Is the American media more liberal or conservative oriented?

[longknife]

Inasmuch as journalism is dead and no anchors on ANY channel are "reporters", the news is slanted to the $$$$ interests of the owners.

Most news "reports" aired are gathered and written by producers behind the scenes we never see. What gets on the air is determined in pre-show meetings with the senior producers, director, and manager.

And with 24 hour reporting, ALL channels care far more about ratings than being fair or covering all the breaking news. Some are worse than others. From what I've seen, CNN has a tendency to bite one story and gnaw on it until there's nothing less.

It's different on the web. Some sites are clearly and openly liberal while others brag about their conservatism.

 

[blunthead]

Definitely conservative or at least pro corporate. They are all on the same page on important items like keeping the Transpacific partnership secret. Notice the silence there? The press of 40 years ago that raised hell about Watergate, would have been asking for some questions. Same with Iraqgate. The press of old would be calling for the bush administrations heads when wmd's turned out to a be a lie. Some will say, "yeah, dems voted for going into Iraq too", but they did it based on the bush lies. This is what happens when the press is totally owned by big money and corporations.

Why are people afraid to admit that the American media is almost 100% liberally biased? Pro-corporate? The reason the media won't ask about the TPP thing is that it's Obama's baby and virtually no one in the liberally-biased media dares say a word against any Democrat politician, especially Obama. They're scare dog him because they know he's nothing more than a glorified, corrupt, Chicago thug politician.

 

[blunthead]

All I know is there are too many country stations on a US wide broadcasting basis, thank goodness for sirius radio...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Most journalists may be liberal. But the editors and people who own the media outlets are not. And it is those corporatists who control media content.

Pogo spelled it out a few posts above.

That's an old meme that you leftists are trained to recite.

It simply happens not to be true.

Arthur Sulzberger is a radical left, internationalist Fabian and extremely active in the democratic party. The New York Times is nothing more or less than a propaganda outlet for the DNC. Television news was shaped by America's own Goebbels, Edward Murrow, followed by far left Walter Cronkite. The far left held a choke hold on information that could get to the nation of half a century. The Internet and Cable broke the back of the monopoly the party had on information, but the traditional media is still merely an outlet for what the party wants the public to know.

 

[warf]

Most journalists may be liberal. But the editors and people who own the media outlets are not. And it is those corporatists who control media content.

Pogo spelled it out a few posts above.

That's an old meme that you leftists are trained to recite.

It simply happens not to be true.

Arthur Sulzberger is a radical left, internationalist Fabian and extremely active in the democratic party. The New York Times is nothing more or less than a propaganda outlet for the DNC. Television news was shaped by America's own Goebbels, Edward Murrow, followed by far left Walter Cronkite. The far left held a choke hold on information that could get to the nation of half a century. The Internet and Cable broke the back of the monopoly the party had on information, but the traditional media is still merely an outlet for what the party wants the public to know.

If one is ideological enough everything is a left wing plot.

Are you too young to have read the NYT during the Bush administration? They suck up to whichever party is in the White House.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If one is ideological enough everything is a left wing plot.

Are you too young to have read the NYT during the Bush administration? They suck up to whichever party is in the White House.

"Plot" indicates and organized effort. While Murrow and his group did organize to control Network News on Television in the 1950's, mostly the service to the party is more casual - social hacking. Those reporters and editors who fail to espouse the party line simply are not hired by the MSM. If you want a job in "journalism" you must hold beliefs consistent with the dominate left. Question anthropogenic global warming, government health care, or other leftist sacred dogma and you will be black listed. Of course one with a journalism major must recite leftist dogma to graduate in the first place.

 

[warf]

If one is ideological enough everything is a left wing plot.

Are you too young to have read the NYT during the Bush administration? They suck up to whichever party is in the White House.

. Question anthropogenic global warming, government health care, or other leftist sacred dogma and you will be black listed. Of course one with a journalism major must recite leftist dogma to graduate in the first place.

How do you know this? Or did you just make it up?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How do you know this? Or did you just make it up?

How do I know water is wet? I have encountered water.

For those who have not, turn to studies.

Coloring the News How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism William McGowan 9781893554603 Amazon.com Books

 

[jasonnfree]

Definitely conservative or at least pro corporate. They are all on the same page on important items like keeping the Transpacific partnership secret. Notice the silence there? The press of 40 years ago that raised hell about Watergate, would have been asking for some questions. Same with Iraqgate. The press of old would be calling for the bush administrations heads when wmd's turned out to a be a lie. Some will say, "yeah, dems voted for going into Iraq too", but they did it based on the bush lies. This is what happens when the press is totally owned by big money and corporations.

Why are people afraid to admit that the American media is almost 100% liberally biased? Pro-corporate? The reason the media won't ask about the TPP thing is that it's Obama's baby and virtually no one in the liberally-biased media dares say a word against any Democrat politician, especially Obama. They're scare dog him because they know he's nothing more than a glorified, corrupt, Chicago thug politician.

Obama corrupt? You might be right, so tell me how he's corrupt. He's certainly not a real liberal. He's hired nothing but Ceo's, republicans, and wall streeters for his administrations. After he took the white house, he told his supporters to take a hike and don't come back till the next election.
I think the TPP was started under bush, but anyway, Obama has completed other trade deals started by bush also. We didn't hear about it because trade deals aren't given much press by the corporate media since Nafta. Reason? The average American hates these trade pacts, which have sent so many jobs to other countries, so they're more liable to hear attention getters like Trump insulting Jeb. Parts of the TPP have been successful in passing only because a majority of repubs in both houses ok'd it. Of course, again, under the guidance of the not so liberal Obama. There's no liberal media anymore, if there ever was such a thing in the first place. It's all corporate owned. I'm interested in Obama's corruption that you talk about. Tell me more about it. I know McCain was corrupt going back to the Keating 5 days. He ran for president and that wasn't even mentioned by the media. If there were truly a liberal media, they would have hounded him about it at every possible opportunity.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

it's oriented on profits, and thus shock value. Various stations and anchors and editors all have their own leanings, but in the end it just guides them to report what they think will shock the most people into watching so they can get more ad revenue.

 

[Abishai100]

Expressionism Catalyst: Pedestrian Podium

Since Alfred Hitchcock released his groundbreaking psyche-shock film "Psycho" (1960), media and arts around the world have experimented with various forms of expressionism.

The Jerry Springer Show, for example, invites everyday people to expose bizarre domestic/emotional problems on television.

When I watched John Boorman's provocative Camelot-exposition film "Excalibur" (1981), I noticed the great care the director took in presenting the sideshow vignette of the iconic adversary of King Arthur, Mordred, dressed in an ominous armor of gold.

When I watched Danny Boyle's nihilism-exposition film "The Beach" (2000), I noticed the complex darkness meditation scene involving the protagonist (an American traveler named Richard) brooding on the qualities of malice.

When the Polaroid instant camera first became popular, people began experimenting with the notion that arts/crafts (i.e., photography) could be 'Socratically colloquialized.'




Jerry Springer Show

 

[buddhallah_the_christ]

I would try to believe in this description:economically in the middle, culturally, socially very strongly on the liberal side, for example the slightest hint of racism or antifeminism raises the fiery ire of the American mainstream media.