Dumbed down Americans

[Trajan]

It's the new cowbell

People want more weiner. Personally I think it's the usmb gals.

ooooh dude........you're

Yo ... is that jesus on that toast !?

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. The media could return to doing its intended job which is to inform and educate the American people without bias and without prejudice.

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.

If it would be that, unscrupulous politicians would be far less able to deceive and manipulate the people and we would again start electing people who would be far less likely to expect to be able to do that.

Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.

When most of the mainstream media sets itself up as the promotion agent for the left, and when there is dedicated effort to destroy or demonize the one prominent media outlet that does not do that, we will not have a well informed electorate.

That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

No it doesn't prove your point. I think you missed my point though. But c'est la vie.

 

[Trajan]

I disagree. The media could return to doing its intended job which is to inform and educate the American people without bias and without prejudice.

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.

If it would be that, unscrupulous politicians would be far less able to deceive and manipulate the people and we would again start electing people who would be far less likely to expect to be able to do that.

Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.

When most of the mainstream media sets itself up as the promotion agent for the left, and when there is dedicated effort to destroy or demonize the one prominent media outlet that does not do that, we will not have a well informed electorate.

That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

the tide turned for network news in the mid to late 70's, they were turned into profit centers......its been down hill from there.

however there is no denying that journalism is a vocation that attracts folks whom identify with the 'left' more so than right, so in effect there has always been a tilt. Up until the 80's they had just done a much better job at employing or benchmarking discretion and objectivity.

the nets just made that more apparent. I'd say fox was just reacting to what was already extent and decided to appeal to the viewer whom they felt had no where else to go if they wanted to...

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. The media could return to doing its intended job which is to inform and educate the American people without bias and without prejudice.

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.



Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.

When most of the mainstream media sets itself up as the promotion agent for the left, and when there is dedicated effort to destroy or demonize the one prominent media outlet that does not do that, we will not have a well informed electorate.

That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

the tide turned for network news in the mid to late 70's, they were turned into profit centers......its been down hill from there.

however there is no denying that journalism is a vocation that attracts folks whom identify with the 'left' more so than right, so in effect there has always been a tilt. Up until the 80's they had just done a much better job at employing or benchmarking discretion and objectivity.

the nets just made that more apparent. I'd say fox was just reacting to what was already extent and decided to appeal to the viewer whom they felt had no where else to go if they wanted to...

Exactly right Traj. They saw a huge vacuum and filled it with almost unprecedented success. You can add up the ratings for all the other cable news groups combined, and Fox eclipses them all. Why? Because despite its faults, it does competently inform its listeners of the events of the day.

And you're also right about those going into journalism tilting left of center. They come out of journalism schools at universities that tilt left of center. They don't know they're left of center--they think they are centrists--because they aren't given opportunity to consider any other perspective than the left one.

And then those who will hire them and mentor them as they get on into their careers are also likely to be leftists who give the better stories, opportunities, face time, etc. to those who please them and that would be those who are leftists. So like conservative professors generally find an unwelcoming environment in most universities these days, conservative or even fully objective journalists are not finding welcoming environments in most news organizations.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's not a journalist in this country who doesn't want an extra

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | -------->>>>> 2"
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

2" column on their Weiner (story)..

 

[Too Tall]

It isn't so much a dumbed down America as a dumbed down media. If we had a media more interested in presenting ALL SIDES of the news in an impartial and objective and competent manner, we would have a much better educated electorate. Unfortunately, many representatives of the 'press' are almost as dumb as the people interviewed in those You Tube videos.

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Good post, however I would like for you to name a single show on MSNBC that has anything but a far left host.

 

[Foxfyre]

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Good post, however I would like for you to name a single show on MSNBC that has anything but a far left host.

I used to watch MSNBC a lot years ago. Quit them when they totally abandoned any attempt at doing real journalism and check in there only infrequently these days. But on those occasional peeks in there, I have seen a huge improvement in their reporting lately and have even tarried to listen in on a particularly good program. They still have a long way to go to catch up with Fox, but CNN is cleaning up its act and giving Fox more competition these days and I figure they all can do that.

Fox won't mine some real competition and they'll hopefully step up their game too.

And we all benefit.

 

[Mr.Nick]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

It's the new cowbell

People want more weiner. Personally I think it's the usmb gals.

It needs more Weiner, more Weiner...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Good post, however I would like for you to name a single show on MSNBC that has anything but a far left host.

I used to watch MSNBC a lot years ago. Quit them when they totally abandoned any attempt at doing real journalism and check in there only infrequently these days. But on those occasional peeks in there, I have seen a huge improvement in their reporting lately and have even tarried to listen in on a particularly good program. They still have a long way to go to catch up with Fox, but CNN is cleaning up its act and giving Fox more competition these days and I figure they all can do that.

Fox won't mine some real competition and they'll hopefully step up their game too.

And we all benefit.

The only show I watched on MSNBC was Tucker and when they ditched him or took his show off the 10 cst slot I stopped watching. They pretty much ditched Tucker for Maddow and that fool Olbermann....

Now the only programs I care for that pertain to politics are on the radio. I do enjoy Michael Savage and Andrew Wilkow occasionally.

 

[candycorn]

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.



Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.





That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

the tide turned for network news in the mid to late 70's, they were turned into profit centers......its been down hill from there.

however there is no denying that journalism is a vocation that attracts folks whom identify with the 'left' more so than right, so in effect there has always been a tilt. Up until the 80's they had just done a much better job at employing or benchmarking discretion and objectivity.

the nets just made that more apparent. I'd say fox was just reacting to what was already extent and decided to appeal to the viewer whom they felt had no where else to go if they wanted to...

Exactly right Traj. They saw a huge vacuum and filled it with almost unprecedented success. You can add up the ratings for all the other cable news groups combined, and Fox eclipses them all. Why? Because despite its faults, it does competently inform its listeners of the events of the day.

And you're also right about those going into journalism tilting left of center. They come out of journalism schools at universities that tilt left of center. They don't know they're left of center--they think they are centrists--because they aren't given opportunity to consider any other perspective than the left one.

And then those who will hire them and mentor them as they get on into their careers are also likely to be leftists who give the better stories, opportunities, face time, etc. to those who please them and that would be those who are leftists. So like conservative professors generally find an unwelcoming environment in most universities these days, conservative or even fully objective journalists are not finding welcoming environments in most news organizations.

Precisely my point. For a while they had Hannity and Colmes on (I'm guessing that was their attempt at balance)...a more partisan country and Colmes is suddenly gone. Theres a rise in conservatism supposedly in the country; hence Morning Joe is on MSNBC. Headline News had the incouragable (sp?) Glenn Beck on for a while. Decisions are made on how many eyes are going to show up; little else; either that or all of the greatest journalists in broadcasting seem to be passable for models all of the sudden.

We get the media we want. Blaming the fourth estate for an ill informed public is like blaming the dealer for someone's crack addiction.

 

[thereisnospoon]

CNN reported this morning that the most visited sites on the Internet were for information on:

1. Anthony Weiner

2. Sarah Palin's emails

I hope it's just because it's Sunday morning.

It is because of the reporting done by the media. All of the media.
We live in a nation where it's either murder mayhem or sex that leads the newscast.
We also live in a nation that is fixated on people such as Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan , Pitt/Jolie and other stupid Hollywood elitists.
Of course this moronic Weiner story is an attention getter. CNN should be blaming itself .
This is neither a democrat nor republican issue. It's an idiot issue.

 

[Trajan]

the tide turned for network news in the mid to late 70's, they were turned into profit centers......its been down hill from there.

however there is no denying that journalism is a vocation that attracts folks whom identify with the 'left' more so than right, so in effect there has always been a tilt. Up until the 80's they had just done a much better job at employing or benchmarking discretion and objectivity.

the nets just made that more apparent. I'd say fox was just reacting to what was already extent and decided to appeal to the viewer whom they felt had no where else to go if they wanted to...

Exactly right Traj. They saw a huge vacuum and filled it with almost unprecedented success. You can add up the ratings for all the other cable news groups combined, and Fox eclipses them all. Why? Because despite its faults, it does competently inform its listeners of the events of the day.

And you're also right about those going into journalism tilting left of center. They come out of journalism schools at universities that tilt left of center. They don't know they're left of center--they think they are centrists--because they aren't given opportunity to consider any other perspective than the left one.

And then those who will hire them and mentor them as they get on into their careers are also likely to be leftists who give the better stories, opportunities, face time, etc. to those who please them and that would be those who are leftists. So like conservative professors generally find an unwelcoming environment in most universities these days, conservative or even fully objective journalists are not finding welcoming environments in most news organizations.

Precisely my point. For a while they had Hannity and Colmes on (I'm guessing that was their attempt at balance)...a more partisan country and Colmes is suddenly gone. Theres a rise in conservatism supposedly in the country; hence Morning Joe is on MSNBC. Headline News had the incouragable (sp?) Glenn Beck on for a while. Decisions are made on how many eyes are going to show up; little else; either that or all of the greatest journalists in broadcasting seem to be passable for models all of the sudden.

We get the media we want. Blaming the fourth estate for an ill informed public is like blaming the dealer for someone's crack addiction.

I agree, so whats with the repeated fox bashing( not you oin general)? there's plenty for the left, whats the point?

 

[Foxfyre]

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Home schooled kids run rings around the gubmnt edumacated dolts.

What evidence do you have that they are bigots?

that's right . . . . none.

Isn't the definition of "bigotry" drawing conclusions about people based on their membership in some group without knowing a thing about them personally?

Most home schooled kids I ran into in the military were poorly equipped for the real world away from home. The two groups who turned out to be the wildest were home-schoolers and preacher's kids.

Hasn't been my experience. The homeschooled kids that have gone into the military from here have mostly distinguished themselves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

But the quandry is that the media is out to make money and they cover what the idiots want.
If they cover intelligent stuff their viewership goes down.
Just look at the Fox viewership numbers for instance.

Did it ever occur to you that Fox's numbers are so high because that organization covers the news in a way that separates itself from the others? Did it ever occur to you that the viewers of Fox News look to that organization to get away from the typical tripe of other news sources?
Is it so impossible for you to believe that since Fox does not tow the liberal media line that Fox News is what people who take their news seriously are looking for?
Look, the ratings numbers do not lie. If Fox news was the decadent lying short seller of news that the Left says it is, Fox News would have gone out of business long ago.

 

[candycorn]

Exactly right Traj. They saw a huge vacuum and filled it with almost unprecedented success. You can add up the ratings for all the other cable news groups combined, and Fox eclipses them all. Why? Because despite its faults, it does competently inform its listeners of the events of the day.

And you're also right about those going into journalism tilting left of center. They come out of journalism schools at universities that tilt left of center. They don't know they're left of center--they think they are centrists--because they aren't given opportunity to consider any other perspective than the left one.

And then those who will hire them and mentor them as they get on into their careers are also likely to be leftists who give the better stories, opportunities, face time, etc. to those who please them and that would be those who are leftists. So like conservative professors generally find an unwelcoming environment in most universities these days, conservative or even fully objective journalists are not finding welcoming environments in most news organizations.

Precisely my point. For a while they had Hannity and Colmes on (I'm guessing that was their attempt at balance)...a more partisan country and Colmes is suddenly gone. Theres a rise in conservatism supposedly in the country; hence Morning Joe is on MSNBC. Headline News had the incouragable (sp?) Glenn Beck on for a while. Decisions are made on how many eyes are going to show up; little else; either that or all of the greatest journalists in broadcasting seem to be passable for models all of the sudden.

We get the media we want. Blaming the fourth estate for an ill informed public is like blaming the dealer for someone's crack addiction.

I agree, so whats with the repeated fox bashing( not you oin general)? there's plenty for the left, whats the point?

Fox does very little news; mostly it is opinions in news wrapping. Just like MSNBC. Opposite sides of the same coin.

What I think Fox did to draw such fire is the whole "Fair and Balanced" BS; implying that others are neither fair or balanced. They probably never overtly said that but the implication was there. Much like a discussion we had earlier today about Rick Perry...who never said he was for succession however, he was quick to point out that an agreement in 1845 (prior to reconstruction) gave Texas the right to succeed whenever it wants. That isn't the case since reconstruction. Again, he didn't overtly say he was for it but why even go there if it's off the table? Why call yourself "Fair and Balanced"? Was there--prior to the first airing--an indication that they wouldn't be fair or balanced?

Anyway, thats what I think. They--as well as MSNBC--is so slanted that I dismiss either one as a serious news source. I too turn toward NPR, Reuters, and a few others.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Most home schooled kids I ran into in the military were poorly equipped for the real world away from home. The two groups who turned out to be the wildest were home-schoolers and preacher's kids.

That's interesting. I served in the military, too, for twelve years, Army, an SFC when I left for bigger money. The enlisted personal I commanded who were home-schooled, whether in a religious home or not, or came from family's of faith tended to distinguish themselves, both in terms of their professionalism and valor. In fact, I never heard of any of my fellow senior NCOs ever complain about these kids. We were glad to have 'em.

 

[candycorn]

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Good post, however I would like for you to name a single show on MSNBC that has anything but a far left host.

Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough.

 

[Flopper]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

But the quandry is that the media is out to make money and they cover what the idiots want.
If they cover intelligent stuff their viewership goes down.
Just look at the Fox viewership numbers for instance.

Did it ever occur to you that Fox's numbers are so high because that organization covers the news in a way that separates itself from the others? Did it ever occur to you that the viewers of Fox News look to that organization to get away from the typical tripe of other news sources?.

Yes, Fox News does separate itself from the others. They swing to the right just as far as MSNBC swings to the left. Viewers of Fox News look to the organization to delivery right wing rhetoric to reinforce their beliefs, not that dull news on the other channels. Yep, Fox News deliveries that daily dose of Glenn Beck to charge up those right wing batteries.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most home schooled kids I ran into in the military were poorly equipped for the real world away from home. The two groups who turned out to be the wildest were home-schoolers and preacher's kids.

That's interesting. I served in the military, too, for twelve years, Army, an SFC when I left for bigger money. The enlisted personal I commanded who were home-schooled, whether in a religious home or not, or came from family's of faith tended to distinguish themselves, both in terms of their professionalism and valor. In fact, I never heard of any of my fellow senior NCOs ever complain about these kids. We were glad to have 'em.

To generalize all home schooled kids as lacking in social skills is incorrect.
In many states, for example, home schooled kids are permitted by law to join their local school clubs and athletic teams.
Also, many home schooled kids live in neighborhoods where they are surrounded by other home schooled kids.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But the quandry is that the media is out to make money and they cover what the idiots want.
If they cover intelligent stuff their viewership goes down.
Just look at the Fox viewership numbers for instance.

Did it ever occur to you that Fox's numbers are so high because that organization covers the news in a way that separates itself from the others? Did it ever occur to you that the viewers of Fox News look to that organization to get away from the typical tripe of other news sources?.

Yes, Fox News does separate itself from the others. They swing to the right just as far as MSNBC swings to the left. Viewers of Fox News look to the organization to delivery right wing rhetoric to reinforce their beliefs, not that dull news on the other channels. Yep, Fox News deliveries that daily dose of Glenn Beck to charge up those right wing batteries.

This is where you libs run into a road block.
You claim the people of the US reject conservatism and that your side is the popular side. Your side in your opinion is deserving of the majority on Capitol Hill because you believe your way is better. You also claim the conservative movement is dying.
That said, how do you explain the high ratings of Fox news is our side is in such a minority?
If anything Fox News swings away from the typical liberal drivel we get from the alphabets.
Fox News is most watched because that news organization is getting it right.
I see that you are another one in a long line of liberals who are incensed over the very existence of a competing news organization that refuses to tow the typical liberal line of the main stream media.
Your problem and that of the political Left is you believe Fox News has no right to exist.
As far your side is concerned Fox News takes the "real story" and pulls it away from the rightful presenters( those with your point of view) and presents it in a way that makes the viewer decide his or her opinion on the events of the day. This is difficult for your side to deal with and if you had your druthers ,you'd just rather not deal with it.
So your side goes on it's daily crusade to impugn Fox News.
News Flash. It's not working. FNC's ratings keep rising while the MSM evening national news casts, their news magazine shows and their Sunday AM political shows keep losing viewers.
The bottom line is the country has had it with Obama's attempt to push the country too far to the left. That is why FNC counts many people who label themselves as "independent" as loyal viewers.
Like it or not, believe it or not, The USA is basically a conservative country.
We are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Always have been. Always will be.
There is no room for radical liberalism or radical conservatism.
Before you react to that last sentence....Ask yourself why just before every mid term and presidential election Evangelical Conservatives and Bible Thumping rightists are always threatening to sit out elections. Answer. These people are unwelcome in the mainstream conservative movement. Reason.....They frighten people.