kicking at dirt No, ma’am.
Three things, though.
As a comment qua comment, it was actually relevant to posting behavior being exhibited.
Being in law school is leading to too much gratuitous Latin for me.
I got to call you ma’am. Some small comfort for being chided. 
Goin’ to read my thirty-page exam fact pattern for Property now…
slink, slink, slink . . .
Thanks for those links, Uncle Beer.
Which again means that you have zilch to back up the concept of a “corporate media bias” that benefits right-wingers, other than your own unsupported opinions.
Don’t be too hard on Gad, though. The analogy to poker is somewhat appropriate.
Especially the part about having one’s bluff called. 
Back to Jack: as for supporting my own assertions, yes, there are cites for the commonly-encountered claim that the content and spin of news reporting is affected by corporate influence. A 2000 Pew Research Center/Columbia Journalism Review poll surveyed 287 journalists and news executives on this very issue:
As I noted, the question of media bias is a very complicated one and a lot of different factors contribute to it. However, it is clear from this survey that a sizeable proportion of people actually working in the media consider that the content and presentation of the news is vulnerable to corporate pressures. That, I think, counts as valid evidence for the existence of some actual pro-corporate bias—especially given that many of these journalists, according to the survey mentioned by jshore above, are in fact more favorably inclined to a pro-business viewpoint than the average American is, and thus not likely to be reacting out of mere paranoia about the “evil corporations”.
Meaning?
Hmmm…Let’s see…There was a budget dispute a few years back in which led to the shut down of the government…The obvious reason was that the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch couldn’t work out a deal…Both sides were to blame, neither side backed off…And it all came to a head in December…Time Magazine cover during this: The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas…The spin on all of the stories from every media outlet was that this was the fault of the newly elected Republican Congress for not submitting a budget that Clinton would sign, when Clinton should have been equally to blame for not signing the budgets submitted…This ended my stint as a news junky…
Not too long after that, when the Crime Bill was up for debate, there was deluge of stories about people who had family members killed by people with assault weapons…These were usually pure anecdotes, usually just a woman crying about her dead loved one, interspared with footage of guns being shot at ranges (sometimes with voice-over about semiautomatics while showing fully automatic weapons)…At the end there might be a bit about how these weapons were being used more often in crimes, but rarely explaining how or why, and always a bit about how this particular gun would be banned under the Crime Bill, sometimes with a bonus thrown in that it one almost exactly like it was already banned in '91…I remember seeing these on 20/20 and Dateline in '95…
And then there is White-Seperatist Randy Weaver…Doesn’t matter what story or context White-Seperatist Randy Weaver is mentioned in, he is always White-Separatist Randy Weaver…Never Survivalist Randy Weaver, nor Suspected Firearms Violator Randy Weaver, nor even Crackpot Gun-nut Religious Paranoid Randy Weaver, or anything else that actually describes what happened…Just White-Separatist Randy Weaver
Gadarene: I got to call you ma’am. Some small comfort for being chided.
That the best you can do? Spiritus Mundi calls me Mistress. 
Ahem. While interesting, most of the examples being cited here of liberal bias are at best anecdotal evidence, whereas FAIR’s (peer-reviewed, properly cited and journal published) analyses have been leaning in the opposite direction for what amounts to decades. What is key is not the stories that are being shown but the stories that aren’t, and FAIR (among others) have pointed to biases in certain directions that include evidence of stories being spiked due to pressure by the corporations that own the station. I’d cite, but it has already been posted.
It might be important to note, however, that more important than any ideological bias is how sensational a story is. The reason for scary gun stories might be bias, as UncleBeer argues, or it might be because they’re sensational, scary, and don’t require a lot of talking heads or theoretical discussion.
Gaudarene: it’s pretty eldrich sounding, isn’t it? Actually, it’s mostly because my nick of choice, Demosthenes, is usually taken. Instead of appending a number or some such nonsense, I just made it into an adjective. Although I’m not as skilled an orator as Demosthenes, I hope I’m at least somewhat Demosthenesian.
(The question of whether I’m referring to the Orson Scott Card character or the historical figure is left to the reader. ;))
Entirely possible. However, there is a fair number of documented defensive uses of guns that could easily be called sensationalistic, too. Would be Rapist shot to Death by Intended Victim! 76 Year Old WWII Veteran Faces Down Intruder with Japanese Rifle! Great headlines. Where are they?
(And to head off any argument over the actual quantity, I’m willing to stipulate for the purposes of this thread, that 100,000 is a fair number. But we have that 100,000 vs 400,000 estimated offensive gun uses per yer. So, a four to one ratio would seem acceptable. We’re nowhere near that.)
Sorry, but editorial decisions canning potential stories on the grounds that they are too dull or complicated are hardly an example of a pro-right wing corporate bias.
And the conclusions of this survey (again, no concrete examples provided) can be read in an entirely different way than you do - for example, well over two-thirds of investigative reporters at the national level say that corporate owners have no significant impact on decisions as to which stories they cover. And a similar overwhelming majority of reporters said that advertiser concerns have not led to stories being unreported.
So even investigative reporters, who potentially face the greatest pressures, are not impressed by the “corporate bias” bogeyman.
How have you proved that conservatives/right wingers benefit from a “corporate bias” in some way that the left wing doesn’t?
Do the authors of the survey cite their findings as a counterweight to pro-left bias in the reporting of issues such as gun control, abortion, the environment etc.?
From where I’m sitting (Ireland, but ex-UK), the US media looks way less than liberal. I guess I’m spoilt, having watched the BBC all my life ;).
Simple things like:
Attack on terror or Striking back, accompanied by flashy graphics.
rather than:
(US-led) Attack on (country/ies that support) (Islamic/anti-US) Terror(ists)
Or just leaving that sort of trumpet-blowing out altogether.
Statements are made and not qualified; the background to issues (like, ‘why are the Palestinians pissed in the first place?’) is glossed over, government spokespeople are given a free rein to make glib statements without being strenuously questioned from all angles. Having said that, CNN is great compared to CBS. Which really sucks IMHO.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this is inspired by a previous thread on this topic, and my comments are to be interpreted in that context. Everyone has the right to change their mind - in fact many times it is the right thing to do. In fact I fully expect that, as part of the continuing development of your thinking, you will eventually become a full fledged right wing conservative, and will have to repudiate much of what you have posted to these boards ;). There is no hypocrisy involved at all. Having said that, you must also accept that until you do retract your previous remarks people will reasonably interpret current remarks along the lines of previous similar-sounding remarks that you have said.
Your comparison is invalid. There was a media pile-on concerning Gore’s exaggerations, but there was a similar pile-on about Bush’s stupidity. Candidates acquire a certain caricature, and stories that this image are magnified while stories that don’t are de-emphasized. So stories about Bush exaggerating were not featured as prominently as stories about Gore doing the same, while stories about Gore mangling words or phrases or displaying some “ignorance” (e.g. the mammogram incident) were not featured as much as stories about Bush doing so.
BTW, the Cheney line was a joke, and was in response to a joke by Lieberman.
Jackmannii: Sorry, but editorial decisions canning potential stories on the grounds that they are too dull or complicated are hardly an example of a pro-right wing corporate bias.
Of course they’re not, I just included that factor in my quote for some reportorial balance. (Thought you’d be so proud of me! :))
And the conclusions of this survey (again, no concrete examples provided) can be read in an entirely different way than you do - for example, well over two-thirds of investigative reporters at the national level say that corporate owners have no significant impact on decisions as to which stories they cover. And a similar overwhelming majority of reporters said that advertiser concerns have not led to stories being unreported.
In the first place, I think you may be slightly mixing up separate categories of the journalists surveyed (and maybe my excerpts didn’t make it sufficiently clear): the investigative journalists as a group were apparently surveyed separately from the local and national ones, and over 60% of the investigative journalists did concur that there was a sizeable amount of corporate influence.
In the second place, I think your “alternative reading” is somewhat misleading, because the survey was, AFAICT, not asking so much about general impressions on the state of the media as about the journalists’ own experiences with corporate pressures. I mean, if you send out a survey to doctors, say, asking them if they’ve encountered any malaria cases in the past year, and two-thirds of them say they haven’t and only one-third say they have, you don’t conclude that the overwhelming majority of doctors agree that there isn’t any malaria and therefore we needn’t be concerned about it. (Of course, you may move on to the question of the doctors’ competence and whether they might have misidentified another disease as malaria, but you do at least accept their claims as strong provisional evidence that there’s a malaria problem.)
How have you proved that conservatives/right wingers benefit from a “corporate bias” in some way that the left wing doesn’t?
Well, this takes us right back to jshore’s earlier question. If you’re rejecting the idea of even a partial alignment between “pro-corporate interests” and “conservative/right-wing interests”—an alignment that is taken for granted by very many observers at all points on the political spectrum—then could you tell us specifically, in detail, how you do define the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing”? You have a perfect right to use your own definitions of such terms, of course, but we’re not going to get very far with this discussion unless we have a clear sense of what they are.
Izzy:
Oh, absolutely. Except that “similar-sounding remarks” will often be modifying or restating old positions–in which case it’s perfectly kosher to ask the person whether their old remarks are still salient, rather than simply assume that the two sets of remarks are congruent.
And I am a right-wing conservative. Didn’t you know?
No, you have apparently failed to read my response correctly. The survey you cited did indeed show that that over two-thirds (approximately 70%) of investigative reporters at the national level did not think that corporate owners influenced what stories they covered. This quote from Pew/Columbia emphasizes the difference between local and national reporting:
“The survey highlights the difficult challenges faced by local journalists in the increasingly competitive media environment. About one-third (32%) of local reporters acknowledge they have softened the tone of a news story on behalf of the interests of their news organization; only 15% of those in the national media say they have done so. And 26% of local reporters say they have been told to avoid a story because it was dull or overly complicated, but suspect the real reason for the decision was that the story could harm their company’s financial interests.* Just 2% of national reporters harbor such suspicions* (italics mine).”
So you see that the survey, rather than emphasizing pressures brought on major media reporters by large corporate entities, is actually focusing in large part on local journalists, who on occasion might have to alter or drop a story because their news organization is worried about losing ad revenue from a local car dealer or grocery store. That’s hardly the sort of “corporate media bias” that you’ve been postulating.**
Yes. I’m challenging your comfortable, stereotyped assumptions - the ones you take for granted. Prove them to me. We’ve already seen acknowledgment by leftist individuals that there’s a “social issue” bias in the major media that benefits the Left. I once again ask you to demonstrate that there’s a “corporate media bias” that benefits the Right, using concrete examples.
jjimm, thank you for your observations re foreign media. I was wondering when that last bit of apologism for U.S. media bias would turn up. As in a previous thread, we’ve now recapitulated the following justifications for left-wing media bias:
If there’s a shred of debate left on these counts, it’s on number 1. And no backers of this excuse have stepped forward to establish its credibility.
Jackmannii: The survey you cited did indeed show that that over two-thirds (approximately 70%) of investigative reporters at the national level did not think that corporate owners influenced what stories they covered.
Jack, I continue to be puzzled at what still looks to me like a conflation of two separate categories in the survey, namely “investigative” and “national” reporters. Could you take pity on me and quote the exact part of the report that you are paraphrasing with this remark? Thanks.
*This quote from Pew/Columbia emphasizes the difference between local and national reporting:
“The survey highlights the difficult challenges faced by local journalists in the increasingly competitive media environment. About one-third (32%) of local reporters acknowledge they have softened the tone of a news story on behalf of the interests of their news organization; only 15% of those in the national media say they have done so. And 26% of local reporters say they have been told to avoid a story because it was dull or overly complicated, but suspect the real reason for the decision was that the story could harm their company’s financial interests. Just 2% of national reporters harbor such suspicions (italics mine).”
So you see that the survey, rather than emphasizing pressures brought on major media reporters by large corporate entities, is actually focusing in large part on local journalists, who on occasion might have to alter or drop a story because their news organization is worried about losing ad revenue from a local car dealer or grocery store. That’s hardly the sort of “corporate media bias” that you’ve been postulating.*
With respect, I think you’ve missed the point of the statement you quoted. It was discussing only the proportion of journalists who were given an innocuous-sounding reason to drop a story but suspected the real reason was different and more invidious. That’s merely one among several types of corporate censorship pressure that the survey asked journalists about. If you look at the tables of specific answers in the sidebar of the report, you’ll see that:
28% of national reporters said that they “sometimes” avoided stories that were potentially damaging to the organization or its parent company (3% said it was “commonplace”, 44% said it happened “rarely”, 25% said it “never” happened or they “didn’t know”).
20% of national reporters said that they “sometimes” avoided stories that were potentially damaging to advertisers (3% “commonplace”, 47% “rarely”, 30% “never/don’t know”).
23% of national print reporters and 35% of national broadcast reporters said that they “commonly or sometimes” avoid a story because it might be damaging to the financial interests of their news organizations.
So when we look at the broader spectrum of corporate influence, it’s evident that we’re not talking about a measly 2% of national journalists complaining about it. However, your comment does raise an interesting question: what are we talking about when we talk about “major media”? I was assuming that we were using it more or less synonymously with “mainstream media”, that is, broadcast or print news outlets that serve as the “daily news” for a wide audience, with the usual mainstream reliance on newswire services and other journalism institutions, generally owned by one of the major media chains—as opposed to what is called “independent” or “alternative” or “specialty” journalism. By that definition, “major media” would include local as well as national media outlets. However, you seem to be restricting the use of “major media” to mean “major national media”, so it would be helpful if you clarified more specifically what you mean by the term.
We’ve already seen acknowledgment by leftist individuals that there’s a “social issue” bias in the major media that benefits the Left. I once again ask you to demonstrate that there’s a “corporate media bias” that benefits the Right, using concrete examples.
Well, since I see a clear alignment between “the interests of the Right” and “corporate/business interests”, obviously I think that “pro-corporate media bias” by definition benefits the Right. And I think that the surveys that have been referred to here do provide strong evidence that such a pro-corporate media bias exists.
Now, if you are claiming that there is not an alignment between “the Right” and “corporate interests”, then as I said, you are going to have to explain to me more specifically how you do define “the Right”. I am happy to make allowances for your preferred definitions of these terms, but you have to explain to me what they are.
Moreover, if you are claiming that the surveys referred to do not in fact constitute evidence for such a pro-corporate media bias, you are going to have to explain why in more detail. The points you have made up till now, AFAICT, have been rebutted.
Review the IRE study data.
You cite stats on the question of whether “national” reporters avoided stories potentially damaging to their organization, its parent company or advertisers - and it turns out that a grand total of 3 percent of those surveyed said that was commonplace - hardly a manifestation of the Omnipresent Corporate Media Octopus (OCME). And as the survey itself notes, even the relative few who feel that such instances are more than a rare occurrence merely are citing “criticism” or “pressure” from above - not orders to kill or drastically revise stories. And it’s made clear that in some instances reporters’ gripes are based on attempts to clean up sloppy reporting, not efforts on behalf of the OCME.
I have yet to see any actual examples of the corporate media abuses you seem to feel are rampant, much less that they benefit right-wingers. All you’ve come up with is an Internet survey of the type that selects for respondents who are most apt to be dissatisfied with their jobs, and into whose results you read what conclusions you wish. If that’s enough for you, you may of course declare victory and go on home.
I await facts.
I’d like to reprint my summation of mainstream media from the last merry-go-round on this issue. (You can take it then, Izzy, that to the extent that I’m quoting them only slightly modified, I haven’t changed my position on these points.)
It’s my perception that mainstream media tend to be:
[list=a]
[li]profit-driven[/li][li]access-driven[/li][li]audience-driven[/li][li]establishmentarian–see (a) and (b)[/li][li]generally secular–see ©[/li][li]socially centrist-liberal–see © and (e)[/li][li]economically centrist-conservative–see (a), (b), ©, and (d)[/li][li](wording from earlier in this thread) generally perceived by liberals to be not as liberal as they would like, and by conservatives to be not as conservative as they would like, regardless of actual cant[/li][/list]
(g) is the subject of the most debate in this thread right now; (a), (b), ©, and (d) therefore offer some (very) generalized points in its support.
New CNN and old CNN (turner, and AOL/TW) are two different monsters. I would say CNN now leans right a tad, or at least it isn’t left anymore (more likely they are sucking up to the current power structure) as a source anyone remember CNN’s coverage of the final election recount, where they failed to mention Gore winning the majority of the ways you could count it and only covering that the count Gore asked for would still declare Bush the winner. At that point it cemented my thoughts on this. Before hand they had been courting the Rep. party, and even trying to work out a show for Rush.
What does this mean, anything?
Well either or maybe both, the news a station reports and how they report it change due to who owns them/ or who is in power at the time.
A striking thought.
To your first point, I give you The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagidikian. To the second, On Bended Knee by Mark Hertsgaard. The latter is more partisan than the former, but they’re both impeccably researched.
(Oh, and the Friendly book I cited earlier is on point here, as well.)