- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 8, 2011 at 7:49 am #601179
HMC RichParticipantFrom Newsbusters. Occupy movements press coverage is omitting certain items but held Tea Party to a different standard.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/11/07/study-occupier-outrages-omitted
Yes Virginia, there is a liberal bias in the (mainstream) media. You guys won’t admit it.
Now wholeheartedly and pronounce I do agree with this article from the Right.
November 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm #739948
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
jeez.. here we go again.
if you stop drooling over what you think you know and apply a little common sense, you will find that one thing is not like the other.
in the first place, the Occupy movement got almost no press when it started… and when it did get press the numbers were downplayed, not inflated.
unlike the tea party which got press from day one and the numbers were inflated not deflated.
the occupy movement didn’t really begin to get substantial news coverage until local police departments tried to disperse Occupy rallies using force.
Did that happen with any tea party gathering anywhere?
The Occupy movement doesn’t just show up for a rally here or there, it has continuously occupied some public spaces and has consistently gathered day after day or weekend after weekend in others.
did the tea party do that anywhere?
One of these things is not like the other.
and.. if it was…
the article you cite tracks current news coverage for the tea party versus news coverage for the Occupy movement.
If you took out every article that had allegations of police brutality out of the accounting..
Do you think the numbers would still stand up?
what if you compared news coverage for the first few months of the tea party with news coverage for the first few months of the Occupy movement?
Do you think those numbers would still stand up?
well, no.
but you go ahead and drool at all that liberal bias in the media.
just dont’ ask yourself this question.
If the media has such a liberal bias, why hasn’t the mainstream media been all over the tea party candidates who were elected for the pork they have been shoveling towards their political backers?
Do you think it’s because hypocrisy is so rampant that it’s not a story?
Or do you think that mainstream bias might not be as clear as you think it is?
November 8, 2011 at 5:03 pm #739949
dhgParticipantThe media is not liberal, it’s conservative and I’m not just talking fox. King5’s coverage of OWS included a piece on how these people were protesting but no one knew what it was about. They then pulled out passer-bys who were ignorant, people who would say “I don’t know what it’s about”, and end of story. King5 used to be a good news source but ever since Jean Enerson smilingly reported that a “suspected terrorist” had been rendered to a different country where torture is legal, I’ve given up on them.
November 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm #739950
rwParticipantFor additional perspectives on the news, I first check the following:
I also get interesting perspectives from:
Finally, Jon Stewart did an interesting segment on coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests vs. coverage of the Tea Party:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration
November 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm #739951
kootchmanMemberIt’s camp-o-rama. Hope all are having fun.
November 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm #739952
SmittyParticipantThe sheer volume of stories on the Hermain Cain accusations compared to the same lack of reporting when the Clinton accusations FIRST came out is staggering. Not even close. That alone is enought proof for me.
November 11, 2011 at 1:54 am #739953
HMC RichParticipantLets play a game.
Do you think the media is far left, moderately left, Middle of the Road, moderately right, far right for the following companies
NBC
CBS
ABC
PBS
ABC RADIO
SALEM RADIO
FOX NEWS RADIO
CBS RADIO
CNN
Fox News
MSNBC
NY Post,
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
Seattle Times
LA Times
Daily Kos
Huffington Post
Politico
Media Matters
Drudge Report
Newsbusters
Real Clear Politics
Seattle PI
West Seattle Blog
Rolling Stone
Time
Newsweek
The Economist
Democracy Now
Mother Jones
And please add some that I have forgotten. It will be interesting to see how we view what we read, watch and listen to and what we do not.
November 11, 2011 at 2:20 am #739954
metrognomeParticipantnot sure your comparison could be more simplistic, smitty, given that when Clinton was in the news, the media game was considerably different: the internet was still in its infancy as a ‘news reporting’ outlet, there were fewer blogs, Fox News and Rupert Morebucks hadn’t really started foaming at the mouth yet, etc. I mean heck, let’s talk about the pass the media gave Eisenhower for his (alleged) affair.
Given the spectacle of all those Republicans slobbering all over themselves trying to convict Clinton of having sex with someone other than his wife, I would say you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Apologies to Bachman Turner Overdrive.
November 11, 2011 at 2:35 am #739955
DBPMemberRich: At first flush, I would say that your list includes slightly more liberal news sources than conservative ones. But it seems that there are plenty of both, so no matter where you are on the spectrum, you should always be able to find a news outlet that confirms what you already know to be true.
(Whew!)
November 11, 2011 at 4:22 am #739956
redblackParticipantand can we please put fox news channel and fox news radio under the same umbrella: newscorp?
same for NBC and msnbc.
come on, dude. the media isn’t liberal.
it’s corporate.
November 11, 2011 at 4:27 am #739957
JoBParticipantredblack..
“come on, dude. the media isn’t liberal.
it’s corporate. “
and therein lies the rub :(
November 11, 2011 at 5:51 am #739958
HMC RichParticipantYes, but is there balance? People run those bureaus. And ABC, NBC, and CBS are not middle of the road. Local reporting is different. In fact at times clueless when the shows are being produced by less seasoned producers. But they learn.
I would say there is more than enough sources out there to support or contradict what many of us believe.
I also know that words have meaning and leaving out terms can deceive.
I will say this. After Watergate there seemed to be a growing “gotcha” mentality. Then the cable news services really got our attention with Desert Storm, WACO and OJ. Talk about really amping things up.
I like Fox News. I used to like CNN but it changed and so did I. As I became more conservative my tastes changed. I like all the options out there and the public is better for it.
But please, media watchdogs like Media Matters are not centrist. Neither is Newsbusters and if you think they are, you are wrong.
We are fortunate that the news on this Blog is news. There is not a bias. Thanks WS Blog. I can’t say that about most of the other sources of news and information out there.
November 11, 2011 at 5:52 am #739959
HMC RichParticipantLet me ask you this. Do you find in your daily lives people pushing progressive, middle of the road, or conservative ideology?
I personally feel that progressive thought is more prevalent in the Seattle area. In fact I get funny looks from people when I say, Sorry, but I don’t agree with you and I think you are wrong, just because many West Seattlites think that most everyone is progressive or independent. Naturally this is a more liberal area and I expect it, but I personally would not wear a Tea Party symbol on my lapel, but I most certainly see Occupy Seattle pins. I see hundreds of Obama stickers and hardly any other. In fact I rarely see any bumper stickers from people supporting the right wingers. But when I go into Eastern Washington, boy does it change.
If anyone challenges me that this isn’t a left wing haven, then I say to you, look at who you elect. They are usually some form of Democrat. It is so humorous to look at their endorsement and see the 34th District Democrats, AFL-CIO, IBEW 46 etc., but It is very rare to see conservative support.
Considering how many democrats have been elected since the 80’s, how come you guys aren’t more satisfied?
November 11, 2011 at 9:41 am #739960
kootchmanMemberHow inconvenient. It might take effort to source multiple information streams. It may also involve some powers of discernment. That is why the Occupy movement is standing around pretty much accomplishing nothing. Oh they have latched on to a few jingoisms… Generally, Wall street is bad… or blame the banks..or tax anyone but me… it’s simple to repeat over and over again. They are like bleeting sheep waiting for the shepherd to move them en masse. Whoever has the simplest message, requires the least amount of intellectual rigor, and absolves the herd of any collective responsibility for getting stranded next to cliff fall off, will generally lead the flock. While they still have rights undreamed of in the rest of the world, it is too much of a task to use them. I read to post election editorials..even the editorial board expressed it…. “we always vote for more taxes”… and indeed we do. Then wonder where our disposable income is? They can’t make the connection that a levy on rental property incomes..adding another $ 24 per month taxes means…your rent is going to go up at least $45 per month. Ask an occupier, any of them holding an “evil bank”poster who is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.. or even better, what does it do? The vacuous look will tell all. Maybe the Tea Party was purpose driven, got the job done, and didn’t have to hang out in a daze of ineffectual confusion for months on end. It’s called purposeful, goal oriented organizing. You are so dead on JoB one is not like the other.
November 11, 2011 at 1:40 pm #739961
redblackParticipantrich: in a perfect world, there would be no need for media matters or newsbusters.
you may think we’re better off for the “choices” we have in media (news? it ain’t) but i don’t.
these media companies have too much power – namely the power to make or break political candidates. they’re also the reason why elections are so damned expensive.
but is media bent left, right, or center? i tend to think it’s bent right, because corporate interests more often align with conservative politics.
have you ever wondered why boeing and the oil and natural gas lobby advertise on the big cable “news” outlets? what, am i going to go out and buy a 787? or an oil platform?
they do that so that the media doesn’t run stories that paint them in an unfavorable light. because every broadcaster knows that you never disparage your biggest sponsors.
November 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm #739962
SmittyParticipant“not sure your comparison could be more simplistic, smitty, given that when Clinton was in the news, the media game was considerably different:”
Take the changes out of it and focus on the big three plus cable then. Huge difference on coverage between the Cain accusations and the Clinton accusations. Just to be clear I am not talking about five years later and impeachment. I’m talking about when he was running for President the first time. Hillary’s “stand by your man” quote on 60 minutes timeline. There were many allegations out there at the time and they received nowhere near the coverage these Cain allegations are getting. Not even close. When they did, they were referred to as trailer trash.
November 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm #739963
cadburyParticipantWell at that point presidential affairs were not covered in the news. Many presidents had afairs and mistresses (sorry Barbara) but the press considered it to be off limits to reporting. Maybe they had a sense of decency about it…
Also, consensual sex outside of your marriage (not illegal) is a lot different that alleged repeated sexual harassment (illegal)
November 11, 2011 at 4:51 pm #739964
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
whenyou listen mainly to conservative news broadcasters.. anything left of them must look lefty to you.
you have to listen to real news liberal broadcasters with a actual liberal bent before you can see that the center has been nudging into right territory for some time.
Of course, you can listen to any newscast you want and still find the news as long as you question what you hear and look beyond the assumptions it contains.
November 11, 2011 at 5:16 pm #739965
kootchmanMembercadbury..I repeat a story..on the isle of Siracusia..the fellahs were lined up on fleet landing to the whore houses. Too many US ships in port due to a malfunction. Fight breaks out. Next morning, the old man (caotain of the ship) calls all hands down to the well deck for an ass chewing, He dismissed the single men to be handled at the small unit level, Then proceeded to tear into the married dudes..his point… “your swore an oath of fidelity when you joined, it was the same god you swore to, when you took your marriage vows”… I will take note of the value of your oaths. Character counts. It’s all part of the mix, the measure of a man, or a woman.
November 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm #739966
DBPMemberA totally unbiased news source is a pipe dream, so why are we fussing about it? Thoughtful people form judgments based on information gathered from a variety of sources including:
1) Those who agree with them.
2) Those who disagree with them.
3) History books.
4) Personal observation.
5) Experience.
All this arguing about what the media is seems like wasted breath.
The media ARE liberal.
The media ARE conservative.
The media ARE corporate.
So what?
November 11, 2011 at 5:35 pm #739967
JoBParticipantDBP..
i agree that we should think for ourselves..
but would point out that out of the 30+ news organizations listed by HMCRich…
the actual liberal voices could be counted on the fingers of less than one hand…
and you would be generous if you counted those with a “liberal bias” on both hands.
the truth is that a lie is perceived as truth if it is repeated often enough.
common wisdom often contains no wisdom at all.
media does matter
November 11, 2011 at 5:52 pm #739968
cadburyParticipantKootchman. I agree that character counts.
I was just commenting on why there was a dipsarity between the initial coverage of Clinton’s affair and Cain’s alleged sexual harrassment.
Prior to Clinton the press did not report on president’s mistresses. I’m not saying it’s right, it’s just how it was.
November 11, 2011 at 6:33 pm #739969
DBPMemberof the 30+ news organizations listed by HMCRich… the actual liberal voices could be counted on the fingers of less than one hand… —JoB
1) NBC (Home of Mssr. Olberman)
2) Washington Post (Brought down Nixon. ‘Nuff said)
3) Huff Post (Liberal as they come.)
4) Daily Kos (Ditto)
5) Rolling Stone (Home of Hunter Thompson. ‘Nuff said.)
6) Democracy Now (One hour of pure TV/Radio liberalism. Daily.)
7) Mother Jones (Liberal Mothership)
8) Seattle PI (Kind of a liberal Nat. Enquirer)
9) I stopped counting at the easy ones.
(Notice that I’m not even counting PBS – One-time home of Bill Moyers.)
Geez, Jo . . . How many fingers you got on one hand anyhow?
November 11, 2011 at 6:52 pm #739970
JanSParticipantnit picking here..there is no “isle of Syracusia”. There is an isle of Sicily, and Syracusa is a city there…is that what you meant, Kman? If you’re going to tell a story, make sure it’s factual :)
November 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm #739971
dawsonctParticipantWashington Post (Charles Krauthammer, George Will. Watergate was a LOOOOONG time ago, and the WaPo is HARDLY the progressive voice it was when Ben Bradley steered that ship)
Rolling Stone (P.J. O’Rourke. Need I go farther? H.S. Thompson would have probably considered himself a libertarian. They DO provide a platform for Matt Taibi, a writer all Americans should pay attention to).
Thanks to Cadbury for pointing out the difference between a sexual peccadillo and sexual assault.
Just wondering, do our “conservative, fiscally responsible Republicans” on this board ever consider the $70+Million that the Republicans wasted over the eight years of Clinton’s Presidency, investigating every aspect of his life trying to bring his Presidency to it’s knees, only to arrive at the point of finding out he had an affair. BFD. I consider anyone who strays from their obligations of their marriage vows as being somewhat morally week, but I don’t think that I want anyone in my government wasting that much time and money to turn up what really is only a matter to be resolved by the people involved.
And then Republicans turn around and give the David Vitters, Newt Gingrich’s, Larry Craig’s, Mark Sanford’s of their Party applause, huzzahs, and slaps on the back.
Republican’s, the Party of moral relativism.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.