- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Prince Riebus (and apparently many others) still thinks there’s a liberal media.
While I share Prince’s frustration with the media, as a liberal, I’d like to go on record and state that the media isn’t focusing on issues I care about. They seem to be far more focused on entertainment and making money.
Don’t believe me?
If you know anyone who still believes in a “liberal media,” here are 15 things everyone would know if there really were a “liberal media” (inspired by Jeff Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post):
It is true that the MSM is primarily focused on making money... but in as much as they stick their necks out politically, they do lean left.
Surveys of journalists and editors/etc are quite clear on this. The large majority are left-leaning and indicate a willingness to promote that in their journalism.
It is true that the MSM is primarily focused on making money... but in as much as they stick their necks out politically, they do lean left.
Surveys of journalists and editors/etc are quite clear on this. The large majority are left-leaning and indicate a willingness to promote that in their journalism.
A very subjective evaluation, can you be more objective? What the Hell does lean left mean?
Yes, very good point. If we would be a fly on the wall at those right wing think tanks that comb the news everyday, I think we would be shaking our heads at what they consider left leaning. For instance, years ago, I can recall a Canadian news program were allowed to visit one such place, and:they pointed out some news stories that got tagged left
1) A soldier in Iraq saves a puppy
2) A town votes to improve their water supply
3) A girl raises money for cancer from selling curb side lemonade.
And on and on. You get my drift. It's ****ing hilarious, actually.
Read more @: 15 Things Everyone Would Know If There Were A Liberal Media -
So we constantly hear that typical lame conservative talking point about how that the "lamestream" media is "liberal". Well no matter how many times this lame talking point is debunked they still like to believe it. Here is some more fuel to use against that lame talking point.
The mainstream media is most consistently pro-corporate and pro-consumerist and is generally centrist.
The list isn't bad. I would add the amount of federal funding that really goes to defense/security and the number of foreign military bases.
For those who think that the mainstream is centrist, look at some real liberal media sources such as Democracy Now, Pacifica Radio and Nation magazines. They do not look like the mainsatream media in choice of topic or viewpoint.
Tagged Left for what reasons?
Beats me. I guess anything "bleeding heart" is considered left.
Read more @: 15 Things Everyone Would Know If There Were A Liberal Media -
So we constantly hear that typical lame conservative talking point about how that the "lamestream" media is "liberal". Well no matter how many times this lame talking point is debunked they still like to believe it. Here is some more fuel to use against that lame talking point.
OK, I have to agree that media tends to lean left. Just my opinion of course, however the pejorative silly is not necessary if you actually believe you have some credible arguments to back it up any assertions. But I digress, this is nothing more than an assertion by you that this topic pops up from time to time and is silly. Fair enough (although I disagree that this topic is "silly").Meh - this silly meme circulates periodically about the media's leanings not being leftist.
Now this is where I find this post is getting interesting.... You've just made an attempt to discredit the publisher of the information.... (also fair enough - Who in the world is addictinginfo.org ?)Now we're presented with "information" from a far left website which stated purpose is to "discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads" - as if their own lies and propaganda are somehow credit-worthy.
and now the author... (yet again also fair as I also find anonymous reporting dubious)So here we have an "article" by someone only identified as "guest writer" whose premise is that no one knows those special "15 things" because if they did, then the mainstream media would in fact be "left wing" as conservatives are wont to complain.
Yet the information is correct?The trouble is - we *do* know those "special" 15 things. The problem is the writer, whoever they are, is bummed more people don't know them - *THINKS* more people should know them and because the writer believes they don't is blaming conservatives for hiding the truth.
Really? Perhaps you will note the major U.S. military involvements initiated by demorat administrations, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and explain how the "liberals" are not every bit as much to blame for massive U.S. military/defense spending?
What the author of that screed...and, apparently, you...fail to understand, is that the media is not accused of being liberal because of the stories they do and do not present...but because of the way they express and spin the stories they present.
bubbabgone just gave a good example but the liberal media is normally not so overt. They have a lot of experience in presenting their liberal bias in very subtle, but effective ways. A favorite method is that employed by the Denver Post. Their editorial board is quite centrist...even right leaning at times...while their news departments report stories in a decidedly liberal leaning fashion. That makes it hard for anyone to accuse them of being liberal media...but they are.
TheDemSocialist, I think you are going to have to try to find someone else with a better excuse. This one fails.
OK, I'll bite why have they been? My answer? Because private corporations put their own profitability ahead of the health of the U.S. economy. I would rather it were otherwise but I can not blame them for playing the game the way it is designed.It's funny how that article intermingles half truths with facts and then screams at us all for being blind to the right wing media.
Jobs have been going over seas? We all know this. Now WHY have they been going over seas? The "Why" is what separates liberals from conservatives, Democrats from Republicans.
I don't understand. Colony Collapse Disorder is as of yet very much an unknown. No one knows why it it happening. People are still trying to figure it out. Are you suggesting that national discussions should not be had about the issues for which we don't know the cause?Death of commercial bee hives? No explanation for why yet? Check.
And here it is... "I can only assume...."I assume the "Guest Writer" believes the answer to the death of commercial bee hives must somehow track back to a liberal fix.
Really? Are you claiming that the U.S. is not losing domestic jobs to foreign counterparts or that bee colonies are collapsing? Could you explain?Anyway, I'm not going to parse all of these points right now, but suffice it to say we've all seen the news report on these 15 things so the proof falls apart before it ever really gets going.
I could be wrong, but the OP article seems to be the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Actually, I never said the information was correct. I merely stated that we all "know it" - meaning we're aware of each of those 15 things as they're topics that are very familiar (e.g. # of people in prison, wealth inequality, jobs going overseas, health care costs, etc. etc. etc.).This is an interesting post...
OK, I have to agree that media tends to lean left. Just my opinion of course, however the pejorative silly is not necessary if you actually believe you have some credible arguments to back it up any assertions. But I digress, this is nothing more than an assertion by you that this topic pops up from time to time and is silly. Fair enough (although I disagree that this topic is "silly").
Now this is where I find this post is getting interesting.... You've just made an attempt to discredit the publisher of the information.... (also fair enough - Who in the world is addictinginfo.org ?)
and now the author... (yet again also fair as I also find anonymous reporting dubious)
Yet the information is correct?
Now hold on a moment - you've drawn an invalid conclusion and are now attempting to base statements off it.So let me see if I got this straight. The publisher of the article and it's anonymous "guest writer" are disreputible liars and purveyors of lies and propaganda because they provided factual information? While I agree that I hold little to no weight to anonymous journalists from media organizations (using the term very loosely here) that I have never heard of much credence, how exactly does publishing information that you do not dispute equate to them being liars and propagandists?
Well I think that's exactly what the point of the article is - those 15 points are stories the left is very keen over. The writer's premise however is that because he's / she's not seeing as much coverage of what interests them most, and because they are themselves "liberal" (an inference which is, I believe perfectly valid), that the media is therefore not the liberal outlets conservatives claim they are.Point being, The article is merely trying to expose that these are the things that left leaning individuals want to hear about or see being investigated and if in fact the actual reporting was left leaning this is what they believe would be reported. That's it. Taking anything else out away from what was written here can only be chalked up to speculation. How exactly do you know that this writer is "bummed" that people don't know this? Where does this writer make any such assertion? Would you consider it fair or reasonable if I were to attribute some random thought or motivation to your writing of this post that you had never alluded to? If I did would do you believe it would add or detract from the discussion at hand?
Well - it's not in the article. It's in the "About Us" section of the website - where I went to get an idea who/what the website was about and maybe find out something of the author in the process. The first sentence of their "About Us" section reads thus:Also I was unable to find anywhere in the article where the author makes any statement that could possibly be construed as an accusation that conservatives are "Hiding the truth". The only accusation (if there even is one) is the tendency of the media organizations to put profit above accurate or substantive reporting (loose connection at best to "hiding information"). Or are you making the claim that putting profit ahead of accurate/substantive reporting is a cornerstone of conservatism? If so you may have legitimate claim that the writer "*THINKS*" conservatives are "hiding the truth". Otherwise you are just attempting to taint the conversation with unsubstantiated speculation.
AddictingInfo.Org - About Us said:"Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads." Source
I too have seen all of these stories in many different media (newspapers, online, broadcast, etc...) however they are not history. They are all still ongoing. Not a one of them is not a current issue / problem.What a croc. All of these stories were covered by the MSM. What one will notice from most of these "example" stories is that they are not news, but history, since they conveniently focus on the blame Bush angle; note that the graphs and charts shown tend to stop at the point when Obama took office. Hmm...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?