Blue Staters, Unite!

[Babar]

[Babar]

Blue Staters, Unite!

[ScutMonkey]

Yes, let's take back the cities!  Oh wait.
Let's take back the media!  Oh wait.
Let's take back Hollywood!  Oh wait.

Let's take back....

FIELDS OF WHEAT, COTTON, AND CATTLE!  WHO'S WITH ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rocky]

"The Media"  -  Scut get over it, you realize within 2 years more people will read blogs than watch the news?  I wont even tell you who controls the blogs cause Im sure I will hear you screaming abotu the right owning the internet soon, or the right owning the radio waves.  Oh wait, I havent heard you say either cause you still claim theres a liberal owned media cause you think Television is the ultimate source for everything aparently

[pipperoni]

Admittedly my response is not funny at all, but I think it really is "Let's take back suburbia".

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
"The Media"  -  Scut get over it, you realize within 2 years more people will read blogs than watch the news?  I wont even tell you who controls the blogs cause Im sure I will hear you screaming abotu the right owning the internet soon, or the right owning the radio waves.  Oh wait, I havent heard you say either cause you still claim theres a liberal owned media cause you think Television is the ultimate source for everything aparently

I think media companies will eventually realize they have to adapt or die and blogs will become incorporated parts of big media.  They're no different than editorial pages of today in most cases anyway, and anyway, my complaint certainly isn't with the op ed pages of newspapers.  

Look, you're never going to see it because you don't believe it's there and won't go looking at it.  I can tell you to read books like the two from Bernard Goldberg, but you're not interested in seeing it from a different point of view, so we'll have to just agree to disagree on this subject.

[Rocky]

Im the one thats not interested?  You are the one side complainer here.  Do you not realize that the right controls 90% of the radio?  and 90% of the internet news sites?   Even if I give you that liberal media controls 4 of the 5 networks (which Ill debate you on) it still pales in comparison.  You are the one not looking at both sides.  Ive studied communication for years.  I know there are biases on both sides.  But lets be realistic here scut, I am.  Why cant you admit that the liberal controlled media is a 1995 excuse.  Its hardly the same thing now.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
Im the one thats not interested?  You are the one side complainer here.  Do you not realize that the right controls 90% of the radio?  and 90% of the internet news sites?   Even if I give you that liberal media controls 4 of the 5 networks (which Ill debate you on) it still pales in comparison.  You are the one not looking at both sides.  Ive studied communication for years.  I know there are biases on both sides.  But lets be realistic here scut, I am.  Why cant you admit that the liberal controlled media is a 1995 excuse.  Its hardly the same thing now.

What media sites are you talking about?  Rush Limbaugh is not ABC News.  He's a right wing commentator and EVERYONE knows his opinions are completely contaminated by his politics.  Sean Hannity?  Same.  Niel Bortz?  Same.  I'm out of conservatives because I don't listen to that stuff, but I'm sure you get where I'm going with this.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  NY Times, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, compared to....Fox.  Look at their numbers, look at their reader/watch ratings.  You will see that those big conglomerates dwarf Fox for all the angst Fox has caused to the Left.  

[ScutMonkey]

Let me also include Reuters, Knight Ridder, and news services like that to the above.  After all, that's where most of this news comes from and it's just recycled by all the organizations.

Let me also say, I think it's very dangerous for people to think it's ok that Rush Limbaugh and commentators of his ilk are ok to be depended on for their journalism.  They are not objective in the least and that's the point of a free media which is why this topic bothers me so much.  People are basically saying, "it's ok that CBS news has Dan Rather and he's a flaming lefty that taints their news because Rush Limbaugh balances him out."  This is not about two partisans balancing each other our.  This is about getting as fair and untainted information as possible so people can try to make up their own minds without being controlled by spin on either side and I don't think there are ANY outlets in the US for that today.  None.  I have to go to these conservative sites for news because I get different news.  I see stories there I simply will not see in the big media, but I don't really want to because they're full of Republican rhetoric and bias.

Which leads to another point.  Both sides not only control and spin what is put into a story, but what is or isn't reported.  Where are the news stories about Dean calling Bush a "loser," Republican's "evil," or that Tom Delay "belongs in jail."  Or how about the fact that Cubans are trying to put together a "General Meeting of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society in Cuba."  However, Castro is locking any and all of the pro-democracy attendees in jail.  Why isn't this being reported?  Why do I have to go to Conservative websites to see these things, while Newsweek is fabricating stories?  BTW, the house voted on a resolution to support Democracy in Cuba and denounce Castro's jailings.  22 Democrats voted against it.  Why didn't I hear about that too.

There are plenty of examples of this in Goldberg's book, Rocky, and having 30 years of experience at CBS under Goldberg's belt, and being a voting Democrat, he has a bit more clout with me than you do, seeing as you work in a Democratic Congressman's office and you having never worked in the media to my knowledge.

[Rocky]

Scut- you may think its apples to oranges.  But the rest of the country doesnt.  I may not work at CBS, but I listen to callers from a very republican state every day, and what they hear on the radio is news to them, not some guys opinion.  And so for the majority of the people I listen to proves my argument.  In your perfect world where people realize all the biases and ignore them then maybe you can claim to be right, but that isnt the case.

Again I will say that Golberg worked in the media when it was bias, Ill give you that.  Im talking about today, not 10-30 years ago.  Today its not the same scut, your paranoya has no base anymore.

And there are examples on both sides scut.

[dwjj]

90% of radio controlled by the right? What basis for the statistic? How much of the market does Clear Channel alone control? Are they left or right?

[Rocky]

90% of talk radio i meant sorry.  Scut and I have dicsussed this before so I left out some disclaimers.

[dwjj]

Well, that REALLY changes it. There's some reason that liberal talk radio hasn't succeeded. Some reason conservative talk radio has. The point is what? That's only a TINY piece of all radio. It's an even TINIER piece of media. Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Sean Hannity are fleas. They make on the order of a top actor or sports person. They're celebrities that happen to use their voice instead of their faces or muscles (luckily for them). Conservative talk radio and conservative internet news sites are THE major media/entertainment sources? They are bigger than the major networks???

Fine-what's the basis for those statistics then? What is the total media market income, and what is the conservative talk radio market income? Is "90%" your own hyperbole, or is it a real statistic? If so, please share the source.

It's like saying Burger King is the major player in the total food industry because they control 90% of the Whopper outlets.

"People" may listen to Rush. Fine-what percentage of people? Now-the important question. Of the people who might even listen to Rush, how many of that minority use him as their primary news source, and are overwhelmingly influenced by what he has to say?

The problem is that liberals are used to status quo where the majority of print, radio, tv, movies, music (all entertainment?) is liberally biased, and they've come to assume and expect that this overwhelming majority is the norm. Putting Bono on the news spouting off his own brand of politics becomes an affirmation of reality for liberals. Vast seas of liberals making all the movies that everyone watches, the tv shows, news programs. Any niche that the "enemy" is successful at then really stands out. God forbid there be a niche that has its own voice and its own couple of celebrities.

[Rocky]

dwjj-  Is that rant even worthy of a response?  Some how you think income levels equal the amount of influence?  Which seems to contribute to the republican stereotype.  I guess Alex Rodriguez is a political dynamo then and Bill Gates runs the world?

In a few years blogs are going to have more readers than all television stations combined.  Your only response to that is that you dont beleive the statistics.  Which I guess I cant argue with, so maybe we can find the answer if we pray.  Sound good?

Yes I just mocked your whole argument.

[fall-apart]

The real question is: Why have the commentators from the right moved to talk radio and blogs?  Even if you're right, Rocky, and the MSM isn't liberally biased anymore, there's obviously a feeling of alienation by the right from what the established media (print, TV) have to offer, and so they've gone looking for alternatives...

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
Scut- you may think its apples to oranges.  But the rest of the country doesnt.  I may not work at CBS, but I listen to callers from a very republican state every day, and what they hear on the radio is news to them, not some guys opinion.  And so for the majority of the people I listen to proves my argument.  In your perfect world where people realize all the biases and ignore them then maybe you can claim to be right, but that isnt the case.

Again I will say that Golberg worked in the media when it was bias, Ill give you that.  Im talking about today, not 10-30 years ago.  Today its not the same scut, your paranoya has no base anymore.

And there are examples on both sides scut.

Apparently you missed a couple of my statements:

quote:
Let me also say, I think it's very dangerous for people to think it's ok that Rush Limbaugh and commentators of his ilk are ok to be depended on for their journalism.

quote:
Both sides not only control and spin what is put into a story, but what is or isn't reported.

I don't care who's doing it.  I think it's dangerous on both sides.  My point is, these conservative talk shows are a direct response to the media's failure to report objectively.  You obviously don't agree they're still like that and I obviously don't agree with you.

As far as Goldberg, he did Lexus Nexus research on what he was writing about and backs it up with cold hard statistics.  He's also still a reporter and has not retired, only left CBS.  He doesn't believe in vast left wing media conspiracies (I don't either) and shows how the people who teach journalism to the up and coming journalism students are part of this as well.  It's thorough, well written, and well documented.

[dwjj]

Rocky-You gave statistics. I would like the reference to educate myself. I'm open to facts. I'm just looking for some.

Wow-that's all you have to say. No earnest debate, just spout a few imaginary statistics then mock??? I'm asking for data to compare against what I think in hopes of learning something.

As far as influence, the panhandler on the corner probably does influence the world less than Bill Gates.

[Rocky]

Fall Apart-  I wouldnt necessarily categorize leaving print and tv to move to the internet as being alientated.  I think its smart.  And Ill give you guys that 10 years ago the liberal media argument held a lot more weight.  I think a lot of it though is that the in today's arguments a lot of the lefts arguments are based on statistical facts while the right is based more on objective opinions.  Now I didnt say that on all things.  But the majority of the things the current congress has considered under the Bush administration.  And its tough for a news outlet to report on peoples opiniions and its easier to back things up with statistics.  Which the right used to do more than the left and I think that has changed now.  I also think the networks that Scut claims to be liberal have done leaps and bounds to change that and now are pretty close to center (by that I mean they have both biases represented depending upon the show).  And while they have tried to move towards the center, the right wing media -blogs and radio- havent done anything to move toward the center.  So with the left trying to accomadate the right and the right still being the right I think the whole overarcing argument of a liberal media doesnt work anymore.

[fall-apart]

I'll give you radio, but blogging isn't 10 years old - why are there more right wingers there than left wingers?

[Rocky]

dwjj-  Was either on nationaljournal.com or realclearpolitics.com  both excelently regarded sites by both sides.

[dwjj]

I have NPR on all the time so I'm definitely a listener. That means I'm counted as a liberal media listener if what you say were true.  I know liberals who listen to Rush. I don't listen to Rush. You should draw the distinction between who someone is and who they listen to.

Statistical facts vs objective opinions? Something can be a statistic and still be a lie-both sides do it all the time. Calling it a statistic doesn't make it true.

I won't believe a statistic that differs from facts I do believe, that can't be backed up at all and smells a lot more like an opinion. Would you?

[dwjj]

OK-let me go to realclearpolitics and see what relevant statistics I find (not just picking ones supporting my argument either)

1/4 journalists voted for Bush, 68% for Kerry
National Media Witch Hunt Against The Religious Right
Koran blunder transcends media vs. White House
Retaking the Universities   A battle plan.

quote:
In my book "Tenured Radicals"--first published in 1990 and updated in 1998--I noted:

   With a few notable exceptions, our most prestigious liberal arts colleges and universities have installed the entire radical menu at the center of their humanities curriculum at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels. Every special interest--women's studies, black studies, gay studies, and the like --and every modish interpretative gambit--deconstruction, post-structuralism, new historicism, and other postmodernist varieties of what the literary critic Frederick Crews aptly dubbed "Left Eclecticism"--has found a welcome roost in the academy, while the traditional curriculum and modes of intellectual inquiry are excoriated as sexist, racist, or just plain reactionary.

South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias

quote:
Mr. Anderson's thesis is straightforward enough and seemingly incontrovertible--that the Right, which had been shut out of the mainstream media for decades, has mounted a successful insurgency on talk radio, cable television, college campuses, and the Internet (especially the blogosphere) that has given it a much stronger voice in the Culture War than it had before. The warfare remains asymmetrical--the Left, after all, has all three nightly network newscasts and nearly all the major metropolitan dailies, while the Right has only FOX News, the Washington Times, and alternative news services like World Net Daily--but the trends are promising and the free market in particular is a powerful force working in favor of conservatism. Media executives may not care for conservative ideas but they can't ignore things like the popularity of the wildly anti-PC South Park, the success FOX has had largely at CNN's expense, or the fact that Mel Gibson's Passion, which most in Hollywood wouldn't touch, turned out to be a blockbuster. In a country that is divided at least 50/50 between conservatives and liberals, it makes no sense from a purely business standpoint to leave half the consumers unserved. The revolt would appear to have even better days before it.

It seems to me that the idea of a liberal media bias is still very much alive and not "1995"

The association between conservatism and religiousness is interesting. You even did it. Several articles at realclearpolitics about it and how it's wrong, and I remember news stories around the time of the election on the subject. Why would you think my response would be "we can find the answer if we pray"? Believe it or not, there are plenty of conservatives like me who aren't religious at all.

(on a tangent-why it is that Dan Rather or Newsweeks (two random examples) goals are to bring down the White House and not report facts. Since when is "reporting" more about "influencing" and "manipulating" than "reporting"? Reporters' only agenda should be unbiased reporting. Following an agenda and letting bias dictate what and how the reporting occurs makes it opinion instead of journalism)

[Rocky]

Your post seems to strengthen my point.

"Right, which had been shut out of the mainstream media for decades, has mounted a successful insurgency on talk radio, cable television, college campuses, and the Internet (especially the blogosphere) that has given it a much stronger voice in the Culture War than it had before."

Exactly....


"1/4 journalists voted for Bush, 68% for Kerry "

Exactly scut and my discussion.  People like Limbaugh arent considered reporters, yet millions of people get news from these sources and consider it news.

And the Newsweek thing has yet to come out I think.  The pentagon had the story for 11 days and didnt object to it.  Take from that what you want.  The red cross has filed several detailed complaints about treatment of prisoners religions and religious items.  I dont know if the newsweek thing was totally inaccurate, inappropriate maybe, but the accuracy has yet to be disproving I think.

[Wunderbolt]

Rocky, I think your opinion that the Media is central will be valid in about 10 years. I think they're half-way in between where Scut says is is, and where you say it is, and slowly shifting right. But that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[ScutMonkey]

I think where Rocky and I don't see eye to eye is how we view "new media."  I consider new media to be a form in it infancy and NOT mainstream.  Traditional media is still as liberally entrenched as it ever was, but the difference between now and 10 years ago are the alternatives.  The problem I have with the alternatives are that they don't feel they're beholden to the same broad journalistic ethics because they promote themselves point blank as being biased and holding a viewpoint.  This is not the same standard as traditional media has set for itself (and where I believe they've failed).  I want an objective media which holds itself to these standards, but I don't see it out there right now.  What we have now are the two end swings of a pendulum with nothing in the middle to turn to for an unbiased accounting.

The first rule of journalism was always supposed to be, "never become the story" and that's not what's happened in the cases of Dan Rather and Newsweek.  They even admitted they let down their own standards to report those stories and their standards are the ONLY reason why they can/should be held in higher regard than Rush Limbaugh.  At this point, they're no better and that's really sad.  What's even more sad is that I don't think they get it.  I don't think they have any understanding of their own biases and the way they color all of their news.  It's not a conspiracy at all.  It's a simple acceptance of the severe lacking of intellectual diversity in the news room.

I don't know how many more of these ethics slips it's going to take before traditional media starts to pay attention to it's very real internal problems, but it needs to happen immediately.