How do you know when the media is finally leaning to the right?

[Little-Acorn]

A lot of people say the mainstream media (newspapers, TV, movies) have a large leftward slant. I'm one of those people. Others say it's unbiased, and a very few like to go around claiming it leans to the right.

How do you know when a show leans to the right? I.E., has a conservative slant?

My idea of a right-leaning show (hypothetical example) would be a movie that starts off showing a number of families in poverty. One guy is a salesman, another is a doctor, another works at a nearby auto plant, another drives a bulldozer, etc. There are some homeless around.

The movie goes into their family lives, generally fairly happy except they can't have roast beef for dinner, can't go on a nice vacation, Junior needs braces but can't get them, etc. The local high school has old computers that keep breaking down, old books, there's a leaky roof. The doctor has four kids in a 3br home, and would buy a larger home if he didn't have to pay $50,000/yr in medical malpractice insurance, despite having a perfect record: no medical accidents, no doctor-induced maladies, no lawsuits.

Then their state elects a conservative majority into the state legislature, along with a conservative governor. Media hands fly up in horror as the papers etc. start predicting that health care will be taken from everyone, the number of homeless will triple, state unemployment will be cut, all the usual screams.

First thing the new legislature does, is cut the state income tax rate in half, eliminate the state corporate income tax and capital-gains tax, and put in place a requirement that people who get 2 years of unemployment must then get off the unemployment rolls and get a job for at least one year afterward. Finally, they pass tort-reform laws preventing huge punitive awards against people whose acts were without malice or gross negligence. The governor applauds and signs them all into law. The screams intensify, the headlines are filled with the usual heartless-conservative-greedy-capitalist-pig denunciations.

Next scene: In a corporate boardroom somewhere, the big cheeses of some major company are discussing how to make more money, of course. They remark how that's their job, and if they don't make money, the thousands of people whose retirement plans are invested in their stock, will lose lots of benefits; and, of course, the shareholders will vote the big cheeses out and vote in someone else who WILL make money and make the stock price and dividends climb.

One big cheese points out that this state in the middle of the country, just eliminated their corporate income tax and cap-gains tax. They go over the numbers, and realize that if they had a plant or two in that state, they would save the 10% of their budget that normally goes for those taxes. In other words, they could produce their products for 10% less expenditures. This means they could sell the same product for 5% less, and they'd wind up selling more products while making 5% MORE money on each product. They rub their hands in glee, light up big cigars, pop open the champagne, and start making plans.

Back in the families' homes, news comes that a new automobile plant will open at the edge of town. Three new electronics plants will move there, and the railroad is making plans to replace the small building next to the track, with a modern terminal and put in a freight yard near the automobile plant. Other companies start making plans to open branches near the coming freight yard, taking advantage of the low-to-nonexistent taxes and convenient shipping.

A new construction company sets up a branch office nearby and starts advertising for carpenters, heavy equipment operators, etc. Since the town is fairly small, not enough people apply. So the construction company starts offering higher wages to try to attract skilled workers, and the guy who drives the bulldozer tells his boss he may change jobs. His boss doesn't want to lose workers with the expected construction boom coming up, and so matches the other comapny's offer, giving the bulldozer driver a 50% raise if he'll agree to train other new drivers and become the head of a new team. He goes home and opens a champagne bottle with his family, while his boss hires five new people (including two former homeless who are faced with losing their benefits next year), knowing he'll make up the added payroll expenditures with the fat contracts he's starting to sign with the new companies, and old companied who are starting to expand to meet the increasing demands.

The salesman suddenly finds himself swamped with orders as new people begin moving into town, buying appliances, homebuilding supplies, gardening supplies, etc. He hires a couple of young assistants to help cope with the flood. Together they open a champagne bottle to celebrate the new business.

The doctor starts getting more people coming in for routine physicals, car-accident injuries, babies being born, and flu bugs. And he nearly falls off his chair when his medical-malpractice insuance rated drop by half, due to the company no longer having to pay out ridiculous sums for injuries that prudent medical practice could not have reasonably forseen. He starts handing out champagne bottles to all his patients on their birthdays and Christmas, as well as doubling his contributions to charities.

The pattern continues. More and more people are doing more business. People are getting hired, wages are going up, roads and houses and stores are getting built, etc. The movie concludes with people reflecting on their newfound fortunes, and wondering what started the big boom, which seems to just keep on rolling along. They are in higher tax brackets now, and so even with the lower state income tax rates, they are paying just as much in taxes, including the sales taxes they are paying on all the new stuff they are buying that they couldn't before. There's a brief flashback to the scene where the votes from the past election are being counted, and legislature votes cutting tax rates are being called. The only downturns are among the newspaper companies, whose copies with lurid headlines decrying the greedy, heartless capitalist pigs lie moldering in their newsstands, unsold, as people walk by, laughing and rolling their eyes.

When we start getting movies like that, then you'll know that the mainstream media is starting to take on a conservative slant.

Seen a movie like that, yet?

I thought not.

Anybody want to describe what other signs there might be, if and when the media starts becoming conservative?

 

[The Mark]

That would be a great movie.

It would be even greater if such could occur in real life.

But with the people we put in charge, it seems extremely unlikely.

 

[duretti]

Well, when people talk about media bias, they are generally refering to the news media. The right/left slant will depend on how you define the terms and where you think the middle is.

For example, if you call extreme rightwingers (by international standards) such as the american democrat party "leftwing", then it is possible, in certain instances, to demonstrate a leftwing slant in the media.

What is obvious, however is a massive pro-establishment (and I am far left of the establishment) bias, usually so accepted that it is accepted as a given across the mainstream politcal spectrum. See my thread on coverage of the iraq war for an illustration: http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/16869-they-arent-cheering-loud-enough.html

A good and brief article on the overwhelming acceptance of pro-establishment hipocracy in the coverage of the war on terror:
The Journalist from Mars (a talk given at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's fifteenth anniversary celebration in New York City on January 23, 2002) from the book Media Control by Noam Chomsky

And a more detailed investigation:
Necessary Illusions

 

[duretti]

Though, if we want to talk about movies, lets compare the number and prominence of jingoist vietnam/WWII movies to that of ones portraying the struggles of conscientious objectors and socialist revolutionaries in a positive light. I wonder what we will find? :lol:

Btw, If you are interested in fiction exactly like what you describe, try ayn rand.

 

[Progressive Conservative]

Great first post. What you are describing is something that the sheltered left just doesn't get or want to understand.

I have one. How about a blockbuster movie around the following:

America has been under attack around the world. Its embassies were being destroyed, its soldiers (on food distribution missions) were being killed, and its naval ships were being attacked. All while a complacent president (Clinton) turned a blind eye. A new president is elected and in the first few months of the new president's term we were attacked for the first time on our own soil.

The new president, determined not to be complacent like his predessor, was determined to go on the offensive as opposed to fighting a defensive war. In a single swoop he turns Pakistan into a willing ally (which had the significant side effect of stabalizing the Pakistan-India nuclear cold war going on) and invaded Afghanistan (and crushing an ally of our enemy).

Not content to fighting the symptoms only, but going after the root cause of the conflict, he orchestrates the invasion of Iraq to liberate the Iraqis and provide an American foothold against the primary enemy... Iran.

From here, you can go two directions (perhaps we have a directors cut with two endings).

The herioc version:

Americans from all walks of life band together (much like the greatest generation in WWII) and see the war all the way through to a regime change in Iran and the downfall of militant Islam.... a new "greatest" generation is born and we see peace and liberty spread throughout the world.

The tragedy:

In the background would be the constant naysayers who had forgotten 911 and who lamented every mistake made in the war. Their constant undermining of the war effort eventually led to an American defeat in Iraq and the ascent of militant Islam throughout the middle east. Iran becomes a world power and we witness the beginning of the end of western democracy.

If we see that movie, it will officially be the end of media bias.

 

[Willow]

I think we'll know when the media stops leaning to the left when they stop doing their in depth reporting on the real effects of this war on the military..you know our housing shortages, our lack of decent medical care, the soldiers who qualify for food stamps, the constant showing of the coffins and funerals of our war dead, the psychological ramifications on our soldiers, the total exhaustion of soldiers who are being deployed and deployed and deployed...I mean the Walter Reed problem has been going on for years and those damn liberal media types have been all over it for years and years...oh wait a minute...never mind.:roll:

 

[niftydrifty]

Little Acorn, the media do have a pervasive rightward slant.

My idea of a left-leaning newspaper (hypothetical example) would be a newspaper that didn't have a "business" section, but instead had a "labor" section.

Seen a mainstream newspaper like that, yet?

I thought not.

I'd be happy to discuss it with you in full, in a private debate. Let me know if you're interested.

I think we'll know when the media stops leaning to the left when they stop doing their in depth reporting on the real effects of this war on the military..you know our housing shortages, our lack of decent medical care, the soldiers who qualify for food stamps, the constant showing of the coffins and funerals of our war dead, the psychological ramifications on our soldiers, the total exhaustion of soldiers who are being deployed and deployed and deployed...I mean the Walter Reed problem has been going on for years and those damn liberal media types have been all over it for years and years...oh wait a minute...never mind.

In other words, the media will stop leaning to the left when the media starts lying, or starts suppressing news.

If we see that movie, it will officially be the end of media bias.

There will be no end to bias. This is because the media are operated by people. The "end of bias," according to you would be a rightward bias.

 

[Voidwar]

Little Acorn, the media do have a pervasive rightward slant.

Ludicrously false assertion.

My idea of a left-leaning newspaper (hypothetical example) would be a newspaper that didn't have a "business" section, but instead had a "labor" section.

Seen a mainstream newspaper like that, yet?

Just because you are a nut doesn't mean acorn has to be

There is a labor section, most refer to it as the Help Wanted Section.

Your newspaper hypothetical proves nothing, and your initial assertion is 180 degrees from correct.

 

[niftydrifty]

This message is hidden because Voidwar is on your ignore list.

 

[Iriemon]

I have thought the MSM was leaning right for years. The slobbered all over themselves supporting the invasion of Iraq. When do you ever hear mention of the $3 trillion debt Bush has run up (but they lap up his BS claims of halving the deficits) much less things likes national health care, legalizing marajuana or the death penalty.

 

[Voidwar]

This message is hidden because Voidwar is on your ignore list.

Choosing ignorance, how completely unsurprising.

 

[Willow]

In other words, the media will stop leaning to the left when the media starts lying, or starts suppressing news.

I was being sarcastic, my point was that the media is leaning to the right already or we would hear about the real issues facing our service members who are supposedly taken good care of under a conservative gov't. They don't report on any of those things and the Walter Reed issue has been going on for years but has only recently made it to the front page.

 

[AcePylut]

If the media was leaning right, we'd see a huge uproar over Bill Maher's comments.

Instead, you know the media's leaning far left, when Coulter's comments (a slur against a predominantly far left leaning political fringe group which was directed at democrat) receives far more media play and disdain than Bill Maher's comments (a death wish implication directed towards the Vice President of the USA, who happens to be a Republican).

 

[AcePylut]

I was being sarcastic, my point was that the media is leaning to the right already or we would hear about the real issues facing our service members who are supposedly taken good care of under a conservative gov't. They don't report on any of those things and the Walter Reed issue has been going on for years but has only recently made it to the front page.

That's because they were too busy pumping up anyone preaching against the Iraq war, like Cindy Sheehan (all the while ignoring the whacked out comments made by this woman, or the pro-Iraq stance of the rest of her family.)

But now, the troop surge seems to be working quite well, we are hearing nothing about the positive effect it's had in the last month in Baghdad, and instead the media is focusin on the Walter Reed scandal so we can be fed with even more "Bush-hate" journalism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Though, if we want to talk about movies, lets compare the number and prominence of jingoist vietnam/WWII movies to that of ones portraying the struggles of conscientious objectors and socialist revolutionaries in a positive light. I wonder what we will find? :lol:

Btw, If you are interested in fiction exactly like what you describe, try ayn rand.

Well first you say read something by Chomsky and then you say to portray "social revolutionaries" in a positive light, how exactly would one portray apologists for the Cambodian and North Vietnamese perpetrated genocides in a positive light?

 

[niftydrifty]

I was being sarcastic, my point was that the media is leaning to the right already or we would hear about the real issues facing our service members who are supposedly taken good care of under a conservative gov't. They don't report on any of those things and the Walter Reed issue has been going on for years but has only recently made it to the front page.

I don't get it, Willow. I didn't get your joke. The reason is because the media do report on all the things you mentioned, almost constantly. Except for showing coffins. They're not allowed to.

If the media was leaning right, we'd see a huge uproar over Bill Maher's comments.

Bill Maher, is, like, a, yknow, a ... comedian. This means that everything he says is, uh, not serious. He delivers his remarks in a spirit of levity.

Ann Coulter is (considered to be) a pundit. When Ann addresses a Republican event and calls someone a derogatory name, and doesn't speak about policies or issues, it's not really an ideal form of discourse. Yknow?

There is no comparison.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't get it, Willow. I didn't get your joke. The reason is because the media do report on all the things you mentioned, almost constantly. Except for showing coffins. They're not allowed to.

Bill Maher, is, like, a, yknow, a ... comedian. This means that everything he says is, uh, not serious. He delivers his remarks in a spirit of levity.

Ann Coulter is (considered to be) a pundit. When Ann addresses a Republican event and calls someone a derogatory name, and doesn't speak about policies or issues, it's not really an ideal form of discourse. Yknow?

There is no comparison.

Maher may be a Comedian but his show is purely political in nature, he is just as much of a pundit as Colbert and Stewart.

 

[niftydrifty]

Maher may be a Comedian ...

true.

...but his show is purely political in nature, ...

right, and he's a comedian.

...he is just as much of a pundit as Colbert and Stewart.

two things.

#1. This was never the point. AcePylut sought to compare Coulter and Maher.

#2. The media don't crucify Colbert and Stewart for their comments either. They're comedians.

 

[AcePylut]

Regardless of if one tries to deliver their message with "humor" or with "venom", they are both two peas in the same pod. Political pundits. One political pundit tried to suggest that Edwards was a "******". The other tried to suggest killing the Vice President. You decide which is worse, calling someone a ******, or wishing death upon someone.

The media "didn't crucify" Maher (when they should have, 100 times worse than Coulter), but to say that media doesn't crucify someone because they call themselves "comedians" is faulty. Mike Richards is a so-called "comedian", and got crucified for his comments. Rightfully so. Saying that all one has to do is call themselves a "comedian" to get off the hook of media crucifixation is a faulty statement. Maher implied death upon the president (much more blatantly than Coulter implied Edwards was a "******"), and got off scott free, while Coulter is being butchered. Ridiculous lack of priorities on what's important, what's worse, and what matters. And people want to say that the media is "not biased" or "right wing biased"? Shees.

 

[AcePylut]

Sometimes, all you have to do is listen, which I do to CBS morning radio on my drive to work.

Without a fault, whenever Pres Bush comes up, the announcer ALWAYS adopts a low, ominous sounding voice to say President Bush. But whenever a Bush opponent is spoken of, the tone becomes much more cheery and non-threatening.

Oh one can go and print the transcript of the spoken word, and you've lose the tone with which those words were delivered... when the tone, inflection, and emphasis of the spoken word is part and parcel of that means of communication.

 

[duretti]

Well first you say read something by Chomsky and then you say to portray "social revolutionaries" in a positive light, how exactly would one portray apologists for the Cambodian and North Vietnamese perpetrated genocides in a positive light?

1. Chomsky is a socialist writer, not a revolutionary. Socialist Revolutionaries are the boys with red fags and kalatchinakovs, not elderly professors at MIT. Movies which portray, say, the spanish FAI-CNT, or ukrainian Makhnovists with the same glamour and prominence as holywood portrays the US military in vietnam was what I was thinking of (obviously nonexistant because of massive and imbedded rightwing bias :mrgreen: ).

2. I would very much like to hear a definition of an apologist for cambodian/vietnamese genocide, then see you demonstrate how chomsky fits it. As I understand it, chomsky was investigating the coverage of *what he saw as attrocities* commited by official US enemies (the khymer rouge), and the coverage of similar attrocities committed by official US allies (East Timor) using US supplied weapons - then comparing the two to test his theory of the media. In doing this he found, and exposed, lying exagerations (later admitted to by their author) in the coverage of the khymer rouge attrocities. Exposing the truth was then widely declared "apologism" by the chomsky haters, and baseless rumour has circulated ever since.

Necessary Illusions: Appendix I [7/15]
He discusses his analysis of, (and repeatedly condemns) the khymer rouge attrocities here. Some apologist.

 

[duretti]

3. Vietnam movies seem to show exactly how one could portray not only apologists for attrocities, but the perpetrators themselves, in a positive light.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

1. Chomsky is a socialist writer, not a revolutionary. Socialist Revolutionaries are the boys with red fags and kalatchinakovs, not elderly professors at MIT. Movies which portray, say, the spanish FAI-CNT, or ukrainian Makhnovists with the same glamour and prominence as holywood portrays the US military in vietnam was what I was thinking of (obviously nonexistant because of massive and imbedded rightwing bias :mrgreen: ).

2. I would very much like to hear a definition of an apologist for cambodian/vietnamese genocide, then see you demonstrate how chomsky fits it. As I understand it, chomsky was investigating the coverage of *what he saw as attrocities* commited by official US enemies (the khymer rouge), and the coverage of similar attrocities committed by official US allies (East Timor) using US supplied weapons - then comparing the two to test his theory of the media. In doing this he found, and exposed, lying exagerations (later admitted to by their author) in the coverage of the khymer rouge attrocities. Exposing the truth was then widely declared "apologism" by the chomsky haters, and baseless rumour has circulated ever since.

Necessary Illusions: Appendix I [7/15]
He discusses his analysis of, (and repeatedly condemns) the khymer rouge attrocities here. Some apologist.

lmfao sure thing, he was a supporter of the North Vietnamese and an apologist for the Khmer Rouge:

"Yesterday and today, my friends and I visited Tanh Hoa province. There we were able to see at first hand the constructive work of the social revolution of the Vietnamese people. We saw luxurious fields and lovely countryside. We saw brave men and women who know how to defend their country from brutal aggression, but also to work with pride and with dignity to build a society of material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments.
"We also saw the ruins of dwellings and hospitals, villages mutilated by savage bombardments, craters disfiguring the peaceful countryside. In the midst of the creative achievements of the Vietnamese people, we came face to face with the savagery of a technological monster controlled by a social class, the rulers of the American empire, that has no place in the 20th century, that has only the capacity to repress and murder and destroy.
"We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and defiant, and carved on the bills above we read the words, 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny.
"This is my first visit to Vietnam. Nevertheless, since the moment when we arrived at the airport at Hanoi, I've had a remarkable and very satisfying feeling of being entirely at home. It is as if we are renewing old friendships rather than meeting new friends. It is as if we are returning to places that have a deep and personal meaning.
"In part, this is because of the warmth and the kindness with which we have been received, wherever we have gone. In part, it is because for many years we have wished all our strength and will to stand beside you in your struggle. We are deeply grateful to you that you permit us to be part of your brave and historical struggle. We hope that there will continue to be strong bonds of comradeship between the people of Vietnam and the many Americans who wish you success and who detest with all of their being the hateful activities of the American government.
"Those bonds of friendship are woven of many strands. From our point of view there is first of all the deep sympathy that we felt for the suffering of the Vietnamese people, which persists and increases in the southern part of your country, where the American aggression continues in full force.
"There is, furthermore, a feeling of regret and shame that we must feel because we have not been able to stop the American war machine. More important still is our admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society.
"But, above all, I think, is the feeling of pride. Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will. Decent people throughout the world see in your struggle a model for themselves. They are in your debt, everlastingly, because you were in the forefront of the struggle to create a world in which the chains of oppression have been broken and replaced by social bonds among free men working in true solidarity and cooperation.
"Your courage and your achievements teach us that we too must be determined to win--not only to win the battle against American aggression in Southeast Asia, but also the battle against exploitation and racism in our own country.
"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.

"While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by Le Duan on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements. Thank you." - Noam Chomsky, originally delivered on April 13, 1970 in Hanoi while he was visiting North Vietnam with a group of anti-war activists. Broadcast by Radio Hanoi on April 14, and published in the _Asia-Pacific Daily Report_ of the U.S. government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, April 16, 1970, pages K2-K3.
No Treason - Noam Chomsky: Viet Cong Cheerleader by Tim Starr

he deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the [SIZE=-1]US[/SIZE] war, or other such factors.

The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky by Keith Windschuttle

 

[duretti]

I see you have not provided a definition of an appologist. Chomsky claims to have never made that speech, and there are many who argue that it was fabricated by the north vietnamese authorities to help legitimise their cause (the north vietnamese authorities are the only source of this speech - hardly a reliable one). The language is very uncharacteristc of chomsky, as he takes great pains to avoid/rephrase marxist jargon like "proletariat", but very characteristic of north vietnamese govt propaganda.

If you know anything about chomsky, you will know that he is an anarchist. You are right that chomsky supported the north vietnamese, but he certainly didnt support their government (anarchists reject the right wing conflation of government and people, and tend to see this as a *very* important distinction). No where does he support attrocities, and no where does he express solidarity with the government or heirarchical military who perpetrated them. If chomsky did make the speech, then the worst it could imply is that chomsky saw the north vietnamese govt as a lesser evil to the US client state - not at all an unreasonable position.

Clearly many of the deaths in cambodia *were* the result of "peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, and other such factors".

 

[Billo_Really]

As far as mainstream US news, liberal media is a myth! There is no such thing. The media has a definate slant right, and it is a major unrealistic slant right. If you disagree, show me a liberal owned corporation that is the parent company to a US media outlet.

All the major news outlets are owned by mega-corporations which are conservative. They are not going to broadcast anything that isn't in line with company policy.

A thing to remember when watching TV media:
Everything you see on TV, you're meant too!