From the WSJ’s Political Diary:
According to Rasmussen, fully 68% of voters believe that “most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win.” And — no surprise — 49% of those surveyed believe reporters are backing Barack Obama, while just 14% think the media is in the tank for Sen. McCain.
Meanwhile, 51% of those surveyed thought the press was “trying to hurt” Mrs. Palin with its coverage.
Perhaps most troubling for the press corps, though, was this finding: “55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations.”
Wow. Politicians like to rail about the nefarious influence of money on politics (and John McCain is a champion in this regard), a stance that always elicits applause from reporters. Ask the public, though, and a bigger problem is the media’s own influence.
I’ve written about this enough that a long dissertation on the problems of media bias isn’t really necessary — though I will reiterate that a media that purports to be objective and uses that ostensible objectivity as a shield to guard itself against attack, is a very real danger to a democratic republic, whose citizens rely on the press for the information necessary to make informed decisions.
I am not against bias per se: honest advocacy of one’s viewpoint is hardly troubling to the free exchange of ideas; so if our press were to suddenly admit to its leanings, the market would demand other voices come along to express the opposite leanings.
But as it stands now, we have a mainstream press that clearly tilts leftward — as a number of studies, as well as public perception can attest — and yet it continues to be allowed to operate under the pretense of objectivity, which is enough to influence a not insignificant number of citizens raised to believe that our press is both objective and (in the post Watergate years), in many ways heroic.
Looks like McCain-Feingold went after the wrong “reform.” Perhaps McCain-Palin will serve us better.
(h/t Terry H)
[…] the American people are looking for low-priced arugula and healthy fruit for the children. He goes on about Republican rock throwing by proxy. Heh. Posted by Dan Collins @ 2:55 pm | Trackback Share […]
> we have a mainstream press that clearly tilts leftward  as a number of studies, as well as public perception can attest
Is there a roundup of the relevant study results anywhere on the Web?
Here’s one of the many, anonymous mick.
Ah, but Murdoch owns the WSJ and he’s in the tank for the GOP. Ipso facto, the bias against bias is biased.
Meanwhile, important questions need to be answered.
I’m on the way out the door, so I can’t get into this as deeply as I’d like to right now, but I wanted to dash off one quick point.
Every now and then one of the LAT columnists does a piece defending the paper against allegations of pro-Democrat bias. (Of course the bias is ridiculously blatant, but some of the Times’ columnists bought into the DKos theory that McCain would pull an Eagleton on Palin, so there’s a clue as to how out of touch they are with the Right.)
One of the apologists’ favorite tricks is to quantify how many stories the paper ran on the Republican versus how many they ran on the Democrat. Obviously, this approach does not take into account the fact that the coverage of Democrats ranges from neutral to blowing-air-kisses while the coverage of Republicans is almost 100% negative. By this standard, the absolute barrage of 100% negative news and opinion that the LAT flooded the zone with this week proves that they are actually biased in favored of Republicans.
It is telling that every study of I’ve read about that measures the perception of bias, which can capture the impact of hard-to-quantify factors such as tone, finds that virtually all Republicans, and even large percentages of Democrats, see a leftward bias in the MSM.
– Stories are leaking out of Washington concerning a certain Atlantic writer’s income tax returns, speculating on possible evasion and fraud. IRS officials are saying they have no information to support the allegations, but government insiders insist hes on a list of Washington luminaries like Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-NY), currently under investigation.
– See folks, thats how its done. Yellow partisan journalism in all its glory.
I don’t think ‘allowed to operate’ is the correct phrasing. They can legally operate as they please within very broad restrictions (NYT v Sullivan, for example). Like any business, though, they have a customer base they cater to, and if the customers don’t like the product they can go (and are going) elsewhere. That is a ‘check and balance’, and the only real one I can see that is constitutionally appropriate.
The press owuld do well to remember the saw about democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. A people that will acquiesce to a First Amendment assault the likes of McCain Feingold might just be willing to strangle a few reporters.
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
– Mikey, the market share drop off is the result, not the cause, of any sort of checks and balances.
– The cause is the blogosphere.
– The new meme is “Truth gets its pants on within minutes after a lie starts to circle the earth.”
– Its become considerably tougher to peddle propaganda in the age of high speed communications and the pajama media.
“Its become considerably tougher to peddle propaganda in the age of high speed communications and the pajama media.”
That seems right to me, BBH but success depends on where the eyes (and how many) are focused. If enough eyes (even indirectly) find their way to truthful remedies to smears, prevarications, outright falsehoods and obfuscations, then so much the better. If not, the lies will carry the day. We’ve seen them win repeatedly the last eight years. And many are still today.
– A current example is the smear post that popped up on the Atlantic website yesterday concerning a family freind of the Palins who had asked the court to seal his divorce papers.
– The post coyly suggested that the friend was sealing his papers because of a rumored affair with Sarah Palin. Heres a repeat of the comment I made over at the Pub.
————————————————-
– The poor guy told the press right off WHY he wanted his papers sealed. The press was using them to obtain his telephone numbers, and harassing him and his son. He wanted to put a stop to it. No one seemed interesting in printing that little detail until those bastards at FOX blabbed it all about 10 minutes after the Atlantic smear Easter egg popped up. Someone is going to have to find a way to shut those SOB’s at “fair and balanced†up.
– They’re messing with our Sasquatch damn it.
– Has anyone seen Excitable Andy lately?
– The Legacy media has an army of cub reporters filling up every motel room from Juno to Whitehorse. Apparently they’re all in thrall over the scenic wonders of Alaska.
——————————————–
– So FOX inadvertently deflated this lie balloon even before it got airborne.
– The Left continues to discover its lost its media monopoly.
– Yesterday on FOX Jane Hall, a stalwart cheerleader “see-no-evil” defender of the Legacy media said:
– “Everyone knows that the main stream media leans heavily Left, and has been involved with trying to help get Liberal candidates elected for over 40 years.”
– When even Jane gives you a smackdown you can be pretty sure your cover is blown.
Murdoch’s a Hillary guy, isn’t he? He acts like one.
Anyway, “leftward” is a mislabeling of the bias, philosophically. (Practically, it’s fine…sort of.) It’s pro-Democrat (with occasional exceptions), pro-state (but not the grubby manly parts of it; only the priestly ones), pro-NGO/academia/etc. (more priestly things; few actual priests, though) — this all not out of leftism so much as shared interest, lethargy and cowardice, and social affinity. All “reactionary” things.
And a heroic image based on reactionary things isn’t leftist — philosophically. Practically, yes…sort of. Leftists do it, have it. But not because they’re leftists. It’s why they’re (sort of, seeming) leftists.
The media does define the “seriousness” of its work (and the acceptability of priests’ work) by the degree to which it’s about or changes government. That is leftist, pretty much. But it’s also a fundamental trait of “National Greatness Conservatism” (though I don’t like the name; it’s mere Progressivism). There’s nothing (good) outside the state in McCainland, either — or even in National Review (editorially), anymore. So does calling that trait leftist do any good, practically? No.
The press loves Obama because he’s them. (They loved McCain, too, until they got better-mirrored by a smoother pickup artist.) And he’s not a leftist. He’s too dumb. (Admit it, lefties. You don’t fantasize about chillin’ and rapping about Althusser and Benjamin with this idiot. You can’t. He’s a fucking moron. You dream about his love. His power. His dick. And that’s okay. But stop lying.) He’s a type. Their type.
They don’t like serious, philosophical leftists at all. Those unfortunate fellows are window dressing, props that give our fake leftists an easy rhetorical out when you say “leftward.”
“Oh yeah, 60 Minutes is all about Benjamin!”
And it isn’t. And neither are they. But they get to say it. Because you asked for it.
You shouldn’t.
And a heroic image based on reactionary things isn’t leftist  philosophically. Practically, yes…sort of. Leftists do it, have it. But not because they’re leftists. It’s why they’re (sort of, seeming) leftists.
That is my feeling, it is very much a symbiotic relationship between the press and the left. The press uncovers these dire threats to humanity, and gets the masses to pay to read the warnings, then the left politicos promise to do something about it with other peoples money, so the consumer ultimately feels like he is coming out ahead.
And the media feels simultaneously vindicated and rewarded.
– All that probably is effectively true psycho. But its a question of political brevity. You only have so much time to get your message across to a rather attention-span limited electorate.
– You simply cannot get into the nuances of the distinctions between “Feminists” and “Secular Progressive Feminists”, as you might want to, in trying to explain the true aims of the movement against, say, what they have been purporting all the years.
– Happily enough, Sarah Palin, and the shitstorm of MSM attacks her very existence engendered, pretty much made it a self-correcting problem, and in a very short time span.
– Again illuminated by the Right side of the blogosphere, and some more moderate media outlets.
– Not the best of circumstances in the culture wars, but a lot better than it used to be.
– And we are in total agreement about the nature of the Nexus of the Legacy media. They are after sales, and sales are best served with a healthy helping of controversy. As it happens its the Left that generates the most effective controversy, so they make good bed fellows with the MSM, and the bottom line.
– Except when they go too far and become heavily invested in outright, and quickly exposed, lies.
– The public doesn’t like that.
The problem with the media is not just its groupthink, but the fact that it’s two standard deviations to the left of center. The tail of that curve covers a lot of wackos–most of whom write for big newspapers or read news on the networks.
It’s hate, not bias. Not anymores. NPR is gleeful with hate. Olbermann is drunk on it. The New York Times has built up an extreme tolerance for its poison and serves as a model besides. Tilts leftward my ass. These is some hateful bitches.
Lakoff tried to make it safe and clean. Fail.
“…Sarah Palin, and the shitstorm of MSM attacks her very existence…”
The question may be, can she figure out a way to keep her existence without leaking it away a little bit at a time.
The New York Times has built up an extreme tolerance for its poison and serves as a model besides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07rich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
That wasn’t a nice thing to do to your friends, B Moe. Give us a word of warning maybe.
– If Palin continues to catch on with the public, the NYT may not survive this election cycle.
Please. The only reason there isn’t a bigger conservative voice in the mainstream press is because there generally isn’t that much money to be made in the traditional sense of that venue.
Conservative-slanted news is a niche market that some have had the cleverness to exploit, but even Rupert Murdoch recently told his own biographer to vote for Obama. Why? “Because he sells more papers”.
The political make-up of the “MSM” has remained more or less constant for the last several decades, yet we’ve had Republicans in charge more often than not.
The only thing that has evolved is the notion that the nefarious “mainstream media” is ultimately to blame when GOP leadership fails to live up to their alleged ideals.
Ever the contrarian :-) —
The sociopolitical version of Ockham’s Razor: Do not ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by sloth and ignorance.
Bias is real and problematic, but it isn’t a first cause of the current set of difficulties with The Press (a term I prefer to “media”). The real problems are sloth, in the form of “professionalization”, the resulting ignorance, and a misreading of business realities.
A useful reporter, today, would need to be at least shallowly knowledgeable in a wide range of fields. That’s hard to accomplish; it means a lot of study, a lot of listening, and an effort made to understand. Instead, “journalists” nowadays are products of the study of journalism. They learn about the processes and procedures of journalism, and about the historical figures and theories related to it, but absolutely nothing about the matters they’re supposed to describe other than, perhaps, a few oversimplified ventures into political theory. As a result we are at the curious point where “news” can’t quite be ignored: we see a story in the paper or on network TV, and we know something happened, but the one thing we can be sure of is that whatever’s being presented is not what actually went on. The journalists aren’t, as a rule, deliberately trying to distort — though they do sometimes — but they are so profoundly ignorant that their attempts to describe simply leave anyone with actual knowledge shaking their heads.
Add to that “business” as a pejorative. All news organizations have discovered that when there is something new or startling going on, demand for their services rises and they make more money. (In the past there used to be “extra editions”, a few pages dealing with something new and/or alarming, sold on the street for the same price as the normal one and therefore almost pure profit for the publisher.) A lazy businessman is sure to conclude from this that the only thing “the news” should report is the new and startling. This is why we get blanket coverage of car crashes, lost moppets, and Jon-Benet Ramsey, and little or nothing about the City Council meeting. The publisher’s orders are to concentrate on the profitable endeavors and let the dreary, ordinary, boring (and therefore not fast-selling) stuff slide.
“Bias” simply further restricts the choices made. On the one hand we have a Presidential candidate who may well have received a less-than-honorable discharge for blatant violations of his oath, later “corrected” by political allies; on the other we have another candidate who may have been less than diligent in executing his duties. It is bias that selects the second to be blown into a cause celebre and ignores the first — but it is the focus on the new, the startling, and the titillating that causes the problem in the first place. The error is insistence on cause celebre, not the selection of which to present.
The hazard of bias for The Press is not that it discredits them; it is that it means they don’t have enough scandals to attract attention. They are passing up lots of chances to titillate by ignoring Rezko, Ayers, et. al., and trying to blow peccadilloes up into reportworthy scandals is not enough to compensate. There is enough nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance out there to exhaust supplies of newsprint and require second shifts at the TV-camera factory, but by refusing to acknowledge, let alone report and analyze, a full half of it, they end up with dead air and blank pages. One would have thought somebody would have noticed by now, but it just could be that their “professional educations” ::spit:: have rendered them incapable of seeing it.
Regards,
Ric
– Damn ST. I think you’re onto something. That sane reasoning must explain the dismal failure of Conservative talk radio as well.
And Democratic leadership failure is because they have no ideals to live up to, right ST?
Here you go. Go back about a week for more context.
Regards,
Ric
The political make-up of the “MSM†has remained more or less constant for the last several decades, yet we’ve had Republicans in charge more often than not.
The past three decades have been mostly Republican because of Jimmy Carter’s malaise, Bill Clinton’s wandering weenie, and a public mistrust of the Democrat Party’s ability to protect us against foreign threats. The MSM’s attempts to explain those failings have reminded the public of Grouco Marx being caught kissing another man’s wife — “I was only whispering in her mouth!” Very often, people do believe their lying eyes.
BBH – not at all. Rush’s approach based on non-confrontational insult was true innovation for the time, and the imitators followed.
But it is still a limited, niche market as compared to broadcasting as a whole. And he is by no means a journalist.
“…last several decades, yet we’ve had Republicans in charge more often than not.”
Let’s see, the Republicans captured the House in ’94, lost it in 2006, so 12 yrs. How does that stack up with the Democrats control of the House for, what was it, 42 consecutive years prior to ’94? An awful lot of permanent (as politics matters go) institutions were created by law over those 42 years, many of them having a great deal to do with the way our media is shaped to day. It just takes time to work major changes through the system.
“we have a mainstream press that clearly tilts leftward … and yet it continues to be allowed to operate under the pretense of objectivity”
The First Amendment allows this. Should we repeal this amendment?
Don’t forget, the same First Amendment allows Fox News to pretend to be objective.
– Hey and FOX as well. The fact they have a greater viewing share than all their competitors combined must just be an anomaly. Some sort of “niche” thing.
I think the time has arrived for sensible newpaper control.
So, you’re arguing for the Fairness Doctrine?
The fact they [FOX] have a greater viewing share than all their competitors combined must just be an anomaly.
Link please.
Does that include the Big 3?
“So, you’re arguing for the Fairness Doctrine?”
– I for one, would be happy to see the enforcement of an equal number of NYT’s, NPR’s, PBS’s, CNN’c, MSNBC’s, ABC.s, NBC’s, and CBS’s with a Conservative bias.
– Was that your question?
– In other words, be happy with the monopoly you have, and what you wish for.
As an aside, the actual implementation of the Fairness Doctrine basically amounted to some greasy looking guy in a cheap suit mumbling into a camera around 5 AM Sunday morning.
Scary stuff, I know.
“Comment by ST on 9/7 @ 2:43 pm #
As an aside, the actual implementation of the Fairness Doctrine basically amounted to some greasy looking guy in a cheap suit mumbling into a camera around 5 AM Sunday morning.
Scary stuff, I know.”
Smiley face fascism.
That’s ok, then.
TV news isn’t journalism and hasn’t been for a long time. It is entertainment and hucksterism, just like the Democrats. Global warming is a perfect example of how the two naturally go hand in hand. The headlines scream ” OMG Teh Sky iz Falling!!11!!! ” So people buy the papers to find out what they need to be afraid of. Al Gore sees his opening and sets up his little minstrel show selling the cure-all tonic. It is a natural fit, and people love to buy quick weight loss snake oil potions.
Newspaper headlines saying “Nothing to See Here” don’t sell. Telling people the way to lose weight is to get off your fat ass and exercise doesn’t either.
As an aside, the actual implementation of the Fairness Doctrine basically amounted to some greasy looking guy in a cheap suit mumbling into a camera around 5 AM Sunday morning.
Scary stuff, I know.
Well, if you ignore all the programming that was completely eliminated, yeah. But only a fucking idiot would do that.
Great site about the gloal warming religion:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
– Wait about 10,000 years, and then you can have the “climate change” debate. By that time we might have barely enough accurate data to cobble together a low confidence projection for at least this epoch.
– Of course the end result will be the same. “Hey. The climate changes!”
– So Gore gets a award for discovering “weather”, echoing his famous discovery of the internet. The post-modern era of the international clown car.
B Moe – I wasn’t defending the FD, I was just pointing out how silly it was when it actually existed.
In any event, the Airwaves are not inherently free per se. They are a part of a heavily regulated federal domain, bits of which are occasionally auctioned off to the highest bidder–a sticky wicket when it comes to “free speech” and all that.
Useful tip: Anyone who uses the terms “fascism” or “socialism” when discussing the modern Democratic party is arguing in bad faith.
I can almost guarantee that.
“Useful tip: Anyone who uses the terms “fascism†or “socialism†when discussing the modern Democratic party is arguing in bad faith.”
Universal Health Care is what free market capitalism? And when Maxine Waters wants to nationalize the oil companies that too is free market capitalism? And smoking bans are what libertarianism?
– Actually the airwaves are public domain, meaning it belongs to the public.
– The government is charged, as stated in FCC policy, “to regulate and insure the non-partisan, non-opportunistic, fair and balanced use of the airwaves for the benefit of the American citizenry”.
– When you watch the envagling, and ham handed manipulation of the FCC by political interest groups, manufacturing cabals, etc., you get a very good idea of what would happen if the healthcare system were handed to Washington.
“Useful tip: Anyone who uses the terms “fascism†or “socialism†when discussing the modern Democratic party is arguing in bad faith.
I can almost guarantee that.”
“And, as I’ve said before, it’s never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. There may come a time when you need it.”
-Mark Steyn
ST: “Useful tip: Anyone who uses the terms “fascism†or “socialism†when discussing the modern Democratic party is arguing in bad faith.”
Stuff and nonsense.
The Democrat party isn’t even honestly democratic — super-delegates, anyone?
Their use of class envy, promise of socialized medicine and other programs, along with their favoring of redistributionist tax and spend policies leaves them open to the legitimate accusation of socialism.
Classical liberalism is a belief in individual freedom, democratic (small d) government, property rights, the rule of law, free markets, laissez-faire economics and market competition.
Yet we get called fascist.
And the fascists get called Democrats.
Go figure.
I hope I get time to get back to this today cause I just think Ric is wrong here. These journalist people are malicious, though what’s worse is they’re just stunted and also unaccountable. They should all die screaming.
“I for one, would be happy to see the enforcement of an equal number of NYT’s, NPR’s, PBS’s, CNN’c, MSNBC’s, ABC.s, NBC’s, and CBS’s with a Conservative bias.”
That’s a mighty large program of socialized mass media. Conservative, you say?
– feets, with all due respect I think theres some confusion here. In any enterprise you’re going to find a percentage of people who gravitate toward what they see as an advantage, and use it in exactly the manner they are permitted too. So you see the hateful talking heads as “representative”, whereas the people that write the checks only really care about the bottom line. They are far to cynical to depend on partisanship for their livelyhood, unless it produces results.
– The “rabid crew” produces sensationalistic crap that sells, so they are given a platform. Thus Ric’s analysis stands.
“Comment by skylights on 9/7 @ 3:35 pm #
“I for one, would be happy to see the enforcement of an equal number of NYT’s, NPR’s, PBS’s, CNN’c, MSNBC’s, ABC.s, NBC’s, and CBS’s with a Conservative bias.â€Â
That’s a mighty large program of socialized mass media. Conservative, you say?”
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of a point going right over someone’s head.
– You can always tell the depth of a Progressives embarrassment by the radius of the circle they make around a point.
Well, okay. But they’re betraying a trust I think and that’s really a not good thing inasmuch as most of the rest of us do our dead level best at what we do without even having to be told.
But don’t tell me what I hear on NPR isn’t malice cause I know malice when I hear it. Hateful little bitches the lot of them.
Is there an NPR voice school to speak the NPR way?
– Given the mantra of the post modern generations “responsibility and principles are for uneducated suckers”, why would you be surprised?
malice. It’s too fucking stupid to be anything else.
“That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of a point going right over someone’s head.”
Ah, so the point was facetious. That’s good to know. But that brings us back to the question: What is meant by, “…and yet it continues to be allowed to operate under the pretense of objectivity … Looks like McCain-Feingold went after the wrong “reform.—? This sounds like an argument for government control to me.
– Its what you get when you replace critical thinking with “feeling”, worship cult figure religions, and put party above all else. Its a recipe for disaster, and why they keep losing elections.
Comment by skylights on 9/7 @ 3:56 pm #
Do us a favor.
Come back when you graduate from high school, ‘mkay?
“Ah, so the point was facetious.”
– Missing the point by missing the point a second time is not facetious. Its called “feckless”.
– Understanding is probably, like your fearless messiah, above your pay grade.
Well, I, for one, am glad that there’s at least one news network that’s trying to get past all this partisan rancor.
Yeah.
In any event, the Airwaves are not inherently free per se. They are a part of a heavily regulated federal domain, bits of which are occasionally auctioned off to the highest bidder–a sticky wicket when it comes to “free speech†and all that.
It isn’t a sticky wicket, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment that the government was able to slip through due largely to public ignorance of what was happening, I would reckon, and now stays in place because of precedent, I suppose. It is basically a mystery to me how they can differentiate between speech born of sound waves and radio waves through the same medium.
” It is basically a mystery to me how they can differentiate between speech born of sound waves and radio waves through the same medium.”
Ink, now, there’s the rub.
skylight -or whatever –
“Don’t forget, the same First Amendment allows Fox News to pretend to be objective.”
Unlike Rather, Olberasshole, and CNN, who ARE objective, huh? Keith Olberman doesn’t have his **** (all four inches of it) stuck in O!’s ass, does he?
Fox may tilt far right in their editorial shows, but as far as hard news goes, they ARE the most objective of any news media on the air. But of course, having all sides presented fairly is not your idea of “fair”, is it? The right has no claim to any venue to present it’s arguments, does it? I mean, c’mon! The first amendment does not cover views that are opposed to yours, does it?
“MSBC is where it’s at, man!” Right?
Let me guess. Public schools?
– The quality of trolling is on the low side today, even for a Sunday.
“Useful tip: Anyone who uses the terms “fascism†or “socialism†when discussing the modern Democratic party is arguing in bad faith.”
Think so? Try Googling “Obama – brownshirts”, and then come back here and say that again.
OK?
Ot, but my copy of NR has a column by Florence King AND a DVD of “Obsession.”
Just saying. Brookhiser aside, cold.dead.hands.
skylights –
“That’s a mighty large program of socialized mass media. Conservative, you say?”
Sarcasm and irony are not your strong suits, are they?
Oh, and it’s main article is a piece on Olberdouche and NBC.
Ah, so the point was facetious. That’s good to know. But that brings us back to the question: What is meant by, “…and yet it continues to be allowed to operate under the pretense of objectivity … Looks like McCain-Feingold went after the wrong “reform.â€Ââ€Â? This sounds like an argument for government control to me.
Uhm … no. It’s an argument for more TRUTH, because, you know, the truth will set you free.
You don’t read here often, do you?
No, I wouldn’t repeal the First Amendment. Nor am I interested in govt. control, nor do I support a “Fairness Doctrine.” I’m not very happy with McCain-Feingold, as everyone who has any familiarity with this site realizes.
But of course, you likely knew all that — which is why you decided to skip my point about where the problem lay, namely, the pretense of objectivity. If a paper that advertises its services as at least attempting to something toward objectivity can’t be trusted to follow through, they should be called on their failures, and pressure applied to ownership to bring in editors and reporters who will do the job correctly, even if that means looking outside of j-schools. And we shouldn’t be teaching children in school that the press is “objective” when they themselves seem no longer interested, half the time, with even keeping up that pretense.
I’m interested in seeing the media portrayed accurately. But for this to happen, people have to learn to unlearn much of what they’ve been taught about the press.
Hope that clears things up.
I would like to know one issue that a socialist would not agree with Obama on. Really I would love for someone to point that out for me.
@76 “pressure applied to ownership to bring in editors and reporters who will do the job correctly”
That’s difficult in the case of the NYT. Their shares of stock are divided in such a way as to favor Pinchy Sulz and family. (Read Thomas Lifson over AT for details.) So NYT is the gateway propaganda mechanism for the rest: CBS, NBC, ABC, AP et al. In addition there is AP which is a collectivists org for the newspapers. There is no way to attack their position unless the collective fails.
Limbaugh made an interesting comment last week about the latest unemployment numbers: How many were from legacy media?
Mr. Pink, Obama says he won’t take away our guns.
Putney Swope says the Borman Six girl haz got to have soul.
I only buy it for the coupons. Oh yeah well okay that’s just pitiful.
“Mr. Pink, Obama says he won’t take away our guns.”
– Its very possible that Axelrod will not survive to the end of Obama’s campaign. Even if he does, he’ll probably seek another line of work.
Isn’t that the gun issue that he had to seriously admonish his staff for misportraying?
See? Real socialists don’t admonish their staffs.
Dan Collins: “Obama says he won’t take away our guns.”
Which is why he was in favor of the DC gun ban before he was against it…
[Rush Limbaugh] is by no means a journalist.
Flattery is a start, ST.
You would have to be willfully blind to not realize that the current lefties getting fielded by the Democrat party have alot in common with European socialists. They use the same class warfare talkin points as well as espouse the same programs and controls of the private sector.
Your definition of a socialist is anyone who’d vote for Obama. Glad I could solve that self-afflicting conundrum for ya, dimwit.
How about them ‘pokes, thor?
ST
Clarity over agreement. Please define what YOU mean by socialism and why the huge movement of the Democratic party to nationalize significant portions of the American economy is not socialism?
“Your definition of a socialist is anyone who’d vote for Obama.”
I think John Kerry is more experience than Joe Biden who is more experienced than John Edwards who is more experience than Barack Hussein Obama.
dre
Please don’t feed the trolls.
You would have to be willfully blind to not realize that the current lefties getting fielded by the Democrat party have alot in common with European socialists.
Just as the Western European social welfare economies are imploding under their entitlement burdens our Democratic party is trying to convince us to emulate them
– BTW Darleen, kudo’s on your interview. Nice job.
14% of respondents think the media is in the tank for McCain? Really? Really?
And as usual Jeff answered it better, but skylights quit being obtuse. Just have the MSM drop the pretense of objectivity. Your side relies on the low information voter so I see why that may be troubling for you. As for Fox news. Of course it’s balanced. Fair? Probably not. But the balance is definitely there to counter the alphabets.
skylights,
If we added together all the self-identified Republicans and libertarians with rightward-leaning independents, what percentage would you guess this demographic group represents, out of the total population of politically engaged Americans?
This is the percentage of potential audience that the MSM has alienated during this election. I’m sure they’ll limp along without us. They might be able to downsize to the point that they can survive by catering entirely to Democrats. But they will never again have the credibility and influence with society in general that they once did. Now when they write editorials they have to understand that they are only preaching to the progressive choir.
BBH
Thank you! I had a lot of fun doing it.
A walk in the park. The front line gave Romo hell’a time.
– Unfortunately we did what we always do. We found another way to lose. We seem to have the market cornered on imaginative ways to not “finish the job”.
For added agreement and clarity: 2-pages double-spaced, indent your paragraphs, answer the question “what the fuck do I know about Socialism and why do I ask others to define Socialism for me?” Plagiarizing will not be tolerated.
Tomorrow morning, on my desk, or, if you choose, an additional 5-bonus points can be earned if submitted by midnight.
“Your definition of a socialist is anyone who’d vote for Obama.â€Â
Thor here is a link to the Socialist party in France and what they consider their issues and news. I will cut and paste some of it below and only an idiot or someone willfully blinding themselves would not see the same crap that the Democrat party elites have been pushing. The same language, the same enemies, to coin a phrase I have heard online, McSame. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3733
If further evidence were needed that capitalism is incapable of taking society forward; the last four years have provided it. Not only the ongoing nightmare of the occupation of Iraq – which has led to the death of many tens of thousands of Iraqis and over 2,000 ‘coalition’ soldiers – but also the inability of capitalism to take any effective action to prevent the decimation of our environment. In some ways, the most graphic illustration of capitalism’s crisis is its inability to cope with natural disasters – whether the tsunami at the end of 2004, or the South Asian earthquake or Hurricane Katrina last year. The countless thousands who died unnecessarily, and those still homeless -including in the US, the richest nation on the planet – stand as a complete condemnation of the profit system.
By contrast, the preparedness of ordinary people worldwide to give to assist the victims of disaster, repeatedly putting the puny efforts of governments to shame, stand as a testament to the strength of human solidarity.
It is therefore no surprise that the years since the first edition of Socialism in the 21st Century was written have seen an increased interest in anti-capitalist ideas in general, and specifically in a socialist alternative. The anti-war movement, in particular, radicalised a generation, and has led some of them to actively seek out socialist ideas.
At this stage, it is still a minority who have become conscious socialists, but it is a growing minority. Socialism in the 21st Century was written with the aim of assisting workers and young people who were interested in socialist ideas to find out more. There is no doubt that this second edition has a potentially broader audience than the first.
Today, in Britain, around 150 companies completely dominate the lives of 60 million people. Worldwide, the richest 356 people enjoy a combined wealth that is greater than the annual income of 40% of the human race. This book gives an outline of how a democratically planned socialist economy could harness the vast wealth of capitalism to meet the needs of humanity instead of lining the pockets of a few. At the same time, it raises some of the most important tasks that face socialists in this period – such as the need to lead struggles to defend workers’ living conditions against the rapacious greed of the multinationals and the need to build new mass workers’ parties which represent the interests of working-class people. It links these tasks to the struggle for ‘socialism in the 21st century’.
Also in The Socialist 6 February 2008:
MPs’ insult to low-paid workers
Their hands in our till
Protests as multinational grabs health centre
Rich avoid paying £25 billion tax bill
Why they call them ‘fat cats’
——————————————————————————–
War and terrorism
Bush and Brown’s Afghan strategy lies in tatters
Troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan demo
——————————————————————————–
Socialist Party women
Fight attacks on abortion rights
Telling the god’s honest truth, (about my cowboys, not bloody likely!) I can’t recall seeing a line dominate like that, the spacing, the tick-tock, holy crap, when the hell is Romo gonna throw the ball, oh, no biggie, was just plain weird to see, almost unprofessional on the Brownies part. Or maybe I should say, they looked like Brownies(GSUSA), but that would be mean.
– And yet the US gives 8 rimes the total of all other countries combined in emergency aid, foreign aid, logistics support, and all human resources, including food, clothing, medical relief, and money.
– The Bush administration has passed budgets for Social services across the board, 64%, and 73% greater for his two terms, more than doubling Clintons budgets.
– Your claims sound pretty good thor, when you ignore the facts, or your following can’t or won’t read.
Sdferr, be nice. My Browns suck. No fair. Romo had all day to throw the ball. How about Crenell going for the FG with 5 minutes to go and down 21! We saw two teams in two different leagues, today. And I’m not talking about the NFC and the AFC.
– BTW thor, have you seen the polls today?
– Hows that strategy of Obama running against Palin working out for you?
– As Moe says: “Maybe she can pick like an Assistant Vice President for Biden to run against.”
Sorries, OI. To be fair I’ve only seen the final score and the first half of the game and a few minutes of the second (the rest of 2-half is on the TiVo). So fight on, says I and kick some Stillers ass next week.
[…] Jeff Goldstein writes about American’s perception of the press and the notion that the press is “free”: I’ve written about this enough that a long dissertation on the problems of media bias isn’t really necessary  though I will reiterate that a media that purports to be objective and uses that ostensible objectivity as a shield to guard itself against attack, is a very real danger to a democratic republic, whose citizens rely on the press for the information necessary to make informed decisions. […]
[…] I noted in an earlier post today, the perception of media bias is growing. And as Texas Rainmaker points out, the times, they […]
MSNBC DROPS KEITH OLBERMANN & CHRIS MATTHEWS
WASHINGTON POST.com
Howard Kurtz
Monday, September 8, 2008; Page C01
MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events.Growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign.
The move, confirmed by spokesmen for both networks, follows increasingly loud complaints about Olbermann’s anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush and GOP nominee John McCain on his “Countdown” program, was effusive in praising the acceptance speech of Democratic nominee Barack Obama. He drew flak Thursday when the Republicans played a video that included a tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that if the networks had done that, “we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize.”
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008.html?hpid=topnews
[…] I give the last word about this supposed “objectivity” in the press to Jeff Goldstein: […]
[…] It’s the class wars, stupid! Alaskan Press: On Palin’s leadership Protein Wisdom: The Press ain’t Free Hypocritical Christians Who Support The Palins « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier […]