Pundits, liberals vs. conservatives

[hazlnut]

Cons typically dominate radio and Libs dominate TV its just the way it is.

Not very scientific.

Too many MSM "hosts" flip-flop between journalist and pundit during there broadcast. Fox is starting to drop the whole pretense of being a news outfit.

The tradition of waiting until the end of a broadcast to turn to another camera and give a brief commentary on one specific story is long gone.

Fox devotes more primetime to Opinion shows, which means more punditry -- whereas the networks have 1 hour of local news followed by their 30min. national news broadcast.

Every study on MSM has always shown that, for the most part, they lean left on social issues and right on fiscal/foreign policy--despite what FNC wants you to believe.

 

[Goof Noodle]

I think the better question is what company wants to support a liberal talk radio show? If it wasn't for mooching off the government, NPR would have folded just like Air America.

 

[Donc]

Do you ever listen to, I think it's called the midnight trucker show with hosts Eric umm somebody and ummm somebody else, maybe Gary. Geeze I feel stupid... Anyway I do listen sometimes before I go to sleep. When they talk politics I really do enjoy them.

Yea, that is the midnight trucking radio show, WBAP, that originates out of Dallas/Fort Worth's and is syndicated all over the country.The name your searching for is most likely Eric Harley,who with Gary McNamara host the 12-5 am show.

 

[Barbbtx]

Michael Savage told a caller to "get AIDS and die".

That's not mean at all, right?

Limbaugh says non-profit organization employees are "lazy idiots" and "rapists in terms of finance and economy" | Media Matters for America

And, uh - let's see: the other day Rush Limbaugh called me (as an employee of a not-for-profit) a "fat, lazy idiot" and a "rapist, in terms of the economy".

Mean and hateful much?

Of course, the irony is that this guy who probably weighs at least 100 pounds more than I do, and works three-five hours a day vs. the 80-90 I work from February to May (35, rest of the year). Oh, and the economic impact of what I do is a little more than $1,000,000 annually - the equivalent of creating 31 full-time jobs (not counting the 3 full-time staff at our office and the fact that less than 12% of our expenditures are on salary annually.

So, yeah - I think it's pretty mean and hateful - not to mention that it's a lie not based in fact.

Michael Savage is mean and hateful in my opinion too. I'll give you that one.
You took Rush out of context just like the rest of the media did at that time.Media Matters job is to monitor the right in hopes of finding anything that will get them off the air. They don't care anything about the truth of what someone is saying.They care only how it will sound when played back without playing what led up to it or came after.They have plenty of money from the likes of George Soros to hire the best to spin anything into whatever they want. To get where Rush is coming from you usually have to listen to the whole program. Hec, sometimes I turn him on late and catch him saying something that shocks me and makes ME think he's mean, hateful, or even a racist.Then I have to listen more to get the context of it.
I'm glad to see you are different than most who attack him on his large size and large income....oh wait...

 

[Barbbtx]

Yea, that is the midnight trucking radio show, WBAP, that originates out of Dallas/Fort Worth's and is syndicated all over the country.The name your searching for is most likely Eric Harley,who with Gary McNamara host the 12-5 am show.

Thanks, that's it. They are a great team. WBAP is the station I listen to most.

 

[Josie]

Michael Savage is full of hate and anger. I cannot listen to him.

Mark Levin's voice is unbearable.

There are more conservatives on radio and more liberals on TV. Why? Because more conservatives listen to the radio and more TV producers are liberal? *shrug*

 

[LizardofOz]

I think the better question is what company wants to support a liberal talk radio show? If it wasn't for mooching off the government, NPR would have folded just like Air America.

The suggestion that NPR is liberal is just as silly as when people accuse it of being conservative. It just sucks to hear things how it is to some people I guess. Mooching off the government? So you're suggesting that not one wholly privately owned radio station receives government grants or funds for their massive radio towers for letting other stations use the same tower?

Also while I almost never agree with what either has to say, Michael Savage and Rush are very entertaining to listen to, and I like the BiB jingle...

 

[FilmFestGuy]

I think the better question is what company wants to support a liberal talk radio show? If it wasn't for mooching off the government, NPR would have folded just like Air America.

Good News for NPR: Its Most Listeners Ever - washingtonpost.com

20.9 million listeners? And only about 10% of the funding for all national stations comes from federal government. The total is $420,000,000 for radio and television combined through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB: Operating Budget

I don't mind you saying that you don't like NPR or don't think that government should fund programming. But your statement about them mooching and that they would fold is utterly silly and not terribly factual.

The thing I appreciate most about it is that it is non-commercial. Not to mention that their journalists - the late Daniel Schor, Nina Totenberg, Ari Shapiro, Noah Adams - are all highly-decorated and respected in their various specialties. Totenberg is especially brilliant in her summaries of arguments before the Supreme Court.

Their political affairs opinion shows (largely funded through corporate underwriting and private donations, as well as the local stations that produce them) lean largely liberal, but unlike Conservative talk radio, they at least have guests on who represent opposing views. For instance, Tony Blankley is a frequent guest on the Diane Rehm show's Weekly News Round-up. And if it's not him, there's always at least one conservative voice represented. And what's refreshing about that - is that there is rarely any shouting or mouth-foaming. It's people of opposing views having discussions and disagreements without stooping to insults and chicanery.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Michael Savage is mean and hateful in my opinion too. I'll give you that one.
You took Rush out of context just like the rest of the media did at that time.Media Matters job is to monitor the right in hopes of finding anything that will get them off the air. They don't care anything about the truth of what someone is saying.They care only how it will sound when played back without playing what led up to it or came after.They have plenty of money from the likes of George Soros to hire the best to spin anything into whatever they want. To get where Rush is coming from you usually have to listen to the whole program. Hec, sometimes I turn him on late and catch him saying something that shocks me and makes ME think he's mean, hateful, or even a racist.Then I have to listen more to get the context of it.
I'm glad to see you are different than most who attack him on his large size and large income....oh wait...

I pointed to MediaMatters because they were the first one's to come up on the google search about the quote. But I've read the complete transcript and it's pretty f'ing hateful.

Apparently, those of us who work with the mentally ill, fund research for cures for Muscular Dystrophy, or teach arts education to young people (since schools aren't doing it anymore) are nothing but lazy idiots who rape the economy.

I've been waiting for him to back that statement up or provide evidence of it.

I thought we were supposed to be the ones to do the work that conservatives don't want government to do. Instead, we're now apparently the enemies of America. Because, let's be honest, if Rush says it, the Republican Party isn't far behind in adopting it as a platform. And I've not heard many Republicans trying to refute what he said.

I normally don't really give a rat's ass about Rush, honestly. I don't like him, but I don't really care much about what he does. I'll poke fun at him for his foibles, sure. But I've largely ignored him.

But this time, he's attacked what I do for a living and what I do to make my community and my world a better place - all while working for a salary lower than what I could get if I worked for the corporate machinery (tried it - I hated it). So, sorry - but I take that personally.

 

[German guy]

I think the real problem is not that there is no "balance" and there are more "liberal" or more "conservative" pundits. This question is not even the right question in the first place. That's because facts are neither liberal nor conservative, but either true or false. And because quality does not depend on the leaning. The media is not supposed to tell people what they want to hear, but what's true.

As I see it, the most rampant bias is not a political leaning bias, but a bias towards simplification, polarization and personalization. Conservatives complained the mainstream media lacks quality and has a liberal bias, but instead of calling for a non-biased quality alternative, they got FOX News, which is just as dumb as the mainstream media, just with a conservative bias. The same thing, just algebraic signs reversed.

But a genuine quality report should not ignore facts when they don't confirm the views of those who watch it. A true quality report should name facts when they confirm the political bias of the audience, and name facts that contradict the bias of the audience alike. It should give credit where credit is due, regardless of partisan affiliation. And it should report background information: When a topic is complicated, there should be the time to actually explain it, instead of cutting it down to a few lines or catch phrases. And when a problem is systemic or structural, it should not be simplified by making it to the individual problem of a particular politician/official/party.

As I see it, the main problem is that mass media, especially TV but also radio, often doesn't have the patience to do that, but desperately clings to ratings. But quality reports don't necessarily bring good ratings. That's why they simplify and personalize, bloat up non-issues to lurid scandals, and tell their respective audience what they want to hear, rather than what's true.

The worst thing is this constant call for political "balance". It's absurd in the first place. That is because there are simply not always two equally valid stances on every problem. This satire exemplifies this problem (and may provide a little laugh on this topic too ):



My two cents.

 

[Harshaw]

The media isn't "supposed" to do anything other than what they claim to do.

 

[Harshaw]

The suggestion that NPR is liberal is just as silly as when people accuse it of being conservative.

No, it is thoroughly liberal. I've been listening to it for longer than you've been alive. I enjoy it. I respect it. But it is thoroughly liberal. Sorry. As surely as Fox News is conservative, NPR is liberal.

 

[German guy]

The media isn't "supposed" to do anything other than what they claim to do.

When they claim to inform the public and provide crucial information, then it's what the media is supposed to do, and to enable the people to form educated opinions on political topics. If the media does not even claim any longer to do that, then something is really on the wrong track. And a free political system would not be possible.

 

[Harshaw]

When they claim to inform the public and provide crucial information, then it's what the media is supposed to do, and to enable the people to form educated opinions on political topics. If the media does not even claim any longer to do that, then something is really on the wrong track. And a free political system would not be possible.

"The media" encompasses much more than straight news. "The media" encompasses much more than "informing the public." And "the media" is whatever it wants to be.

 

[German guy]

"The media" encompasses much more than straight news. "The media" encompasses much more than "informing the public." And "the media" is whatever it wants to be.

All true, and you can watch whatever entertainment you like. But when it comes to news, what I said stands. News is part of "the media", after all. An important part. And I don't think anybody here complained about political bias in entertainment programs (which are a matter of taste, which can hardly be debated).

 

[Bereal]

There are more conservative (hate to use that word because it has become inaccurate) pundits. They express opinions. NPR, I read someone say, is liberal? Listen. They do not express opinions. When it isn't wildly in favor of Rep. politics, and contains simply facts, it called "News". People have gotten really used to hearing opinions and forgot what news is. So if it doesn't favor their "team" it's thought to be for the other "team".

 

[FilmFestGuy]

The media isn't "supposed" to do anything other than what they claim to do.

Actually, Freedom of the Press is one of the most vital rights we have in our Constitution.

From Thomas Jefferson: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

They viewed the media as the fourth check on government. Which is sad, because somewhere post-Watergate, the government have become media lapdogs.

I mean, wearing flag pins as we go to war? That's not their job. Their job is to report, investigate, and keep government and business honest.

That was the role envisioned by our forefathers. They fail at that now (not just under Obama - they've failed at it for at least three decades).

 

[Harshaw]

There are more conservative (hate to use that word because it has become inaccurate) pundits. They express opinions. NPR, I read someone say, is liberal? Listen. They do not express opinions. When it isn't wildly in favor of Rep. politics, and contains simply facts, it called "News". People have gotten really used to hearing opinions and forgot what news is. So if it doesn't favor their "team" it's thought to be for the other "team".

What are you talking about? There are many opinion commentators -- and shows -- on NPR. How often do you listen?

 

[FilmFestGuy]

No, it is thoroughly liberal. I've been listening to it for longer than you've been alive. I enjoy it. I respect it. But it is thoroughly liberal. Sorry. As surely as Fox News is conservative, NPR is liberal.

Again, you are probably refering to their opinion or phone-in shows, which do lean liberal. But their news collection and reporting is among the finest, fairest, and most factual in the nation.

 

[Harshaw]

Actually, Freedom of the Press is one of the most vital rights we have in our Constitution.

Thank you for making my point. The "media" is free to define itself however it sees fit. It's not "supposed" to do anything.

 

[Harshaw]

Again, you are probably refering to their opinion or phone-in shows, which do lean liberal. But their news collection and reporting is among the finest, fairest, and most factual in the nation.

I'm referring to the preponderance of everything on the network. As I said, as surely as Fox News is conservative . . .

 

[German guy]

Again, you are probably refering to their opinion or phone-in shows, which do lean liberal. But their news collection and reporting is among the finest, fairest, and most factual in the nation.

I don't really have enough experience with NPR to have an encompassing opinion on their leaning, but when I had the chance to listen to them a few years ago (when I was in the US for two weeks), they at least impressed me with background reports and their refusal to simplify issues down to idiotic one-liners or catch phrases. At least they seem to be trying to escape the dictatorship of the ratings, which often leads the private media to bloat up issues to scandals and to simplify them.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't really have enough experience with NPR to have an encompassing opinion on their leaning, but when I had the chance to listen to them a few years ago (when I was in the US for two weeks), they at least impressed me with background reports and their refusal to simplify issues down to idiotic one-liners or catch phrases. At least they seem to be trying to escape the dictatorship of the ratings, which often leads the private media to bloat up issues to scandals and to simplify them.

Hence, why I enjoy and respect them.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Hence, why I enjoy and respect them.

On that, we can all agree.

 

[Bereal]

When they are such, they call it what it is. And both sides have their say. But on FOX, for example, they call it news when it's definitely not. It is designed to portray opinions as fact. The proof is in the pudding. Look how many people go around thinking President Obama is a muslim. They think it's a fact, right? Because it is portrayed that way and called news. I listen every day; to both.