And if you don’t think the sources I listed constitute a significant chunk of the mainstream media in the United States today, you must be living under a rock in Tora Bora for the past two decades.
“I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
–Conservative commentator Bill Kristol, The New Yorker, May 1995
“[The White House Correspondents Association dinner] was theperfect example of all the sucking up to Bush that’s been going on every day in this town since he was elected. … We have been effectively emasculated… So far, we’ve made a virtue out of his shortcomings.”
–James Warren, former Washinton bureau chief, Chicago Tribune, May 2001
Let’s assume for a moment that the sources you listed (included the almost laughable inclusion of GE/NBC) are “right wing”. Exactly how much of “the media” do they represent? “A significant chunk” ain’t good enough. If it isn’t a significant majority, your claim that Bush won’t be called on his BS is itself nothing but BS.
Again, let’s assume that Bill Kristal’s statement (written in 1995!!) is true today. Let’s forget that he’s just one guy talking. “The liberal media were never that powerful” is not equivalent to saying “The conservative media is so powerful that Bush will not be effectively challenged”. It says ZERO about the existence of a conservative media, much less how much power it wields.
Written 4 months after Bush’s inauguration. Have you not noticed that, since then, there was an invasion of Iraq and that Bush has been savaged by the media over it?
Give it up, rjung. Why you insist on constantly digging yourself deeper into these holes is beyond me.
Why so many protestors at the RNC and not the DNC? It should be pretty obvious:
Traditionally, those who have the time and inclination to protest are already on the DNC side of the fence! The average RNC-supporter simply doesn’t take the time to go to organized rallies and protests. They have things to do - like go to work…
Its not a fair comparison. A fair comparison would have been, how many protestors were there at Clinton’s re-election convention…or another sitting Democrat president (Carter? Johnson?)? How many protestors, how many arrests, how many interruptions, etc. I don’t know if there were any (I don’t recall any…probably plenty for Johnson though), but its a more fair comparison as they were sitting presidents.
[qutoe]
Its not a fair comparison. A fair comparison would have been, how many protestors were there at Clinton’s re-election convention…or another sitting Democrat president (Carter? Johnson?)? How many protestors, how many arrests, how many interruptions, etc. I don’t know if there were any (I don’t recall any…probably plenty for Johnson though), but its a more fair comparison as they were sitting presidents.
[/quote]
Then here’s a better one: Over the past year, Bush has been attacked mercilessly. He’s been called a traitor, a liar, a thief. Michael Moore has accused him of being a war profiteer, of being in bed with the Bin Laden family, of being a tool of the Saudi government. His national guard service has been attacked repeatedly. And yet, Bush did nothing to stop it.
Let’s contrast the way Kerry handled the Swiftboat guys. First, he had his lawyers write up a very disingenuous letter frivolously threatening lawsuits to any TV station that aired the ads. Then he had the lawyers send another letter to the publisher of the book, demanding that they stop publishing it and pull current copies off the shelves. Then he filed a complaint with the FEC demanding that the Swiftboat ads be stopped.
Compare and contrast. Kerry seems awfully quick on the attack-dog lawyer/stifle speech switch.
OK, so if we could set aside snide and partisan blindness for just a moment and make a direct statement; are you claiming that the Democrats are Nazi like? A simple yes or no will do.
You call that virtual fellatio “savaging”? Puleeze. :rolleyes: Once the shooting started, the networks fell over themselves selling Bush’s war, and anyone with an anti-war view couldn’t get within 100 feet of a television camera if his life depended on it. Even today, Dick Cheney can insist that Iraq had WMDs, and the news media will report it with a straight face.
If the media was doing half the job it was supposed to in “savaging” the Iraq war, Michael Moore could have skipped Fahrenheit 9/11 and gone on vacation for the last two years.
This board is about fighting ignorance, and your clutching of the “liberal media” bullshit is the biggest load of ignorance I’ve seen all week. I’d recommend a fewgoodbooks to debase you of that notion, but I doubt you have the fortitude to actually read 'em.
Dang, of all people, it’s gonna be rjung who starts recommending books? Well, I suppose it would fair to return the favor! Here is one for the Kerry fans; you’ll be needing it November.
I must flag up rjung’s points about the media here: if you think Bush was savaged, particularly by conservative media, in any meaningful or frequent fashion I’d like to know where and when. He was the recipient of a huge sympathy popularity boost after 9/11, and for much of the Iraq affair the majority of American media was more than happy to play along with him and give airtime to dishonesty. There was shameless support from some media, indeed even what looks like collusion, in unquestioningly and uncritically repeating the administration’s juxtaposition of terms like 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.
Bush’s reasoning and execution were occasionally questioned, more so recently, but overall an external observer couldn’t help thinking that there is something wrong in the US, if so many people swallow so much cagal for so long and still continue to swallow it today.
The media that sided with Bush’s take for much of the past 4 years are responsible for this cagal-swallowing effect, although the bulk of it is also the well-oiled propaganda machinery doing its work IMO – a rather sophisticated and well-funded one for this presidential iteration. Almost all the media named by rjung in his earlier post are, indeed, biased towards the conservative, republican, and/or pro-business corner. Of course this doesn’t mean that these media are the entirety of US communications, and you may argue (unsuccessfully IMO) that it’s not even the majority, but I don’t think that was the point being made.
As for the “liberal media” in general, it is a ridiculous argument, and posters inerested in a fair and more accurate view would do well to inform themselves on such matters. There is no liberal media conspiracy; there is however a strong conservative streak in a significant portion of US media. The illusion of the “liberal” media is formed by conservative reactions to media reporting that more closely approaches an objective take on subjects conservatives may find offensive. And please don’t give me the “left of centre” crap alleged by a recent questionable study; when Fox News is the nation’s leading domestic news TV channel, you know there’s a problem, and you know the picture is badly skewed.
Even bigger than the load of Bullshit you just posted? Show me where I ***ever ***claimed in this thread anything even remotely hinting that the media is “liberal”.
Can you fathom the possibility that much of the media is neither liberal nor conservative, but strives for neutrality?
Do not, I repeat, DO NOT put words in my mouth and then claim I’m spouting Bullshit.
Again: ClearChannel, Rupert Murdoch, Christian Broadcasting Network, GE/NBC, Focus on the Family, Rev. Moon…
It’s a sign of the times that Air America radio gets headline news for daring to launch a liberal (Gasp! :eek: ) radio network, even in a measly six markets. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity gets 600+ outlets to whine about the mythological “liberal media bias” that keeps them in total obscurity. :rolleyes:
Is it any surprise that it’s the conservative groups who protest the loudest whenever anyone suggests reinstating the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine?
Well, I agree you weren’t posting that the media are liberal media, someone may have jumped the gun there, but I don’t think the rest of rjung’s points were nonsense. I don’t know that “much of the media… strives for neutrality” – from here it seems some media do, and some don’t. Any medium wants an audience and the revenues that come with it, and ultimately that is more important for most media than any concept of neutrality (in some media neutrality doesn’t even factor).
This is where the present myth of the liberal media draws fuel: die-hard political conservatives and Republicans seeing news they don’t like about their hero Dubya and moving to news media that deliver to them what they want there to be in the news. Conclusion: all the rest must somehow be liberal hogwash.
Not surprising if the Republicans are leaving CNN for FOX? Perhaps now that the audience has shifted and fewer of these editorially demanding conservatives must be catered to, we might see the quality of domestic CNN improve at long last.
Now the ridiculous thing here is that American media has, on the whole, been supportive of the president – barring ugly doubts in some print publications such as Newsweek and the occasional televised sceptic, general coverage of Bush affairs has been rather less negative than it had reason to be – not saying it was always glowing, but it was rarely as incisive as it ought to have been. Apparently it’s OK to mislead an entire nation, the world, the UN, allies, neutrals, and enemies to go to bloody and messy war with no end of consequences and expenses in sight, but it’s not OK to try to protect one’s personal life and blowjobs, and it is grounds for gigantic and well-funded lawsuits as well as ultra-intense media scrutiny. That just seems like such a disconnect compared to the murder Bush is getting away with. This all suggests a conservative and Republican bias in the media, not a liberal or Democrat one.
In the words used earlier, “if the media was doing half the job it was supposed to in “savaging” the Iraq war, Michael Moore could have skipped Fahrenheit 9/11 and gone on vacation for the last two years.”
I’m not sure if you know what started this hijack, but here it is. Can you honestly tell me that you agree?
IOW, there isn’t enough of a neutral or liberal media base to call BS on any of Bush’s points. Of course Limbaugh et al aren’t going to go after Bush. But NO ONE is going to? Let’s be serious.