Check out this site if you think the media is “liberal”. Or is it just that it’s so much fun to f**k with Al.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/27/media/index.html
Needs2know
Er, no, Al Gore is not particularly liberal. Salon.com is not conservative.
I’m not sure what your point is, Needs. Can you elucidate a little more, please?
Wish I could find the other site that I acessed the other day posing the very same question…why is the media fucking so hard with Al? Even to the point of actually misreporting his statements. Why didn’t I turn on my nightly news and hear a big media ruckus over Dubya being a drunk, a snow baby or the Larry Flynnt abortion thing? Many places on the internet are saying that CNN actually lost the transcript to the show. I didn’t get into that debate on the media being liberal but I fail to see it at all, especially in this campain. And for the record my local paper The Richmond Times Dispatch is the biggest right-leaning Republican rag in the nation. So what’s a die hard liberal gal to do?
Truthfully the media is so sickening these days and it’s sad but we depend on them to get our information. I simply do not like the idea that they may be leaning one way or the other, especially during coverage of a presidental campain. Not that anything they could say would change my view on Republican politics anyway. But we do a consumers have the right to a little more reporting and a little less editorializing don’t you think?
Needs2know
I’ve been wrestlimg with the question about the media’s biases for a while. Actually it’s believed that most editorial boards lean conservatively. Anyway an interesting media critique site is the Daily Howler.
I think one of the major problems, is the difficulty of reporting on a story without trying to tie into an overarching theme. Therefore people are reduced to characters in morality plays; Bush is Dumb and Al is a serial liar and damn any evidence to the contrary. In fact there is a good argument that the simplication of the issues into two dimensions favor the conservative point of view, since these positions are more sound-bitable. (Keep the status quo, or return to traditional values). In fact here’s posted a very good analysis by Aaron Barnhart about conservative bias in media (he’s reviewing a book about that subject.)
It may vary from political climate to political climate, but the media is very liberal here in 2:1 dems to reps Maryland.
Plus, look at NBC. The liberal agenda is quite aggressively pushed in many of their biggest shows. Not just West Wing, which is based on a Democratic Presidency and deals with the issues of today, always putting that liberal spin on them. Finally, it seemed they were going to allow a Republican voice with Ainsley, but quickly stuck her in the basement in week 2.
ER… The man who abused the Medicare system because his HMO wouldn’t allow him the appropriate care. Notice that since GW’s policy is gaining him big with seniors, this is the policy the shows, including last night’s West Wing hit on.
I can’t recall the other examples I have seen recently.
Maybe I just like liberal t.v.? Other cites? examples?
Thankfully, we have politically open shows like the Simpsons, they screw with everybody.
When they’re losing, conservatives complain that the majority of news reporters and columnists are liberal (true). But this doesn’t amount to much since the actual gatekeepers (the editors and publishers SterlingNorth referred to) are mostly conservative.
What I’ve seen in this election coverage is that most reporters will ask the Gore camp to defend the its record and agenda, and then ask the Bush camp to elaborate on what’s wrong with Gore’s record and agenda. Gore is getting heat through many media. I’m interested to know if Limbaugh is still complaining about the liberal bias. Well, not really interested. I seriously doubt if he’d acknowledge the conservative leanings, which are definitely there (and I’m not even a staunch liberal). Here’s my reasoning:
- George W. looks good on TV. Al is more postured and slightly awkward.
- George W. spouts hollow buzz words like “accountability” and “responsibility” that make people feel good. Al has plans and definite answers (right or wrong) to problems. No one likes to hear hard truths.
- George W. speaks vaguely about general terms with no real message or meaning, so lying is not an issue. Al gives relevant examples to support his agenda, though sometimes with idiotic embellishments that the media pounce on for story leads, obscuring his definite message.
- George W. champions tax cuts (and increased debt), making people think taxes will be less of a problem (anyone remember Daddy’s “know new taxes?”) and every American will get a check in the mail signed by George W. Bush. Al supports the unpopular idea of paying off an increment of debt.
- George W. is a congenial yet ignorant governor, a fellow people would like to have to dinner. Al is a worldly politician doing the dirty work of running a government.
Media outlets give coverage to what will draw the largest audience for their paying advertisers. Since they end up competing for the same, short attention span audience, the coverage gets skewed in a single direction. Give the average child the choice between having ice cream for dinner or having vegetables, which do you think they’ll choose? It would be economically masochistic for news outlets to run lima beans as their lead stories.
May I ask JustAnotherGuy why you are attempting to compare the New York Times with ER?
Needs2know
Your op discussed LIBERAL MEDIA
Media is alot more than NY Times, thus the connection.
Amen, Needs2Know. I classify television shows just a bit differently than news outlets.
TV is explicitly for entertainment, and entertainers are historically liberal. So what? I thought the conservative angle was to give more power in letting people use their own judgment?
Tim Robbins’ “Cradle Will Rock” is an excellent illumination of the demonizing and miscomprehension of left-leaning entertainment. His main point was that shows often attack the fat cats or others in power not because they are capitalists but because they are capitalists that abuse their power at the expense of the common man.
jumblemind: Cradle Will Rock’s a great movie. 
Anyway, here’s a previous discussion on the issue. There are even links to studies and stuff!
So the news media counts, while the entertainment industy doesn’t.
Meanwhile, how many people get the NY Times and how many watch the shows I mentioned?
Anyway, the entertainment industry IS a form of media. If you don’t want to count it, then simply discuss the news industry, which is also liberal.
Point taken on the technicality of the op, JustAnotherGuy. But how many people accept what they see on TV as reality? Sadly, the number is high, but I maintain that this should be moot to the conservative cause. Isn’t George W.'s whole tax issue based on trusting people to make up their own minds on how to use their money? What you’re arguing for from the conservative perspective is that people should be trusted to their own decisions in handling money (something very real and directly relevant to daily life) but not to discerning fact from fiction and so-called propaganda on TV.
If people have strong beliefs, almost nothing they see or read, whether it’s on a television show or in leaflets air-dropped by the enemy, will change those beliefs.
And thanks for the link, Gadarene!
jumblemind has a very valid point. Entertainment is a reflection of and a shaper of society. How far back do you have to look before you stop seeing gay characters on TV? Now there are several shows where gay characters are central, and shows revolve around gay issues. While some may argue that it merely reflects attitudes already out there, that isn’t the whole story. In my all white, rural home town I never even thought about issues of racism as a child, until I began to watch All in the Family. Entertainment certainly does carry messages, and there are beliefs and attitudes underneath the laughs or behind the drama that people absorb, often unconsciously.
Now often when the right decries the “liberal media bias” they are focussing on news outlets and thinking mainly of political issues. But then again when they talk about the media as being subversive towards “family values” they focus on the entertainment industry. Either way, both are targets of criticism from the right as being skewed left.
And I’m saying that this campain has pretty obviously been covered by the mainstream media (not the entertainment media) with a good little lean to the right. They seem to be able to expound for days on “the sighs”, the “embelishments”, etc. But when Dubya calls some guy an asshole in public it lasts a good farting spell. And the “abortion” thing got literally no coverage.
And I’m sorry but I don’t watch “West Wing” or “ER” anymore for that matter. And “Will and Grace” would never be on my list because I think most sitcoms are inane. I certainly do not see some vast conspiracy in the entertainment industry to brainwash the American public towards their “liberal” agenda. No what I do see the entertainment industry doing is trying to make as much money as they can. Other than that there are many liberal individuals in the entertainment industry that’s true. But then Charleton Heston blows the theory that ALL entertainment types are liberal right out of the water. Not to mention our dearly loved X Pres the Ronster. Peddle it elsewhere. We’re talking about the NEWS MEDIA not fantasy land.
Needs2know
And I’m saying that this campain has pretty obviously been covered by the mainstream media (not the entertainment media) with a good little lean to the right. They seem to be able to expound for days on “the sighs”, the “embelishments”, etc. But when Dubya calls some guy an asshole in public it lasts a good farting spell. And the “abortion” thing got literally no coverage.
And I’m sorry but I don’t watch “West Wing” or “ER” anymore for that matter. And “Will and Grace” would never be on my list because I think most sitcoms are inane. I certainly do not see some vast conspiracy in the entertainment industry to brainwash the American public towards their “liberal” agenda. No what I do see the entertainment industry doing is conspiring to make as much money as they can. Other than that there are many liberal individuals in the entertainment industry that’s true. But then Charleton Heston blows the theory that ALL entertainment types are liberal right out of the water. Not to mention our dearly loved X Pres the Ronster. Peddle it elsewhere. We’re talking about the NEWS MEDIA not fantasy land. Yes, art does and should reflect the current themes and mores of society. (That is if TV is art!) But it is a reflection, not necessarily some vast underground organization designed to sway the masses. Gays are “out” on TV because Gays are “out” in real life now. Not because Hollyweird want them “out”. Truth is there have been instances up until very recently of actors staying “in the closet” because they were afraid they would not recieve “leading man” roles if the community knew they were Gay.
Now I’ll take at look at those sites Gaudere, thanks.
Needs2know
I read an interesting thought about the media bias the other day. I’m not sure that it is actually “proof” of a bias, but I liked the point anyway.
The point was that when you look at the electoral college maps, Bush has control of the vast majority of the land mass. The only places Gore controls are where the mass media outlets are centered.
Hey Gaud…was that a thread about the media or linguistics?
Needs2know
Gaudie’s not around, Needs, but I’ll answer that. It was a thread about the so-called ‘liberal media.’
Oh, and Freedom: :rolleyes: The parallel you’re drawing is invalid in about a hundred different ways; let’s start with the fact that urban centers tend to be more liberal, and rural areas tend to be more conservative. Guess where the mass media outlets are located?
I never said that there was some vast conspiracy out there. And while gays may be out in Hollywood, Chicago, New York, and other major metropolitan areas, I can tell you that there are many parts of the country where they are not out, or at least are out in very small numbers. Thus the media reflects some of society’s attitudes, while shaping others. If it did not, no right wing “undermining family values” protests would be out there.
Anyway, since all you want to talk about is news media, I will say that yes, Bush has gotten a bye during this campaign compared to Gore. The stereotypes have been Gore=elite intellectual liar and Bush=dopey buffoon riding on Daddy’s coattails. Stories that stray from these stereotypes, like anyone covering Al’s verbal blunders or Bush’s forays into half-truths just don’t get the attention.
Be that as it may…
That asshole remark was carried on for QUITE some time thank you, it was replaced only when the debates came around…
The debate fox paws of Al Gore only lasted in the news until the Israeli conflict brewed up again. Al Gore is consistent in his unlikability, that is why he is doing so poorly. My liberal paper tries to put positive spins on what he does, and they routinely, Al Gore no exception, back the Democratic candidate. However, when he does things like bringing in Clinton on the side lines, in the States he has little chance of loosing, while talking bad about him and keeping him out of the states that are a tight race, it says alot about the man, regardless of any spin you put on him.
Fantasy land probably has more of a direct impact on people than the news media. T.V. shows evoke emotions moreso than the news media, the characters become familar and people trust them. The same can be said for news anchors, but a line-up of characters with national broadcasting appeal is different than a local anchor boy/girl. Whether you watch them or not is immaterial. What is pertinent is the impact they have on the viewers as a whole. (I was going to let it go, but you brought it up again)
Look at how the liberal media (and I do not propose for a moment that there isn’t a conservative media as well, it simply isn’t the majority in news and other media forms) handled the various and numerous Clinton scandals. The evil Republican conspiracy was always the bad guy. (I agree, but Clinton was wrong too)
I have heard Clinton’s microphone being on and him not realizing it, but it only makes the goofy talk shows, not the news media. (one of the benefits of being this close to D.C. I guess)
Clinton was a much more avid liar than Gore, but he was good at it. The media can only do so much for a candidate, they have to do something on their own.
Al Gore on Rolling Stone magazine? Why?
He is such a media whore it makes him look ridiculous. Is there a talk show he didn’t do?
He acts goofy on the Letterman Show one night, badmouthing Leno and then kisses Leno’s ass another night. The next morning he is all serious and arrogant again. The man may just suffer MPS. How can the media hide the fact that the man would sell his own mother for the Presidency? And then default on the contract after election day…
Don’t blame the liberal media, they are doing everything they can. Some candidates are just hopeless.