Why the press is an organ of the Democrat Party and why that will change.

[RobDownSouth]

I am not making it up. Try searching on keys like "liberal media bias." The conservatives will remember the issue, we discussed it here, on this board, and I doubt that that admission is still on ABC's website.

Who does fit your definition of liberal?

I tried that.

3 stories, none of them remotely resembling what you claim.

Got a Lit link to that thread? I'm serious, I'd like to see ABC's own words on this.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

All I know is it's here, it happened, it was a real event...

Like I said, try Newsmax. I'm not here to tangle with you, and I know you are dying to call me a "liar," out me, and "win" the debate. (I just want to have a polite conversation and after my crankiness of yesterday, I am reboubling my efforts.)

Problem is, I just saw you defend the Burkett memo and I remember during the election that we easily and demostrably proved that Kerry lied on the floor of the Senate and you were comfortable with that, so it is my sneaking suspicion that if I were to find the thread for you, your reaction would be to immediately go to finding a way to discredit it, or parse it into something that says "Hey, we're not liberal, conservatives are just radical."

So save yourself the effort and just repeat after me,

A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!

But what I am poiting out is the truth. I never said the press was Liberal, I stated that the press was heavily weighted Democrat and gave a logical reason for that phenomonen. If my reason is factual, then it must, in order to get the story, begin to have more Republican-friendly reporting.

ABC actually did something out of character yesterday on its radio broadcastrs that shocked the shit out of me. Right after it's story about rising gas prices, it actually followed it with a story about the 80's and how gas was actually higher then if you factored in inflation. That's something that wouldn't have happened in recent years. It would have been only the bad news because a Republican was in office. Perhaps they are yearning to win back some of the people who dropped them in recent years.

 

[Guest]

You guys all split hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. It's as if being right on an internet message board is the most important thing here.

The fact is, regardless of how you define or label the media bias, the media is not what it used to be. The media is less accurate and focused more on sensationalism than facts or objectivity. It's all about ratings/sales/etc. Even sports networks are following that lead. You'll get 20 minutes of speculation and recapping negative bullshit on T.O. and 15 seconds on the Bears season being over cause of an injury. Rating/sales is the root of the evil. Which is not to say that the points here are wrong, just that it's a deeper issue than bipartisan politics, and it's not gonna change any time soon.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

The press hasn't changed on wit. Someone, just a couple of years ago did a book covering its nastiness and side-choosing. I wish I could remember the name of the book or the author, but not unlike Kelly Bundy, my memory resembles a FIFO stack.

There used to be a saying about the Hearst papers...

Yellow-sheet (?), yellow-rag journalism. My original post goes to the heart of that.

 

[Guest]

The press hasn't changed on wit.

Sure they have. Read an archived article sometime just for the writing style. Opinions were there less, they didn't lead the reader as much, things weren't glorified as much and there was more objectivity. There wasn't an agenda like there is now.

Ad for the local pm news show: "Drinking tap water may kill you, tune in at 10 tonight for details." Then it's a 10 second blurp at the end which makes the lead in misleading. They do the same shit with politics. If the Democrats were in power, they'd be just as "off" as they are now.

 

[Pookie]

You guys all split hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. It's as if being right on an internet message board is the most important thing here.

The fact is, regardless of how you define or label the media bias, the media is not what it used to be. The media is less accurate and focused more on sensationalism than facts or objectivity. It's all about ratings/sales/etc. Even sports networks are following that lead. You'll get 20 minutes of speculation and recapping negative bullshit on T.O. and 15 seconds on the Bears season being over cause of an injury. Rating/sales is the root of the evil. Which is not to say that the points here are wrong, just that it's a deeper issue than bipartisan politics, and it's not gonna change any time soon.

Spot on. The idea that the media is intentionally biased toward one political party, candidate, etc. is just a way for either side to demonize negative coverage. The media is run by companies out to make a profit. Profits come with winning the ratings war. The media is going to cover stories in whatever manner it takes to improve ratings, whether it's a Republican or Democrat involved.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I'll give you this. They've changed in that the oligarchy has been broken.

When I was a kid, we actually had competing newspapers in our town, but about 20, maybe 25 years ago, they all merged into one. We are now, with the net, getting back to a more competitive environment with more differing points of view, so a story cannot be manipulated as it was in the 70's to 09's by one school of thought (which was controlled by people whom voted overwhelmingly Democrat).

To this end, I don't think the press can get by becoming as solidly Republican as it had been solidly Democrat, but it will have the center as its strange attractor rather than the Left.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Spot on. The idea that the media is intentionally biased toward one political party, candidate, etc. is just a way for either side to demonize negative coverage. The media is run by companies out to make a profit. Profits come with winning the ratings war. The media is going to cover stories in whatever manner it takes to improve ratings, whether it's a Republican or Democrat involved.

When it comes to television, the big three were required by law to run news and they ran it as a loss-leader. Dan Rather, for example, didn't give a shit about selling product.

The major papers are in urban areas and they tend towards being Democrat strongholds so they have traditionally run what their audience wishes to read...

Nice try though!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Post Script

Pooks, as a "self-professed" Democrat, it comes as no surprise that you don't see a Democrat bias in the press as you are in the mainstream...

 

[Pookie]

When it comes to television, the big three were required by law to run news and they ran it as a loss-leader. Dan Rather, for example, didn't give a shit about selling product.

The major papers are in urban areas and they tend towards being Democrat strongholds so they have traditionally run what their audience wishes to read...

Nice try though!

So, they're running stories to appeal to their readers. In other words, they're running stories to improve their ratings ... to improve their profits. Do you think they would run the same stories the same way if it was "Republican" strongholds? Is it really a "liberal" bias, or a "profit driven" bias involved? Do you really think a private corporation is going to have any other motive than to increase their sales and profits? Seriously, AJ?

 

[Pookie]

Pooks, as a "self-professed" Democrat, it comes as no surprise that you don't see a Democrat bias in the press as you are in the mainstream...

I see a "profit driven" bias, not a liberal or conservative one. It's about the money. I'm surprised you really can't see that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All I know is it's here, it happened, it was a real event...

Like I said, try Newsmax. I'm not here to tangle with you, and I know you are dying to call me a "liar," out me, and "win" the debate. (I just want to have a polite conversation and after my crankiness of yesterday, I am reboubling my efforts.)

Problem is, I just saw you defend the Burkett memo and I remember during the election that we easily and demostrably proved that Kerry lied on the floor of the Senate and you were comfortable with that, so it is my sneaking suspicion that if I were to find the thread for you, your reaction would be to immediately go to finding a way to discredit it, or parse it into something that says "Hey, we're not liberal, conservatives are just radical."

So save yourself the effort and just repeat after me,

A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!
A_J lied and soldiers died!

But what I am poiting out is the truth. I never said the press was Liberal, I stated that the press was heavily weighted Democrat and gave a logical reason for that phenomonen. If my reason is factual, then it must, in order to get the story, begin to have more Republican-friendly reporting.

ABC actually did something out of character yesterday on its radio broadcastrs that shocked the shit out of me. Right after it's story about rising gas prices, it actually followed it with a story about the 80's and how gas was actually higher then if you factored in inflation. That's something that wouldn't have happened in recent years. It would have been only the bad news because a Republican was in office. Perhaps they are yearning to win back some of the people who dropped them in recent years.

"All I know is it's here, it happened, it was a real event..."

No it wasn't. You want us to take you at your word, the word of a man to whom deception and distortion is second nature.

You have no facts...NONE....to back up your charge.

This is typical.

And this is why I continually challenge you to provide facts to support your dubious claims.

More often than not, your response is something along the lines of what you posted above.....telling your challengers to "look it up" for themselves...usually on partisan sites like Newsmax.

I simply don't believe you, AJ.

You can't back up what you say with verifiable facts.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

You have a minor point when you speak to profit.

But as we see now, the majors have continued to pull Left in a time when their base is still Left, but the Republicans have assumed the power at the Federal level and hence their circulation and viewership is dropping even though their readers and viewers still want the hate of Bush to be expressed. So they are between a rock and a hard place. If they want access to power, they turn off their readers. Turn off their readers and they have no access to power and hence lag Fox and such when it comes to breaking the story.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

That's okay by me Throb. I no longer care enough about your opinions to even get worked up over what you say.

I'm a liar.

 

[overthebow]

That's okay by me Throb. I no longer care enough about your opinions to even get worked up over what you say.

I'm a liar.

Is there any curvature to the Earth where you live, or is it all just flat?

 

[Pookie]

You have a minor point when you speak to profit.

But as we see now, the majors have continued to pull Left in a time when their base is still Left, but the Republicans have assumed the power at the Federal level and hence their circulation and viewership is dropping even though their readers and viewers still want the hate of Bush to be expressed. So they are between a rock and a hard place. If they want access to power, they turn off their readers. Turn off their readers and they have no access to power and hence lag Fox and such when it comes to breaking the story.

I have THE point, dude. If you honestly think there is any other motive than "profit" and "ratings" in how the media covers stories and events, you're a fool. The idea that they would sacrifice profits/ratings just to make a political party continuously look bad is just plain bullshit excuse making to respond to negative coverage. Trying to seriously make it anything other than a corporation trying to make money is just being silly and/or naive.

Sensational stories make for good ratings. Telling how "good" things are doesn't sell. Why you seem to struggle with this concept is interesting, and maybe shows your own hidden agenda with perpetuating this "liberal media" myth.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

In Kansas, like on the ocean, you can see the curvature because it is flat...

Also I've flown over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and can vouch for that fact. Do you have anything to offer other than personal attacks?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I have THE point, dude. If you honestly think there is any other motive than "profit" and "ratings" in how the media covers stories and events, you're a fool. The idea that they would sacrifice profits/ratings just to make a political party continuously look bad is just plain bullshit excuse making to respond to negative coverage. Trying to seriously make it anything other than a corporation trying to make money is just being silly and/or naive.

Sensational stories make for good ratings. Telling how "good" things are doesn't sell. Why you seem to struggle with this concept is interesting, and maybe shows your own hidden agenda with perpetuating this "liberal media" myth.

I gave you profit as a partial motivator but can give you more examples of how tempting it is for reporters, who don't answer to the advertisers, using the power of the pen in order to set, or direct, the political agenda. Yes, sensational stories DO sell print, you are correct, but their profits are in decline. What you should think about is your conjecture that profit is the sole motivating factor because when one major corporation bought one of the big three (I forget who and which one) and demanded that the news division turn a profit, they rebelled and quashed that silly little notion which is why I say the news is a loss-leader on the networks and not beholden to he bottom line but beholden to the search for power.

Journalism students don't go into the business to report the facts, but to use the power of the pen to make a difference.

 

[overthebow]

In Kansas, like on the ocean, you can see the curvature because it is flat...

Also I've flown over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and can vouch for that fact. Do you have anything to offer other than personal attacks?

What personal attack?

Most media is owned by very large corporations and they are interested in the bottom line. Spectacle sells, but you are locked into the idea that all media is dominated by liberals?

One of two things seems to be true:

1) either the market, the buying public, is liberal as well, and liberal stories sell well there

2) or the media is not liberal, but will tell what ever story is needed to sell products.

I think it is number 2, but you seem locked into number 1.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Look at what just happened with Ed Klein.

He was booked by all the majors and then dropped even though he made #1 on the Times best seller list.

It wasn't because the advertisers threatend to pull their ads, but because Team Clinton threatened the with-holding of access to Hillary.

 

[Guest]

Pooks, as a "self-professed" Democrat, it comes as no surprise that you don't see a Democrat bias in the press as you are in the mainstream...

I'm not a Democrat and I agree with her.

Again, the points brought up here are not wrong per se, just that it's a bigger picture than politics.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I am not locked into anything. I gave Pooks her point, I just don't see it as the "main" point.

People who publish papers need profit to stay in business, I concur, but they are in business to wield power and to hob-nob with power.

 

[Guest]

Look at what just happened with Ed Klein.

He was booked by all the majors and then dropped even though he made #1 on the Times best seller list.

It wasn't because the advertisers threatend to pull their ads, but because Team Clinton threatened the with-holding of access to Hillary.

She was worth more in terms of $$. More people know her than Ed Klein.

pssst - politics sells!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

And Survivor covers the cost of the CBS evening news...

 

[Guest]

I am not locked into anything. I gave Pooks her point, I just don't see it as the "main" point.

People who publish papers need profit to stay in business, I concur, but they are in business to wield power and to hob-nob with power.

I know.


Stirring shit and going against the perceived "ones in control", aka bucking authority, sells. Kissing ass doesn't.