Why Do RWers Swear That The Media Is All Liberal?

[Mr Natural]

It's a convenient excuse.

 

[peach174]

Because the majority of Newspapers, blogs and media hire liberals. A study was done a few years back and in all of the media and newspapers the majority of the employees said that they were liberal. It was like 3/4ths liberals with 1/4 being conservative.
The newspaper in Tucson was trying to drum up sales, in the early 90's and they asked me why I did not want the paper.
I answered them that when they hired a balance in employees 1/2 liberal and 1/2 conservative, then I would start buying the paper. This is why a lot of the papers went under.
They say it is because of the internet, but sales were going way down, way before the majority of people got computers. It was because of their biased interpretation of things.
If you are liberal you will see things differently and if you are conservative you will see things differently. All media should have equal numbers of employees so that you get a more even type of reporting and news.
Media has been extremely biased in the hiring of their employees.

 

[R.D.]

Why do you have to lie Marc? Seriously, the new media isn't all liberal. But the Establishment media clearly is.

No one is claiming that all media is liberal.

Because he can

 

[editec]

I agree that the MSM has a bias.

It reports mostly what the government tells it to report because it doesn't bother to investigate those reports.

It therefore always appears to be moderate.

Moderation in American policitics basically means don't do anything that will radically change the way things get done.

You can describe American moderation as whatever it takes to keep the those on the top on the top and those on the bottom on the bottom.

Economically speaking, that is.

As to social issues?

Well in that case, again with the exception of hate radio and Fox, I completely agree that MSM is mostly taking the "liberal" side of the issues.

Let me recap. The MSM is:

Economically? Very conservative (as in statsis. no radical changes to the economic system are advanced)

Socially?

MSM takes VERY liberal positions, mostly.

The GOP recognized this disconnect in the 70's and capitalized on the popular discontent that many socially conservative people have in this nation by assuming positions in line with social conservative thinking.

That was a very smart move, in my opinion.

People cannot understand macro-economics well enough to know what side of the bread their bread is buttered, but they can definitely understand issues like homosexuality, birth control and gun control.

And so, they (meanign both liberals and conservatives) will ignorantly vote against their own economic interests as long as the players say all the right things about social issues.

It's only when times are bad that economic issues play such a huge role in election outcomes.

 

[uscitizen]

As I recall when Bush was president the MSM seemed to take everything the administration said as gospel.

No one dared to question a war president.

You recall incorrectly.....

Au contratre. Remember Rather?

Remember the media not picking apart the Bush buildup to Iraq invasion rhetoric?

Freedom fries?

Being called unamerican and unpatriotic for speaking against Bush?

 

[MarcATL]

I agree that the MSM has a bias.

It reports mostly what the government tells it to report because it doesn't bother to investigate those reports.

It therefore always appears to be moderate.

Moderation in American policitics basically means don't do anything that will radically change the way things get done.

You can describe American moderation as whatever it takes to keep the those on the top on the top and those on the bottom on the bottom.

Economically speaking, that is.

As to social issues?

Well in that case, again with the exception of hate radio and Fox, I completely agree that MSM is mostly taking the "liberal" side of the issues.

Let me recap. The MSM is:

Economically? Very conservative (as in statsis. no radical changes to the economic system are advanced)

Socially?

MSM takes VERY liberal positions, mostly.

The GOP recognized this disconnect in the 70's and capitalized on the popular discontent that many socially conservative people have in this nation by assuming positions in line with social conservative thinking.

That was a very smart move, in my opinion.

People cannot understand macro-economics well enough to know what side of the bread their bread is buttered, but they can definitely understand issues like homosexuality, birth control and gun control.

And so, they (meanign both liberals and conservatives) will ignorantly vote against their own economic interests as long as the players say all the right things about social issues.

It's only when times are bad that economic issues play such a huge role in election outcomes.

Post of the thread!!

 

[Two Thumbs]

How do they reconcile that everytime 25 RWers get together and call themselves a "Tea Party" the ENTIRE media swarms upon the scene, often outnumbering the actual self-proclaimed Tea-Partiers 3-to-1 but yet, when 100s of thousands gathered protesting Bush some years ago, they were no where to be found. On top of that, when 100s of thousands gather today protesting against the system, aka RW politicos the media is reluctant to show up.

How long did it take for them to cover the Madison protests? Ed Schultz was on it from day one pushing it, it took the rest of the media an entire 2.5 to 3 weeks after to cover it, then it was tepid, then a week in it picked up.

How does that square away as the Mainstream Media being Liberal in the RWers brains?

Do explain.

Who do you hate? FOX
Why do you hate them? B/c they present views that are not just liberal.
Why do you say all media but FOX isn't liberal? B/c you are a liar.

The Madison crap? they didn't cover it b/c liberals don't know how to act in public.

Did you miss the rants at the anti-TP rallies? One of your bretheren boasted he liked to wipe his ass with The Flag.
That's why the liberal media wasn't there. they knew you tards can't keep calm for a moment let alone through a hole rally like the TPers can.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Marc ....answering my Question.....


Whats a.....Right.........Winger......

 

[Londoner]

How does that square away as the Mainstream Media being Liberal in the RWers brains?

The major media outlets in this country are owned by 10 mega-corporations.

Those corporations DON'T WANT higher taxes or MORE gubmint oversight.

Meaning: mass media DOES NOT like to giving any time to the liberal agenda. The only reason they allow MSNBC primetime is because advertisers want access to the liberal demographic - but Comcast, a huge supporter of the GOP, has made it clear that they want to move the network Right. They allow Maddow and gentle Ed grudgingly -- but, let's be clear, the mainstream media has no problem exiling men like Olbermann or Dan Rather if they go too far. Lastly, they won't let Noam Chomsky give one interview, but Donald Trump can spew tin hat anti-Obama garbage on every network. Point is: the real Left is not allowed near the mass media.

By claiming the media is too far Left, they can drag it further to the Right. It's called moving the goal posts.

The reason why they over-represented the Tea Party during the health care debate is simple: they need to defeat the liberal platform because they want all national resources to be converted to subsidies and tax breaks. A powerful middle class raises their labor costs. Corporations don't want to go back to the postwar years when the government taxed and regulated corporations in order to create a thriving middle class. Corporations want cheap, disenfranchised labor - this is why they have been exporting jobs to 3rd world sweat shops since Reagan. And they certainly don't want a literate population who challenges their monopolization of election, media, and markets. To the contrary, they want to distract the middle class with coded terror alerts and wedge issues. They don't want them investigating why Washington crushed energy competition for 30 years, or why they made it impossible for foreign drug makers to add competition to America's wildly over-priced drug market. They want to keep citizens busy with manufactured demons. Read your Orwell: the serfs must be distracted lest they turn their eye to the puppet masters who own Washington.

Senators who do not support the monopoly power of the corporations who own government and media face brutal primary challenges. In fact, any Republican that does not tow the line is literally removed from office. Corporations have also invested heavy in the Left, which is why you have so many Republicrat Blue Dogs.

Secondly, the Media Conspiracy Theory allows the owners of the political and financial machinery to marginalize information that does not suit their interests.

For example, when a media voice says:

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11,

or

GE dumps PCBs in the Hudson,

or

Al Qaeda and Hussein are enemies

The folks with The Power say "it's a media conspiracy". Bingo - the threat of truth is removed.

But seriously: if you are trying to seal your viewers in a hermetically sealed bubble where expanded health care means "death panel" and Bin Laden means Hussein, you have to prejudice people against any media source that does not tow the line.

 

[whitehall]

Cindy Sheehan's so-called anti-war rabble was in the media every week during the Bush administration even though it consisted of about a dozen real zealots and about a hundred dope smokers. The rabble disappeared when a democrat was elected. CBS tried to use fake documents against president Bush. Chris Matthews who once worked for a democrat senator said that Obama gives him a tingle up his leg. George Sephonopolis pretends to be an unbiased member of the media even when he was one of Clinton's advisors.

 

[MarcATL]

Cindy Sheehan's so-called anti-war rabble was in the media every week during the Bush administration even though it consisted of about a dozen real zealots and about a hundred dope smokers. The rabble disappeared when a democrat was elected. CBS tried to use fake documents against president Bush. Chris Matthews who once worked for a democrat senator said that Obama gives him a tingle up his leg. George Sephonopolis pretends to be an unbiased member of the media even when he was one of Clinton's advisors.

Cindy Sheehan was a blip in the media cycle. It was a significant blip, and rightly so, but it wasn't long-standing.

She eventually become a non-story in the eyes of most, and she's been there ever since, although she's actively engaged today even more than she's ever been back then.

Thanks to Bush & Co.

 

[Dr.House]

As I recall when Bush was president the MSM seemed to take everything the administration said as gospel.

No one dared to question a war president.

You recall incorrectly.....

Au contratre. Remember Rather?

Remember the media not picking apart the Bush buildup to Iraq invasion rhetoric?

Freedom fries?

Being called unamerican and unpatriotic for speaking against Bush?

You were talking about the media... Was that the media as a whole or just the stuff you want to cherry pick and pretend was the MSM?

 

[Trajan]

How do they reconcile that everytime 25 RWers get together and call themselves a "Tea Party" the ENTIRE media swarms upon the scene, often outnumbering the actual self-proclaimed Tea-Partiers 3-to-1

1) they show up so as to ensure if one TPer burps without saying excuse me, its news....thats 1)

but yet, when 100s of thousands gathered protesting Bush some years ago, they were no where to be found. On top of that, when 100s of thousands gather today protesting against the system, aka RW politicos the media is reluctant to show up.

How long did it take for them to cover the Madison protests? Ed Schultz was on it from day one pushing it, it took the rest of the media an entire 2.5 to 3 weeks after to cover it, then it was tepid, then a week in it picked up.

How does that square away as the Mainstream Media being Liberal in the RWers brains?

Do explain.

2)please link to the situations/protests etc. to sppt the claims you made above that I have emphasized via bold underlined italics text thank you.......

 

[MarcATL]

How do they reconcile that everytime 25 RWers get together and call themselves a "Tea Party" the ENTIRE media swarms upon the scene, often outnumbering the actual self-proclaimed Tea-Partiers 3-to-1

1) they show up so as to ensure if one TPer burps without saying excuse me, its news....thats 1)

but yet, when 100s of thousands gathered protesting Bush some years ago, they were no where to be found. On top of that, when 100s of thousands gather today protesting against the system, aka RW politicos the media is reluctant to show up.

How long did it take for them to cover the Madison protests? Ed Schultz was on it from day one pushing it, it took the rest of the media an entire 2.5 to 3 weeks after to cover it, then it was tepid, then a week in it picked up.

How does that square away as the Mainstream Media being Liberal in the RWers brains?

Do explain.

2)please link to the situations/protests etc. to sppt the claims you made above that I have emphasized via bold underlined italics text thank you.......

DWARFED anything the Tea-Partiers did: http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/f36a.html