• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

15 Things Everyone Would Know If There Were A Liberal Media

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
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):


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.
 
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.

I agree up to a point. Writing is an art and creative people have a tendency to be liberal. At grunt level on the street I would agree with you. Management has a tendency of being conservative. Editors and such begin to become less liberal than they were when the were writers. Upper management is comparatively conservative when compared to everyone else.

To be honest I don't know how it all adds up today. Now I'm going to have to go back and look, do some research to see if and how things have changed. I DO know that the media is greatly controlled by whatever party is in office. With that in mind, the media is going to be a bit more liberal under Obama.

Overall, I would venture to say that there is shadow control of the media that transcends the White House and most elected officials in Washington.
 
Meh - this silly meme circulates periodically about the media's leanings not being leftist. 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.

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.

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.

Meh... such absurd "journalistic" schlock is altogether too transparent.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

Death of commercial bee hives? No explanation for why yet? Check. I assume the "Guest Writer" believes the answer to the death of commercial bee hives must somehow track back to a liberal fix.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Tagged Left for what reasons?
 
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.

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...
 
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.

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?
 
Beats me. I guess anything "bleeding heart" is considered left.

Maybe it was something like ...

"Here in George Bush's war torn Iraq where US troops continue to visit unspeakable horrors on helpless citizens, if an observer is willing to look long and hard an occasional but very rare glimpse of humanity can be found - such is the story of Private Mbwana Nkumo, naturalized American citizen, forced to enlist in the US Army because he couldn't find employment in white dominated America. But what Mbwana did find was this puppy whose owners were executed by rogue US Army troops on an Opium driven rampage one night in Baghdad."
 
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.

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.
 
This is an interesting post...

Meh - this silly meme circulates periodically about the media's leanings not being leftist.
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 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.
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 ?)

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.
and now the author... (yet again also fair as I also find anonymous reporting dubious)

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.
Yet the information is correct?

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?

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?

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.

On a side note, how exactly does the highest rated, most watched news organization make a claim that they are not "main stream". Always been curious about that.
EDIT: was referring to Fox News re: main stream
 
Last edited:
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?

1. Mainstream centrist Democrats also support too much defense/security/war spending, but they do tend to cut it more than Republicans.

2. The Democratic party was not consistently to the left of the Republican party until the 1970s (Southern Strategy). For just one example, Republican Sen. Jacob Javitts was pro-civil rights and anti-Viet Nam war.

3. Most Democrat politicians are not liberals, they are centrists. Kucinich, Barabara Lee, Bernie Sanders and few others are liberals. Liberals have not supported any wars (except for Kosovo-Bosnia halfheartedly) since the fifties. Most of the hundreds of thousands of people who were out on the streets protesting against the wars in Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq and Afghanistan were liberals, the rest were radicals. The Democrats that approved those wars were not.

4. If you think the mainstream media is liberal or leftist, it is because you are so much to the right, that centrists seem like liberals to you, and you have probably have not been exposed to real leftist/liberal media. How many of you claiming a liberal mainstream media have actually read the Nation, listened to Pacifica Radio or watched Democracy Now?
 
Last edited:
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.

I'd like to see some real-life examples to prove your point.
 
Fox news top stories for 9-16-13
1 SHOOTER DEAD, POLICE HUNT 2 OTHERS IN SHOOTING OF 10 AT DC NAVY YARD; COPS SAY 'MULTIPLE DECEASED'
CONVINCING EVIDENCE' Syria use of chem weapons 'clear,' UN report says
PEN PALS?
Obama, Rowhani letters fuel nuclear talk speculation
MASSIVE UNDERTAKING Effort under way to pull Costa Concordia upright
Report: State Dept. Benghazi review flawed
Ex-CIA, NSA boss claims terrorists prefer Gmail
KURTZ: How Summers lost the media war
FOX NEWS FIRST: Left claims Summers' scalp
Worshippers robbed during Mass. church service
Police won't ticket lawmakers speeding to work
Older Texans lead state in gun permit applications
Seattle fans set stadium noise record Sunday
Softball coach arrested in '72 cold case murder of infant
World's 1st female Maasai Warrior
CEO to go on food stamps
Moms behaving badly
Clouds ground choppers searching for Colo. flood victims
Girl, 13, won't leave airport, wants job as flight attendant
Brain-eating amoeba found in water supply of La. town
Tropical Storm Humberto re-forms in Atlantic
South Koreans return to joint factory park on border
Thompson concedes Dem mayoral primary to de Blasio
Disqualified Malaysian beauty contestants apologize for insulting Islam
http://www.foxnews.com/


NY Times Headlines 9-16-13
Gunman Said to Be Killed in Deadly Attack at Navy Yard
Thompson Concedes to de Blasio in Mayoral Primary
Chemical Arms Used in Rocket Attack in Syria, U.N. Confirms
Obama Warns Congress Not to Imperil Recovery
Trading Privilege for Privation, and Hitting Nerve
In Italy, Effort to Raise Sunken Cruise Ship
Helicopters Stymied in Colorado Rescue 9:12 AM ET
Factory Park in North Korea Reopens
Turmoil in Egypt Extends to Countryside
A Jersey Shore Institution Meets Disaster Again
In Vietnam, Finding Families Torn Apart
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Democracy Now Headlines 9-16-13
U.S., Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Weapons
Larry Summers Withdraws from Consideration for Federal Reserve Post
Iraq: Scores Killed in Weekend Attacks
Afghanistan: Top Female Police Officer Gunned Down
Children Killed by Suicide Bomber Targeting Afghan-NATO Convoy
Report: Bahrain Routinely Detaining, Beating Children
Mexico: Teachers Form New Protest Encampment After Police Crackdown
Mexico: At Least 21 Killed as Storms Blasts Opposite Coasts
Colorado Floods: 5 Confirmed Dead, Thousands Displaced
NC: Officer Charged in Fatal Shooting of Unarmed Man Who Sought Help After Crash
NYPD Open Fire on Unarmed Man, Injure 2 Bystanders
Judge Orders U.S. to Consider Releasing Docs on NSA Spying
Obama Appoints Millionaire, Former Bain Consultant to Top Economic Post
Democracy Now!


WBAI News Headlines 9-16-13

NYC Mayor's Race (09/16/2013) — New York City mayoral candidate Bill Thompson conceded
New Low-Income Housing (09/16/2013) — New York plans to create low-income housing for 5,000 Medicaid recipients
Birmingham Sunday (09/15/2013) Fifty years ago,... the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was bombed by the Ku Klux Klan. ...
World's Oldest Man Dies (09/15/2013) — The world's oldest man, self-taught musician,
Is the United Nations report on Syria tainted goods? (09/13/2013)
Remembering September 11th (09/11/2013) Register for benefits under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund if you were affected
NY City Council Races (09/11/2013) Many Democratic Council members familiar to WBAI won their districts. T
Mayor's Race (09/11/2013) Public Advocate Bill de Blasio is the top choice in the Democratic mayoral primary.
Exit Polls: NYC Democratic primary voters want a new direction (09/10/2013)
Scattered problems at polling sites (09/10/2013) — New York City's Board of Elections reported scattered problems at polling sites
Drumbeat Towards War: Anti-war Protesters Speak Out (09/09/2013) At an anti-war rally in Times Square over the weekend,
Times Square Rally Against War in Syria (09/07/2013) The U.S. Senate could vote as early as Wednesday to authorize military attacks
Fukushima: Highest Levels Yet (09/07/2013)
http://www.wbai.org/moreheadlines.php
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

By the way what were the half-truths in the article and exactly where does the author scream at us about being blind? I re-read it and could not find anything that even came close to this assertion of the public being blind to the "half-truths".

Death of commercial bee hives? No explanation for why yet? Check.
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?

I assume the "Guest Writer" believes the answer to the death of commercial bee hives must somehow track back to a liberal fix.
And here it is... "I can only assume...."
First off you have know way of knowing what the writer was thinking and besides that there haven't been any suggestion's for any fix by anyone as we don't yet even know the cause. So why on earth would you make that assumption?

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.
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?
 
I could be wrong, but the OP article seems to be the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It definitely smells like one (although I too am unwilling to make the definite assertion to the positive). However, keep in mind that logical fallacies are only failures in logic, NOT repudiation of fact.
 
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?
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.).

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?
Now hold on a moment - you've drawn an invalid conclusion and are now attempting to base statements off it.

First, you acknowledged my dubiousness of the website - because of its published purpose; and of the author - because they declined to identify themselves; and you agreed with me that their credibility as sources is thereby suspect.

Now, I'll admit I took liberties calling their product "lies and propaganda" - but in defense, that was more a rhetorical device and play off their own assessment of "conservative lies and propaganda" than it was an outright assertion, because honestly - and as noted above you've already acknowledged your own skepticism of the site - do you think it entirely implausible that any site which purpose is as in-your-face as theirs is isn't even a tad guilty of the very same themselves?

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 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.

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.
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:
AddictingInfo.Org - About Us said:
"Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads." Source
 
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...
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.

1. Jobs are still going over seas
2. Wealth distribution is still migrating upwards
3. ALEC is in existence and still writes and proposes legislation
4. United states still has the most people incarcerated
5. Blacks are still disproportionately incarcerated in relationship to other ethnicities
6. US Health Care costs are still highest in the world
7. Banks can still make risky investments with insured money
8. Gerry-mandering still happens
9. Republicans fillibustering, fair enough only time will tell but I am not going to hold my breath.
10. Citizen United.... true history it is but it still effects or political process today as it is now law
11. Southern Strategy.... you are correct on this one.... this is history...
12. Tax cut do and continue to overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy
13. Colony Collapse Disorder.... once again this phenomenon continues and it's rate is in fact increasing
14. I don't know enought about the Temporary worker isue. This could be history as well. I am open to education.
15. Media consolidation... yup still there.

Also. could you please point out any reference to Bush in the article? I have re-read it 3 times now due to different people's claims and could not find one.

While I agree the graphs should be as up to date as possible no where was I able to find any assertions that the trends that were being presented in the article have somehow stopped since the Obama presidency. In fact I had gotten the impression that the author was making the claim that they persist along the same trend. But that is just my interpretation. Once again if you can point out where the author claims otherwise I am all ears.

EDIT: In my opening statement I used the word all twice and the phrase "not a one". Both the last instance of the usage of the word "all" and the phrase "not a one" should be changed to "most".
 
Last edited:
"The media" is an enormous apparatus including print, television, A.M.and F.M. radio, internet blogs and other sources dispensing information. It is so enormous that to think it does not represent a cross section of opinion is ridiculous. Just as Americans, themselves, tend to form opinions along a bell curve with moderate apex, so,too does the media.

Those who play entirely in the red zone of one side of the football field or the other complain that the media is too conservative or too liberal. That has everything to do with THEIR position, though, as most of the media game is played between the 40 yard markers.
 
Back
Top Bottom