The politics of the owners is meaningless. They don’t gather, edit or broadcast the news, and it would be nigh on to impossible to get liberal-to-the-core reporters to slant their reportage so as to please right-wing owners.
Besides, as long as the companies are making money the owners don’t really care what goes out over the airwaves.
Can you read?
At all?
Maybe you can’t.
Indeed, when that is mentioned I like to ask this question:
Why is it that on FOX news (they are mostly opinion shows but since they continue to use the NEWS logo they are fair game) when O’Reilly or Hannity go on vacation or are sick their replacements are people like Newt Gingrich or Oliver North or other known right winger, when in CNN, ABC etc when the anchor is not present we get.. a “who the heck is he/she?” in their desk reporting?
Leftists have no such control on driving the news on the outlets that right wingers continue to naively think that they are controlled by the left like CNN, ABC or CBS.
Now, if I ever see the newscast narrator telling the viewers something like “Replacing Wolf Blitzer tonight: Michael Moore!”* Then you would have a case.
Well I haven’t noticed that, so I can’t say much, so my apologies.
The degree to which he becomes “The Decider” in people’s minds by* actual thought out and considered actions*, taking risks when they are worth it, rather than trying to convince people of it with stupid statements, is huge, albeit difficult to quantify.
More important to his re-election chances though is how this plays with his domestic battles hand in the next several weeks. He has at one and the same time shown his opposition that his willingness to compromise does not mean he is weak, developed a, temporary perhaps but well timed, bump in public support, and played a “we are all Americans, united” card, at the same time, going into what may be some of the toughest and most important negotiations he’ll have this term, over the debt ceiling and next year’s budget. If he can parlay that into a reasonable compromise, then he will coast off that more than off of OBL’s death itself. Can he use it as a catalyst in foreign policy as well? Maybe.
This is becoming inappropriate for Great Debates, and this tangent on media ownership is of questionable relevance to the thread topic.
It’s true that most of the work here was done by career intelligence people and their ilk, not by elected officials. I guess that doesn’t make as good a story. And obviously the actual military work was done by those agencies. But I think you’ve overstated things here. Bush did not focus on bin Laden. You may recall he started a war in the wrong country (and the thing about him trying to get AQ to let their guard down is hilarious, but probably wrong) and while I’m sure he wanted bin Laden off the map, his actions in general did not reflect that it was a high priority for his administration. After a year or two it was just an embarrassment and something they preferred to ignore. Obama certainly didn’t find bin Laden, but he focused on it and seems to have lit a fire under the right people. And he did make the decision to go into Pakistan. If it had gone wrong it would have been a disaster. This is not something that just happened to get done on Obama’s watch.
Right. Because the owners have no influence over what is broadcast.
Other than the fact that they decide which talking heads, reporters, editors, and broadcasters get to work in television news and which ones don’t.
And what if they don’t care. If FOX wants to cater to a conservative audience its better for NBC to cater to a liberal audience rather than try to compete with FOX for the conservative audience.
Except that you claimed a page ago that everyone except Fox is catering to a liberal audience. Do all the other networks have really poor business acumen, or something?
No. MSNBC is one that really caters to a liberal audience as FOX does to the right but CNN, ABC, CBS all do somewhat lean left due to the fact most jounralists are gauche.
Dead wrong. They tracked the courier to Ben Ladens home in August. Bush was clearing brush for 2 1/2 years at that time. Then we started checking out the compound. Meanwhile Bush was clearing brush. Then they put together the operation and did all the planning. While that went on, Bush was clearing brush. Then last Friday, while Bush was clearing brush, Obama gave the go ahead. Then Sunday morning the operation went ahead and they killed Ben Laden. Bush has cleaned a lot of brush out during that time.
This operation has nothing to to with Bush.
I don’t think the mainstream media “caters” to the left, it’s just that most mainstream reporters and editors are of left-wing sympathies to begin with and that can’t help but color their reportage. Journalism is like show business in that it draws people of a liberal bent like moths to a flame. I imagine in their own minds, newspaper and television journalists bend over backwards to be impartial, but that’s only because they have to bite their tongues so much over what they’d really like to say.
I suppose that’s better than “gauche.” :rolleyes:
ENOUGH!
Take the endless argument about the leanings of the American news media to a different thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Left and right are subjective terms. Nobody can claim that 90% of a group is part of the left. By definition 50% are on the left and 50% are on the right.
When you say that 90% of the people are on the left, all you’re really saying is that you’re in the extreme right.
eta: Posted before Tom issued his warning. Delete this post if you feel it is a violation of the warning.
I like this idea that the owners of the corporation don’t contribute anything and it’s the workers that make the decisions. We’ll have you singing Joe Hill songs next.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
There is that…
Ahem…
You know, just to make sure you don’t take the lack of response as acquiescence.