JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
Trump, from day one, has created his own negative media.
Trump did it, not the media. The media reported it.
Conservatives and the Media
- Thread starter bill718
- Start date
Trump, from day one, has created his own negative media.
Trump did it, not the media. The media reported it.
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?
Last edited:
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,445
- 2,180
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.
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?
It was well known back then.don't play dumb...
We saw it every frixking night ..
.
And if the media had actually been trying to undermine Rump, they had a way to do so ---- they would simply have ignored his grandstanding, his whiny tweets, his incessant trolling, and concentrated on everybody else -- on policy.
But again, policy doesn't sell --- people and their personal dramas do. So when your prime directive as a captialist corporation is to make profit, that's what you do. Rump is far more proficient in drama than anybody he was up against. Way more. And that of course is no compliment.
whitehall
Diamond Member
Conservatives were rather gentle with the Clintons considering the mysterious deaths, the testimony of a rape victim, the negligence in the 1st WTC bombing ,Monica, Waco, the lying, the coverup selling ICBN technology to China, giving nuclear technology to NK, and most of all the wag the dog scenario when Clinton attacked a defenseless country in Europe when he was literally caught with his pants down and while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in Florida.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,460
- 2,290
One, your candidate was a complete bore. She couldn't pack a high school gymnasium while Trump was packing (with standing room only) professional sports arenas. Why would anybody cover Hillary over Trump? Trump drew audiences, Trump drew crowds. Like Howard Stern used to say, people tuned in to see what outrageous thing he would say next.
The tides turned after he was elected. The media turned on him like a disgruntled girlfriend. So now the way to draw audiences is to report anything negative about Trump. The sheep tune into that praying and hoping something.....anything might happen to remove him from office.
It's all about money--not favoritism.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,460
- 2,290
A private company that receives money from the federal government.
Really? All other news outlets seem to make money on news. Why can't NPR?
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,460
- 2,290
And the Democrats do????
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.
Nobody has ever made money on news. What they make money on now is what I call News Theater. This was pioneered by Fox and shamelessly followed by the others. It's not news. It's talking heads sitting in a garishly colored studio with suggestive chyrons constantly running, talking about the news rather than reporting it. Opining on the news rather than breaking it. The men pound on tables and the women wear miniskirts, and they all traffic in scary-monster booga-booga stories about who's going to come and get you in your sleep. And you'll notice -- always talking about people rather than policies. Because when your focus is on the human, you get to insert all sorts of little morality plays on who has nefarious motives and who's donning spandex crooning "here I come to save the day".
*ALL* of which --- the bright colors, the graphics going whhhoshh, the miniskirts, the pounding on tables and the conspiracy-theory chyrons always planting suggestions by being phrased as questions rather than statements --- are engineered to mine the emotions. To "sell feelings" To keep the listener terrified and captivated so that while you're in that state it can sell you Viagra. That's all it wants -- to sell you some shit you don't need so it can make a profit, and it doesn't care how it gets and keeps your attention.
Rupert Murdoch made his fortune selling sleazy taboid rags. He needs lessons from no one on how to sell LCD to the unwashed. Basically he took a gossip magazine and put it on TV, using politicians instead of movie stars, in a continuous never-ending melodramatic soap opera. And the guy he hired to run that channel, Roger Ailes, famously said, "if two guys are on a stage and one says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?" As far as psycho-manipulation techniques he's exactly right. See also the Rump university quote above -- "you sell feelings"
That's "News theater", and it's profitable since at base it's an attention-getting device. REAL news, as in objectively and simply reporting what happened -- who, what, where when, without speculating why --- is very expensive. You need to fly people around the world on a moment's notice. You need to run foreign bureaus. You need trucks and camera crews and satellite phones. That adds up. In the old daze when the Huntley-Brinkleys and the Cronkites were dutifully rendering the nightly news, they always did so at a loss. Those newscasts were paid for by the sitcoms that followed -- the Beverly Hillbillies and such. That doesn't exist any more, though sadly the sitcoms still do.
That's why NPR can't "make money" selling news. Nobody can. It can't be sold. Once you start selling something, your priority is no longer the public informational service --- it's the advertiser. You can't do it without selling out. And then you have News Theater -- which is not news but an attention-grabbig device to milk money out of the public via the advertiser.
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.
Last edited:
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
so when the media lies to us, in blatant never ending support of one party,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.
we should shut the **** up.
So says the 'free thinking' left.
The left never fails to shock me with how stewpud they can be and still remember to breath.
kyzr
Diamond Member
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...
candycorn
Diamond Member
My largest complaints about the media is two fold really:
First they have gotten really lazy. There is not that much real reporting that goes on in most localities... One story mined by a reporter will get reported in numerous outlets. So the one report becomes THE one news story. There are two sides to every coin.
Second, the national press has become celebrities in and of themselves. There is an inherent problem with members of the press becoming too chummy with those that they cover who are often other celebrities.
Biased media? I think a lot of people try to make the case that there is bias when there are actually limits on how much can be covered given the resources.
First they have gotten really lazy. There is not that much real reporting that goes on in most localities... One story mined by a reporter will get reported in numerous outlets. So the one report becomes THE one news story. There are two sides to every coin.
Second, the national press has become celebrities in and of themselves. There is an inherent problem with members of the press becoming too chummy with those that they cover who are often other celebrities.
Biased media? I think a lot of people try to make the case that there is bias when there are actually limits on how much can be covered given the resources.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,460
- 2,290
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.
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 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.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
You have it backwards. It's not that the coverage of these two Presidents is different, it's that these two Presidents are different.
President Obama hit the ground running in his first 100 Days. He has his stimulus package in Congress, had sent close to 100 executive appointments to the Senate for confirmation by the time he was inaugurated.
Obama's Secretary of Energy, who is responsible for the maintenance of America's nuclear arsenal, had a PhD in nuclear physics. Trump's pick for the job? Rick Perry - a college drop out.
Trump signed a bunch of meaningless EO's, most of which had no validity. His immigration EI's caused chaos at airports across the US.
And then there's his treatment of your friends and allies. Shameful, ignorant and rude.
When Trump does something wonderful, he'll get good press. So far, he stumbled around shooting himself in the foot.
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 103,150
- 54,025
- 2,615
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?
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,445
- 2,180
/----- So you expect the winners to take advice from the losers on how to keep winning? Do yo know how dumb that is? And why would you want us to keep winning?/---- I love it when the losers give free advice to the winners on how they should change their winning tactics. It make s me wonder what their real motive is.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't 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.
View attachment 129622
I am so sorry the truth hurts.
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.
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.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
We just ***** slapped you people AND the media and Hillary, Bill, Obama, the DNC, Soros, and your $1.2 billion dollar campaign war chest. That's gonna leave a mark 
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Top Israeli Officials Confirm on Camera That Netanyahu Directed Over $1 Billion to Hamas- Started by munkle
- Replies: 0
