Conservatives and the Media

[Iceweasel]

That's basically the difference --- a public facility gives something TO its audience (information), while a commercial one exploits that audience to take something FROM it (money). And that's why NPR gets a subsidy -- it's the only way such an operation can work without selling out.

Selling ads is selling out? That's a new one! How does a mattress influence one's politics?

 

[Pogo]

Nobody has ever made money on news. What they make money on now is what I call News Theater.

They make plenty of money. Even last place MSNBC makes tons of money in spite of their low ratings. That's a poor excuse to get taxpayer money for a left leaning outlet like NPR. If NPR leaned right, it wouldn't be a "real" news outlet to you. if a news outlet can't make their own money, then they should be off the air like any other entity.

NO news outlet, ANYWHERE, can "make money" on news. It isn't possible.and no one's ever done it. I just explained that to you.

MSNBC does not do "news". It does News Theater just as Fox and CNN do. NBC (the main network, on the air) does do news, but when it does it makes no "profit". There's no way to make a profit from simply reporting neutral facts. That's because there's no emotion to mine. Which means, if you're watching CBS report neutral news and the channel suddenly goes off the air, you just switch to ABC and get the same thing, because it's raw info. Again, what makes profit for News Theater, as opposed to actual News, is mining emotions. And that means inserting soap opera. That's what MSNBC does, following the Fox model, to its discredit, down the same hole for the same reason --- because it makes money.

I don't care how many of these operations put the word "news" in their name or on their screen --- what they're doing, at least in prime time where the audience is, where any TV channel makes its money --- is not news. It's people analyzing the news there already is, injecting soap opera anywhere and everywhere they can.

NPR doesn't do that, since it has no incentive to make a profit or maximize audience. Moreover NPR is Radio, not TV, which is an entirely different meduim, and a far more worthy one for legitimate information dissemination. Anyway NPR if it has a lean at all, leans right, not left. But that's got nothing to do with the economics of news so it's irrelevant to this point.

They receive some grants but it's mostly from listeners.

The Fed puts out that fundage so a democratic society can have a democratic discourse. It can't do that with a commercial media.

Actually it's way UNDERfunded. We spend far less on public-democracy infrastructure than, say, Germany, Japan, or even Canada. All of their citizens get a better deal.

Here we go again, everybody else does things better than the US. Where in our constitution does it say the government should fund news?

I'm not aware of anywhere our Constitution says the government "should" do anything. Invalid question.

I'm so amazed how you leftists constantly tell us how much better things are outside of our borders, but nobody ever leaves. I guess that's one of the many differences between the right and the left; you seldom if ever hear a Republican say things are better somewhere else.

"Nobody ever leaves"? Do yourself a favor, go get a passport and go see the world. Anywhere. You'll be amazed. And inevitably, regardless what country you're going to OR what country you're coming from, you'll find somebody doing something better, more originally, more efficiently, more comprehensively, than you do. It's absurd to suggest that's not the case unless we all think we're some kind of gods.

Personally I get most of my news from CBC. Because yes it is better on the whole, than NPR. It is said in public radio circles that the reason our best public radio programming tends to come from Minnesota and New York and Wisconsin, is that those places are close enough to Canada to hear what radio can really do when it's given a funding structure to do it (i.e. CBC, which has no commercials at all and is therefore beholden only to its public. That's crucial. Not sure why you seem determined to subcontract your own information sources out to commercial interests that have their own agendas.

 

[martybegan]

For years, Conservatives have attacked the media, claiming they are biased and unfair. Trump has gone as far as saying the media is "the enemy of the people" Before this goes much further there are 2 things Conservatives had better think about:

1. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the media when they published endless stories about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's emails, the death panels, and grannies being wheeled into the streets to die that the affordable care act was supposed to produce, and countless other stories that worked to Conservatives political advantage (and let's not forget the endless stories about that Kenyan born Muslim in the White House that was not a REAL American!)

2. The alternative? If America does not have a free press as the framers of our constitution demanded, then we have state run media just like in Russia and North Korea, where the truth is what the state tells you it is, and ONLY what the state tells you it is!

So think about this conservatives before you start bitching about the media, and blaming it for all of your problems.

What is the party registration breakdown, and the political contribution breakdown between the parties at various media outlets?

Would you wager on most of them being heavily democratic, or heavily republican?

What is the party affiliation breakdown for faculty at most major Journalism programs at Colleges and Universities?

If it's journalism you're talking about the party registration makeup is this --- Irrelevant.

That would be relevant if the job were, say, political campaign manager. A journalist simply reports facts, neutrally. There's no party registration needed to do that.

This is akin to the same Composition Fallacy that ascribes DAESH to "Islam" or suggests that Republicans are racists on the basis that David Duke is. Party registrations are for voting (and largely not even necessary for that) -- not for working outside of politics.

It is 100% relevant, despite your protests to the contrary. All people have biases, and even when they try to mute them, they subtly impact how the news is reported and presented.

When most of the press agrees with or favors one party, is it really an independent press?

Of course since the press agrees with you on so many positions, your own bias prevents you from seeing it, or you just like it that way, and have to do the usual hack pro-forma denial of said bias.

 

[Pogo]

That's basically the difference --- a public facility gives something TO its audience (information), while a commercial one exploits that audience to take something FROM it (money). And that's why NPR gets a subsidy -- it's the only way such an operation can work without selling out.

Selling ads is selling out? That's a new one! How does a mattress influence one's politics?

I suppose that depends on who's going bouncy-bouncy on the mattress.

Damn right selling ads is selling out. Ad revenue is your FUNDING. That's your BOSS. That means if your boss is Monsanto and it doesn't like that report you're doing on milk, then you can't do it. And that means that entity (Monsanto in this case) decides what the news is and what it isn't.

And beyond that, if you're a commercial organization, then by the definition of capitalism your prime directive is to make money for your shareholders --- it is not to serve the public. It also means you'll select your content and what you focus on, on the basis of what will sell, not what the news actually is. And that means if some unsexy wonky but ultimatley impactful legislation like the CFMA gets passed, but at the same time the ongoing melodrama of Bush V. Gore is going on, the latter is going to get all the attention, even if it has to be a somnabulstic review of what happened last week, to the exlusion of the CFMA story. The latter is an opportunity to sell Viagra -- the former is not. Don't you get that?

That's why you see so much who-cares news like how Michael Jackson died and the latest missing white girl. MIning emotions so that the miner -- the TV channel -- can make money out of advertising which is defined as persuading people to buy things they don't need (if they needed it they wouldn't have to be persuaded). The entire MO of commercial media is to grab your attention --- by whatever means will work, even if it's dishonest --- so that it can then sell you a monster truck that's big enough to tow an asteroid. That's precisely what "ratings" are all about. And that 's all it is, because the advertiser is the boss.

When your funding is NOT conditional on advertising ---- all that dark incentive goes away.

 

[Pogo]

For years, Conservatives have attacked the media, claiming they are biased and unfair. Trump has gone as far as saying the media is "the enemy of the people" Before this goes much further there are 2 things Conservatives had better think about:

1. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the media when they published endless stories about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's emails, the death panels, and grannies being wheeled into the streets to die that the affordable care act was supposed to produce, and countless other stories that worked to Conservatives political advantage (and let's not forget the endless stories about that Kenyan born Muslim in the White House that was not a REAL American!)

2. The alternative? If America does not have a free press as the framers of our constitution demanded, then we have state run media just like in Russia and North Korea, where the truth is what the state tells you it is, and ONLY what the state tells you it is!

So think about this conservatives before you start bitching about the media, and blaming it for all of your problems.

What is the party registration breakdown, and the political contribution breakdown between the parties at various media outlets?

Would you wager on most of them being heavily democratic, or heavily republican?

What is the party affiliation breakdown for faculty at most major Journalism programs at Colleges and Universities?

If it's journalism you're talking about the party registration makeup is this --- Irrelevant.

That would be relevant if the job were, say, political campaign manager. A journalist simply reports facts, neutrally. There's no party registration needed to do that.

This is akin to the same Composition Fallacy that ascribes DAESH to "Islam" or suggests that Republicans are racists on the basis that David Duke is. Party registrations are for voting (and largely not even necessary for that) -- not for working outside of politics.

It is 100% relevant, despite your protests to the contrary. All people have biases, and even when they try to mute them, they subtly impact how the news is reported and presented.

When most of the press agrees with or favors one party, is it really an independent press?

Of course since the press agrees with you on so many positions, your own bias prevents you from seeing it, or you just like it that way, and have to do the usual hack pro-forma denial of said bias.

No, it's in no way relevant. You're making two grand assumption-leaps here, one being that being registered with a political party automatically bestows that party's current ideology on the registrant, and the other being that that registration MUST influence that registrant in their work. Neither case has been made.

For one thing if that random journalist happens to change his/her registration, or register as nonaffiliated, IT'S STILL THE SAME PERSON. People are not dichotomous robots. For another thing the only effective reasons to register with a political party at all is either (a) to vote in that party's primary if your state requires it (mine does not, happily) or (b) to have a voice in your local town/city government if that government is dominated by one party. That's it. There's no other benefit to it, and NEITHER of those has anything to do with ideology.

You're trying to not only shove people into a bag based on a label that isn't limited to one definition, but then also trying to assume that the label you just slapped on them, influences them in unrelated activity. There's no evidence either of those is true.

This is Association/Composition fallacy. That's all it is. A journalist's personal political registration is of no more importance than that of your plumber. What matters there is, can he fix my pipes.

 

[martybegan]

For years, Conservatives have attacked the media, claiming they are biased and unfair. Trump has gone as far as saying the media is "the enemy of the people" Before this goes much further there are 2 things Conservatives had better think about:

1. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the media when they published endless stories about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's emails, the death panels, and grannies being wheeled into the streets to die that the affordable care act was supposed to produce, and countless other stories that worked to Conservatives political advantage (and let's not forget the endless stories about that Kenyan born Muslim in the White House that was not a REAL American!)

2. The alternative? If America does not have a free press as the framers of our constitution demanded, then we have state run media just like in Russia and North Korea, where the truth is what the state tells you it is, and ONLY what the state tells you it is!

So think about this conservatives before you start bitching about the media, and blaming it for all of your problems.

What is the party registration breakdown, and the political contribution breakdown between the parties at various media outlets?

Would you wager on most of them being heavily democratic, or heavily republican?

What is the party affiliation breakdown for faculty at most major Journalism programs at Colleges and Universities?

If it's journalism you're talking about the party registration makeup is this --- Irrelevant.

That would be relevant if the job were, say, political campaign manager. A journalist simply reports facts, neutrally. There's no party registration needed to do that.

This is akin to the same Composition Fallacy that ascribes DAESH to "Islam" or suggests that Republicans are racists on the basis that David Duke is. Party registrations are for voting (and largely not even necessary for that) -- not for working outside of politics.

It is 100% relevant, despite your protests to the contrary. All people have biases, and even when they try to mute them, they subtly impact how the news is reported and presented.

When most of the press agrees with or favors one party, is it really an independent press?

Of course since the press agrees with you on so many positions, your own bias prevents you from seeing it, or you just like it that way, and have to do the usual hack pro-forma denial of said bias.

No, it's in no way relevant. You're making two grand assumption-leaps here, one being that being registered with a political party automatically bestows that party's current ideology on the registrant, and the other being that that registration MUST influence that registrant in their work. Neither case has been made.

For one thing if that random journalist happens to change his/her registration, or register as nonaffiliated, IT'S STILL THE SAME PERSON. People are not dichotomous robots. For another thing the only effective reasons to register with a political party at all is either (a) to vote in that party's primary if your state requires it (mine does not, happily) or (b) to have a voice in your local town/city government if that government is dominated by one party. That's it. There's no other benefit to it, and NEITHER of those has anything to do with ideology.

You're trying to not only shove people into a bag based on a label that isn't limited to one definition, but then also trying to assume that the label you just slapped on them, influences them in unrelated activity. There's no evidence either of those is true.

This is Association/Composition fallacy. That's all it is. A journalist's personal political registration is of no more importance than that of your plumber. What matters there is, can he fix my pipes.

Your last statement is the most idiotic I have seen in a while. The act of fixing a pipe is not political, the act of reporting news, in particular political news, IS political, and has been for some time. The simple fact is the majority of journalists out there are democrats, support democratic policy, and even if they try to veer impartial have their own biases that we see on a daily basis, from the NY Times, to CNN, to MSNBC. Yes, Fox news is not immune to it from the other side, but to lash yourself to the mast of the SS Impartial Press while we all know that ship has sunk a long time ago is both comical and sad.

If you look at CNN's cover page, it is all "Trump Sucks", all the time. Now go to CNN's employee party registration and political donations and tell me that doesn't correlate to their democratic favoring bias.

 

[Pogo]

For years, Conservatives have attacked the media, claiming they are biased and unfair. Trump has gone as far as saying the media is "the enemy of the people" Before this goes much further there are 2 things Conservatives had better think about:

1. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the media when they published endless stories about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's emails, the death panels, and grannies being wheeled into the streets to die that the affordable care act was supposed to produce, and countless other stories that worked to Conservatives political advantage (and let's not forget the endless stories about that Kenyan born Muslim in the White House that was not a REAL American!)

2. The alternative? If America does not have a free press as the framers of our constitution demanded, then we have state run media just like in Russia and North Korea, where the truth is what the state tells you it is, and ONLY what the state tells you it is!

So think about this conservatives before you start bitching about the media, and blaming it for all of your problems.

It's always seemed odd that the self-styled libertarian parrots, whatever they call themselves, rail 24/7 about the government bureaucracy keeping out of public affairs, and yet they do a complete 180 when the corporatocracy does the same thing, which is at least as dangerous if not more.

Commercial media sells what sells -- which explains the Clinton thing. Sex sells and scandal sells, always has. More generally emotion sells.

They also didn't seem to object when mass media portrayed Reagan taking office against the background of a plane leaving Iran with freed hostages on it, as if it were a cause and effect (while never actually saying that). To this day there walk among us those who believe Reagan did that.

My ass JFK would of gone down in flames if the media would of reported on his affairs and It was cause and effect Khomeini hated Jimmy...it's also amusing the left don't want to o talk about the fairness doctrine and how long they own the media, news, televion shows, Television movies, newspapers ,......

.

"Would of", would he of?

I haven't spoken to Khomeni, and I doubt you have, on how he feels about Jimmy. That's irrelevant. Carter got obsessed with getting it done, and got it done, and the media effectively went crickets and went "hail Reagan". One of those times y'all "liburrul media" mythologists conveniently forget.

On to "media, news, television shows, Television movies, newspapers...." ---- those are owned, virtually in their entirety, not by a "left" or "right" but by massive multi-tentacled corporations. Corporations whose tentacles include all of the above PLUS movie productions, book publishers, magazines, games, websites, billboards, record labels, even sport venues and sports teams. Which means a single entity can decide it will sell you its book author, interview that author on its TV show, splash that author in its magazine, write some fluff about that author in its newspaper, advertise that author on its billboards, write a song about that author's book and release it on its record label, play that record on its radio stations, and have its movie producer make that book into a movie, shown in its own theater chain. That's one entity completely controlling what you read, what you see, what you hear and what you think of it. And it ain't a government entity --- it's far more insidious. It's unelected and unaccountable. And there are fewer of those mega-entities than ever.

THAT is what owns media --- not "the left" or "the right". Nobody makes a dime trying to sell "the left" or "the right". They make their dimes selling emotions. Such as for example, the image of Reagan taking office while the jet leaves Iran. Such as a politician's personal scandal. Such as "how did Michael Jackson die". Such as a giant orange asshole sitting at a desk going "you're fired". Because they know the unwashed will tune in for that shit.

As the playbook of Rump's fake-university put it: "you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell feelings". That's exactly right. And that's true for what qualifies as "news", it goes for movie plots, it goes for headlines, it goes right down to each TV commercial. That's what they're ALL selling.

Get that straight --- nobody makes money from ideology. Can't be done. They make money from psychologial manipulation. Fear above all, followed by scandal, paranoia, sex, disaster and death, and any kind of drama they can dream up. Not necessarily in that order.

Now then, what's your question about the Fairness Doctrine?

We just watch FoxNews and avoid the MSM's propaganda. Pity that the city folks don't recognize propaganda when they see it. The urban democrat plantations require constant propaganda to stay blue, i.e. we can give you free stuff, just vote for us...

Yyyeah ummm... Fox News *IS* the MSM. No different from the Viacoms and the Disneys.
They come in mildly different flavors but they all follow the same model -- manipulating the emotions of a completely passive sponge. The only distinction being exactly how to grab that attention and loyalty. Could be scary-monsters stories of black people, could be naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, could be fake wrestling. Even the Weather Channel devotes its Prime Time to it with a relentless dump of hurricanes and tornadoes people trapped in a car underwater. It's all selling emotion.

I might add, going back to the term "propaganda" ---

It is propaganda in a sense, but not in the way you mean. The propaganda is not "this side is good, that side is evil"--- it's much more subtle. The actual propaganda they're all selling -- FNC and everybody else -- is "you stink, you need a deodorant" and "you're not a man unless you buy this truck". All of that shit that makes up the programming is just setup*. All that ideology-veneer that seems to emanate from this channel or that one is just that, a veneer, a means to an end. And as has been noted by others, if Rupert Murdoch suddenly thought appealing to the left would make him more money he would turn on a dime and it would be on the air tomorrow morning wid a quickness. All that ideology-veneer is calculated, just like the garish colors and the miniskirts and the anger, to ensnare the emotions, so that it can keep the viewer watching so that it can sell a sleep drug --- which you'll need after all the hair-on-fire stories. They appeal to fear, they appeal to racism, they appeal to outrage. That's all it is --- a tool.

* - ClearChannel TV executive to one of his station Program Directors:
"Do you know what programming is? Programming is the shit we run between commercials".
​

That's what the propaganda is. It's on every (commercial) channel.

 

[Pogo]

Your last statement is the most idiotic I have seen in a while. The act of fixing a pipe is not political, the act of reporting news, in particular political news, IS political, and has been for some time.

Back atchya, same insult. Jeepers Wally, that was fun. Now let's move on from the childish tantrums shall we?

Exactly, the act of fixing a pipe is not political, so you wouldn't be calling a plumbing company grilling them on "what is the party registration of your employees?". Because it's irrelevant. Now connect the dots.

Reporting news is not political. It's simply going out to find out what happened and telling the world. News Theater is absolutely political --- which is why I already drew that distinction. Journalism, if it's real journalism, means reporting that "the President said X and the Senator in response said Y'. That's it, end of story, back to you in the studio. There's nothing "political" in reporting an event.

The simple fact is the majority of journalists out there are democrats

Presuming you mean Democrats (proper names get capitalized in English), no I don't know that's a fact at all and neither do you, nor would it be relevant if we did know. We might as well survey what their shoe sizes and astrological sun signs are; it would tell us just as much. I already explained the mundane reasons to register with a political party, reasons that have nothing to do with ideologies.

If Joe Blow is unregistered today, and then tomorrow registers as a Republican so he can vote in his state's primary ----- did his views suddenly change overnight?

support democratic policy, and even if they try to veer impartial have their own biases that we see on a daily basis, from the NY Times, to CNN, to MSNBC.

Again, this is not "fact" --- it's subjective ipse dixit. You can't quantify it.

Yes, Fox news is not immune to it from the other side, but to lash yourself to the mast of the SS Impartial Press while we all know that ship has sunk a long time ago is both comical and sad.

"Everybody knows" fallacy based on the above subjective ipse dixit. I'm describing logical conclusions, you're describing subjective value judgments you can't quantify.

If you look at CNN's cover page, it is all "Trump Sucks", all the time. Now go to CNN's employee party registration and political donations and tell me that doesn't correlate to their democratic favoring bias.

Dichotomists.... SMH. Y'all really genuinely believe the entire world is made up of two elements, "Democrat" and "Republican" and that's all there is doncha. Nobody anywhere has any free will, nobody anywhere has the ability to think as an individual, there's no such thing as "integrity", blah blah blah. What a world -- talk about "comical and sad". Poor Joe Blow in my example above has to sit up next week studying all night when he changes his party registration to Democrat. Apparently there's a quiz you have to pass.

What you're (still) doing here is assuming facts not in evidence. Assuming a cause and effect that, again, you can't quantify. That's fine for a speculation, but that's all it's going to amount to.

 

[Doc1]

For years, Conservatives have attacked the media, claiming they are biased and unfair. Trump has gone as far as saying the media is "the enemy of the people" Before this goes much further there are 2 things Conservatives had better think about:

1. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the media when they published endless stories about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's emails, the death panels, and grannies being wheeled into the streets to die that the affordable care act was supposed to produce, and countless other stories that worked to Conservatives political advantage (and let's not forget the endless stories about that Kenyan born Muslim in the White House that was not a REAL American!)

2. The alternative? If America does not have a free press as the framers of our constitution demanded, then we have state run media just like in Russia and North Korea, where the truth is what the state tells you it is, and ONLY what the state tells you it is!

So think about this conservatives before you start bitching about the media, and blaming it for all of your problems.

What's sad is that you think our press is "free".

 

[martybegan]

Your last statement is the most idiotic I have seen in a while. The act of fixing a pipe is not political, the act of reporting news, in particular political news, IS political, and has been for some time.

Back atchya, same insult. Jeepers Wally, that was fun. Now let's move on from the childish tantrums shall we?

Exactly, the act of fixing a pipe is not political, so you wouldn't be calling a plumbing company grilling them on "what is the party registration of your employees?". Because it's irrelevant. Now connect the dots.

Reporting news is not political. It's simply going out to find out what happened and telling the world. News Theater is absolutely political --- which is why I already drew that distinction. Journalism, if it's real journalism, means reporting that "the President said X and the Senator in response said Y'. That's it, end of story, back to you in the studio. There's nothing "political" in reporting an event.

The simple fact is the majority of journalists out there are democrats

Presuming you mean Democrats (proper names get capitalized in English), no I don't know that's a fact at all and neither do you, nor would it be relevant if we did know. We might as well survey what their shoe sizes and astrological sun signs are; it would tell us just as much. I already explained the mundane reasons to register with a political party, reasons that have nothing to do with ideologies.

If Joe Blow is unregistered today, and then tomorrow registers as a Republican so he can vote in his state's primary ----- did his views suddenly change overnight?

support democratic policy, and even if they try to veer impartial have their own biases that we see on a daily basis, from the NY Times, to CNN, to MSNBC.

Again, this is not "fact" --- it's subjective ipse dixit. You can't quantify it.

Yes, Fox news is not immune to it from the other side, but to lash yourself to the mast of the SS Impartial Press while we all know that ship has sunk a long time ago is both comical and sad.

"Everybody knows" fallacy based on the above subjective ipse dixit. I'm describing logical conclusions, you're describing subjective value judgments you can't quantify.

If you look at CNN's cover page, it is all "Trump Sucks", all the time. Now go to CNN's employee party registration and political donations and tell me that doesn't correlate to their democratic favoring bias.

Dichotomists.... SMH. Y'all really genuinely believe the entire world is made up of two elements, "Democrat" and "Republican" and that's all there is doncha. Nobody anywhere has any free will, nobody anywhere has the ability to think as an individual, there's no such thing as "integrity", blah blah blah. What a world -- talk about "comical and sad". Poor Joe Blow in my example above has to sit up next week studying all night when he changes his party registration to Democrat. Apparently there's a quiz you have to pass.

What you're (still) doing here is assuming facts not in evidence. Assuming a cause and effect that, again, you can't quantify. That's fine for a speculation, but that's all it's going to amount to.

You make the assumption that any news out there right now is actually real journalism. There is no longer any impartial reporting of the news, everything has a political spin and context to it, and a majority of that spin has a leftist bent, just like the majority of journalists have a leftist bent.

You are being a nit-picky little twat because you can't face the simple fact that a majority of journalists are left leaning, and their views obviously bias their reporting. Most of their editors are left leaning, as are a lot of their owners/management. One can see the political contribution skew to see this, as well as party registration as gross indicators.

Answer a simple question. Does CNN have a left leaning bias in its reporting?

Second, is CNN in general Anti-Trump?

 

[Cellblock2429]

For years, Conservatives have attacked the media, claiming they are biased and unfair. Trump has gone as far as saying the media is "the enemy of the people" Before this goes much further there are 2 things Conservatives had better think about:

1. Conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the media when they published endless stories about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's emails, the death panels, and grannies being wheeled into the streets to die that the affordable care act was supposed to produce, and countless other stories that worked to Conservatives political advantage (and let's not forget the endless stories about that Kenyan born Muslim in the White House that was not a REAL American!)

2. The alternative? If America does not have a free press as the framers of our constitution demanded, then we have state run media just like in Russia and North Korea, where the truth is what the state tells you it is, and ONLY what the state tells you it is!

So think about this conservatives before you start bitching about the media, and blaming it for all of your problems.

/--- the stories about Clinton were true. Russia gate is unfounded

 

[Cellblock2429]

Funny no one had a problem with the media during the campaign, all I ever saw was Trump rally's, Trump this, Trump that. The Media got him elected and now you have a problem with it?

EXACTLY thank you. These rubes get lost in minutiae of "positive" this/"negative" that, while the sheer volume completely flies over their collective head. "There's no such thing and bad publicity". Or as Wilde put it, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about".

What would be far more useful is some figure on how often Rump was mentioned --- whether positive, negative or neutral -- compared to everybody else. And if there was ever a lull in it he made sure to say something stupid (e.g."I like people who weren't captured OK?") to get back into the buzz. He knows his audience.

/---- So why did Obozo and Clintoon complain about Fox News 24/7?

 

[Darkwind]

The media has gone from biased spinning of the news to outright advocacy of the Democrat party and they are not even bothering to hide it.

 

[Pogo]

The media has gone from biased spinning of the news to outright advocacy of the Democrat party and they are not even bothering to hide it.

Again, the media is commercial. That means it does whatever it does for the purpose of making profit.

Nobody makes a profit "advocating" for a political party. Even one that actually does exist. There's just no way to do that.

Stupefying how many posters here don't understand simple basic principles of capitalism.

 

[Pogo]

Funny no one had a problem with the media during the campaign, all I ever saw was Trump rally's, Trump this, Trump that. The Media got him elected and now you have a problem with it?

EXACTLY thank you. These rubes get lost in minutiae of "positive" this/"negative" that, while the sheer volume completely flies over their collective head. "There's no such thing and bad publicity". Or as Wilde put it, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about".

What would be far more useful is some figure on how often Rump was mentioned --- whether positive, negative or neutral -- compared to everybody else. And if there was ever a lull in it he made sure to say something stupid (e.g."I like people who weren't captured OK?") to get back into the buzz. He knows his audience.

/---- So why did Obozo and Clintoon complain about Fox News 24/7?

I don't know that they did but when somebody does complain about something they usually explain it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Bias was bad enough, today the media outright lies, intentionally.

 

[Pogo]

You make the assumption that any news out there right now is actually real journalism.

Nope. Again the assumption is yours. I haven't been talking about "news out there right now"; I've been describing the economics of how the news process works.

I did, at length, discuss "News Theater", which certainly is out there right now. But that's not the same thing as "news" and I already expounded on why it isn't.

There is no longer any impartial reporting of the news, everything has a political spin and context to it, and a majority of that spin has a leftist bent, just like the majority of journalists have a leftist bent.

The first part, mostly true but never say never. It's harder to find impartial than it used to be but not impossible. So long as we don't simply take the largest most pervasive mass media and then throw up our hands and say "oh well that's all there is". It isn't.

The second part is, again, your subjective opinion. Which it's worth noting is relative to where you yourself stand. If you're standing in New Jersey, then Ohio is "the West" If you're in Illinois --- not so much.

You are being a nit-picky little twat because you can't face the simple fact that a majority of journalists are left leaning, and their views obviously bias their reporting.

Again, assumption of facts not in evidence. I'm not "unable to face" such a scenario -- I don't have any evidence that it exists. Again if you're standing in New Jersey virtually the entire country is to your left. That doesn't make Ohio "the West".

Most of their editors are left leaning, as are a lot of their owners/management. One can see the political contribution skew to see this, as well as party registration as gross indicators.

Again, we don't know this, it's simply your assertion. If it were a stock I'd never buy it And again, party registration is meaningless.

What's the purpose of registering with a political party? I've already posted mine, what else is there?

Answer a simple question. Does CNN have a left leaning bias in its reporting?

Second, is CNN in general Anti-Trump?

I don't watch CNN so I don't know. I don't even have a television. Why would I, after knowing what I know about that insidious propaganda machine? (and again when I say 'propaganda', read "commodity fetish")

 

[martybegan]

You make the assumption that any news out there right now is actually real journalism.

Nope. Again the assumption is yours. I haven't been talking about "news out there right now"; I've been describing the economics of how the news process works.

I did, at length, discuss "News Theater", which certainly is out there right now. But that's not the same thing as "news" and I already expounded on why it isn't.

There is no longer any impartial reporting of the news, everything has a political spin and context to it, and a majority of that spin has a leftist bent, just like the majority of journalists have a leftist bent.

The first part, mostly true but never say never. It's harder to find impartial than it used to be but not impossible. So long as we don't simply take the largest most pervasive mass media and then throw up our hands and say "oh well that's all there is". It isn't.

The second part is, again, your subjective opinion. Which it's worth noting is relative to where you yourself stand. If you're standing in New Jersey, then Ohio is "the West" If you're in Illinois --- not so much.

You are being a nit-picky little twat because you can't face the simple fact that a majority of journalists are left leaning, and their views obviously bias their reporting.

Again, assumption of facts not in evidence. I'm not "unable to face" such a scenario -- I don't have any evidence that it exists. Again if you're standing in New Jersey virtually the entire country is to your left. That doesn't make Ohio "the West".

Most of their editors are left leaning, as are a lot of their owners/management. One can see the political contribution skew to see this, as well as party registration as gross indicators.

Again, we don't know this, it's simply your assertion. If it were a stock I'd never buy it And again, party registration is meaningless.

What's the purpose of registering with a political party? I've already posted mine, what else is there?

Answer a simple question. Does CNN have a left leaning bias in its reporting?

Second, is CNN in general Anti-Trump?

I don't watch CNN so I don't know. I don't even have a television. Why would I, after knowing what I know about that insidious propaganda machine? (and again when I say 'propaganda', read "commodity fetish")

What you are doing is ignoring the actual discussion via diversion and off-topic interludes. It is like you are discussing vapor pressures using the ideal gas law, and I am talking about reality using an SRK method. What we have now is a biased news media, and an overwhelming majority of them are sympathetic to democratic causes.

More nit-picking douchebaggery.

If you "don't own a television" then you are ill equipped to be part of this discussion, and you have no background in what we are talking about.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Funny no one had a problem with the media during the campaign, all I ever saw was Trump rally's, Trump this, Trump that. The Media got him elected and now you have a problem with it?

EXACTLY thank you. These rubes get lost in minutiae of "positive" this/"negative" that, while the sheer volume completely flies over their collective head. "There's no such thing and bad publicity". Or as Wilde put it, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about".

What would be far more useful is some figure on how often Rump was mentioned --- whether positive, negative or neutral -- compared to everybody else. And if there was ever a lull in it he made sure to say something stupid (e.g."I like people who weren't captured OK?") to get back into the buzz. He knows his audience.

/---- So why did Obozo and Clintoon complain about Fox News 24/7?

I don't know that they did but when somebody does complain about something they usually explain it.

/--- WHAT ?????? You didn't hear them complain about Fox, Hannity and Rush constantly?
October 2008

Then-candidate Obama complained he would be polling higher if Fox didn’t exist. This may work in soap operas and song lyrics, but that’s not exactly the best start to a working relationship with the press.

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latté-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

October 2010

Obama admitted in a softball interview with Rolling Stone that he “disagrees” with Fox News. No shock there, but added he believes Fox has a “destructive viewpoint.”

“I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

PLeanty more here: Did Mainstream Media Forget How Obama Treated Fox News?
You'll have to Google the rest.

Mrs. Clinton Complains and Blames | Rush Limbaugh | iHeartRadio
news.iheart.com/onair/rush-limbaugh.../mrs-clinton-complains-and-blames-15721112...
Apr 7, 2017 - RUSH: Now, let's move on to Mrs. Clinton. "Hillary Clinton said Thursday that misogyny 'certainly' played a role in her bruising defeat to Donald ...
Clinton Calls Show to Assail Press, Falwell and Limbaugh - NYTimes ...
www.nytimes.com/1994/.../clinton-calls-show-to-assail-press-falwell-and-limbaugh.ht...
Jun 25, 1994 - President Clinton dialed into a radio call-in program from Air Force One today ... radio talk show hosts in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular. ... Seizing on the President's complaint that Americans had no way to know ...

 

[Cellblock2429]

The media has gone from biased spinning of the news to outright advocacy of the Democrat party and they are not even bothering to hide it.

Again, the media is commercial. That means it does whatever it does for the purpose of making profit.

Nobody makes a profit "advocating" for a political party. Even one that actually does exist. There's just no way to do that.

Stupefying how many posters here don't understand simple basic principles of capitalism.

/---- CNN is losing money so is the NY Times. Gone are the days when the evening news had to make a profit. Now the networks don't care as long as they bash the republicans.
Another Failed Year: CNN Hemorrhages Primetime Viewers, Loses to MSNBC - Breitbart