-heavy coverage for any event that happens.

News needs to free itself from the intentionally-created shackles of partisan control. It's well understood that if you control the information that the proles receive, you can control what they do or don't do and can control what they think and know. News has been folded into political party agendas. That needs to be broken.

News needs to be first, and foremost, concerned with factual validity and then with comprehensive coverage of news that's accesible to the average viewer. Until actual changes are made, we'll continue to have this cacophonous extension of the political parties, that we call, the "news", putting forth the opinion of their corporate masters.

In related news, The New York Post endorsed John McCain today. You'll remember that just last year, the NYP was purchased by noted Republican, media-mogul, Rupert Mudoch.

So, there you go.
COB

[Monahan]

Adam McKay had a great editorial on Huffington Post today about this very topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html

We don't have a liberal media. We have a broadcast and editorial industry that has zero interest in finding facts, and huge interest in perpetuating heated debate even when the one side of the debate is not based in fact.

[davec]

It's also why the internet is going to change media. Everyone always complains, "You can't believe what's on the internet." Which is true, up to a point. But historically, new media and technology seems to always help people be more informed rather than less.

The internet also is a place to watch raw footage, that the networks won't show. If it's a 3 minute, or a 6 minute clip, you can watch the whole thing rather than two sound bites. With the internet you can research where the information comes from. YOu can look for original sources. Older generations who were used to getting their information from the networks aren't used to fact-checking on their own, but I believe people are slowly learning to harvest information for themselves.

In the end, though, it's always going to be hard. Because the GOP doesn't fight fair. They lie, they spin, and they distort in ways that the mainstream left simply doesn't. Creationism, global warming skeptics, Iraq has WMD's... you're always going to do better in an argument if you're constantly coming up with new lies that sound true. Especially when no one's fact-checking anymore (like the news media.)

[Schoolyj]

An interesting step in the direction of news as public service.

http://www.propublica.org/

I've only discovered them a couple weeks ago and have barely made it part of my internet routine. But it is a glimmer of hope is a dystopic dreamscape.

::: hops into the last of the V-8s, cocks his cross-bow and prepares to war for the juice:::

[Scol]

Thank you, Dave C., for calling out the complete and utter fraud that is the modern definition of "moderate."

People are brainwashed into thinking that we live in some sort of set mathematical equation. Just plop yourself down in the "middle", and you're suddenly The Voice Of Reason.

The right wing of this country is run by fascists. Taking a few left-directed steps away from them doesn't equal moderate. It equals complacent stupidity.

[Wendy!]

Yes, I agree, thanks Dave for calling the media out in such a manner where I could actually understand!

And Biddle those are AWESOME ways to revolutionize media. But now here's my question, how would we begin. If given the chance to change the course the media has taken, what would we have to do first?

[bron]

Dave, well said. To add, the media, and any information is always biased. Any attempt to say otherwise is a smokescreen designed to protect the source from revealing their bias. The bias comes in the form of what is covered and how it is framed. For instance the mainstream media overwhelmingly covers corporate news, as opposed to news taken from labor's point of view. You'll also notice that news on government reports heavily on what has been done, and rarely on how it affects your life, or more importantly, how the average citizen can get involved. Obviously that can take us down a road of debating what the purpose of the news is, which is an entirely different conversation.

To your question Wendy, of what can be done about it... I've always been of the opinion that the illusion of objective reporting is the problem. When it became the standard, after Hearst basically started a war with Spain, it made sense. Newspapers were the most prevalant and accessible source of information. With today's technological advances, and people's propensity for self-education and information gathering, I believe the mainstream media should embrace biased reporting. It would be in their economic self-interest to represent several viewpoints and it would encourage the creation of a marketplace of ideas.

When our country started, most cities had more than ten different news sources, each with a different political viewpoint. As news dissemination and advertising became a huge money-maker, economics forced the number of news sources to dwindle, giving us our present situation. I say we get back to the town square model of allowing everyone their say. Will this happen? Never. The corporate control of the media would never allow it. The internet is attempting this, but as long as the boomers are still in control, and I suspect for some time after that, our current model will be sustained.

Other than that, we can look at models of news dissemination that are funded through a combination of public funding and corporate dollars. This creates its own problems of course (especially of government intervention, although that's already a problem) and will be too convoluted to make any real difference. As with anything in this country, nothing will change unless the public stops watching.

[davec]

People are brainwashed into thinking that we live in some sort of set mathematical equation. Just plop yourself down in the "middle", and you're suddenly The Voice Of Reason.


Agreed. We live in a world where John McCain is a "moderate," and the word moderate inspires some kind of awe... "Wow, you're right in the middle. You must care so much about truth than partisan bickering!"

Most moderates are just conservatives who realize that a few conservative viewpoints are beyond wack, but they'll still vote for the wackjob anyway.