If Shodan is talking about reporters and editors favoring Democrats, then I don’t think there is really any argument about that being true. Site after site will show this to be the case. That said, I don’t feel there’s a clear liberal bias in the media and reporting, and I used to be a Dittohead myself (of course, that was 20 years ago.) Even then, I thought it was bullshit. If anything, I feel that media has a pro-government bias. It felt downright conservative to me during the Bush years, but that’s because I’ve shifted left of center (I’m kind of liberal and libertarian, if that could be reconciled.)
Oh, Shodan. I don’t have a next “move.” I simply want to know how you get into the MSM. This is a serious question. It seems that you are saying the only qualification is to favor Obama. Is that it?
ETA: Why won’t you give a specific definition, anyway?
Chen, I think it’s an interesting point to consider. People to remember things that reinforce pre-existing stereotypes, but ignore ones that don’t.
However, it’s also fair to point out that I was *familiar *with every gaffe you listed, and others that have been pointed out in this thread. So the media hasn’t ignored them. I haven’t forgotten them. I suspect most people in this thread were familiar with every one of these Obama slip-ups, too.
So what does that mean? It means the media is getting it out there, but we (the admittedly liberal leaning Dope) don’t think those gaffes mean much. I don’t really think Obama doesn’t know how many states there are, that the US built a transcontinental railroad, or that French people speak Austrian.
No, it isn’t bullshit. In fact, the truth is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - left wingers are the ones denying the liberal bias of the MSM. Half of US independents, for example, see the liberal bias as well.
[QUOTE=Fiddle Peghead]
It seems that you are saying the only qualification is to favor Obama. Is that it?
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s quite stupid.
Because it isn’t possible to say anything precisely enough to prevent you from misinterpreting it to be something stupid, as you did above.
What does this have to do with anything?
Regards,
Shodan
If there is some vast left-wing media conspiracy, why doesn’t the right just create more media?
Regardless, I’m still not sure how NBC’s 4 minutes of political coverage every day has some massive bias.
Let’s stipulate that number is correct. What does it prove? Half of US independents don’t see any liberal bias then, I assume. Why is the half that sees bias the “correct” half? If anything, that stat seems to say to me that reporting is fairly centrist.
I agree that it would be stupid to say support of Obama is the only qualification. But since that’s all you said, I felt I had to ask, to give you a chance to expand on the qualifications for MSM membership. As for what it has to do with anything, as if I have to point out this most obvious fact, you made the claim that the MSM mostly supports Obama. We cannot have a discussion about the truth of this claim unless you tell me precisely what the MSM is.
Main Stream Media? That’s my guess!
Shodan’s completely wrong, of course. The Liberal Media™ trope is there because many conservatives believe a great many things that aren’t true.
Take climate change. If a news source reports on it as if it were scientific consensus, conservatives label that source as biased.
But it’s only biased because conservatives have decided, against all evidence, that climate change isn’t happening. It’s their devotion to an alternate set of facts that are not true that creates the impression of bias in The Liberal Media™.
Now I don’t doubt that since reporters tend to be liberal, since they need to be intelligent and well-informed, there is some tiny degree of bias present in the system. But to assume that ABC, for instance, is the liberal mirror of FOX News, is just one more bit of knowledge based on something that isn’t factual.
It proves that what Not Really All That Bright said is wrong. It is not the case that only right-wingers see left-wing bias in the media.
[QUOTE=Fiddle Peghead]
I agree that it would be stupid to say support of Obama is the only qualification. But since that’s all you said…
[/QUOTE]
There’s your problem. I did not say that support for Obama was a qualification to be part of the MSM.
And when you ignore what I post in favor of reacting to things I didn’t post, it makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh goodie. Another thread in which Shodan illuminates us all on the definition of the Liberal Media. It’s been a good month or so; we were due.
I said that it “seems” that favoring Obama was the only qualification, and the quote above could lend support to that idea, since that is all I have to go on. But that is why I asked for a more concrete definition of what constitutes the MSM. Shodan, I’m not trying to trap you or win some frivolous argument here. I sincerely want to know how one determines who is in the MSM and who is not. But since by your own admission you won’t give a specific definition, I guess it’s pointless to continue this.
Fellow dopers, I apologize for bringing it up in the first place.
It’s simple - the MSM are those media outlets watched by The Usual Suspects.
You just demonstrated that you failed in the most spectacular way about what is the bias Chomsky is referring to, his main thesis is referring to the corporate media, as they are profit-driven institutions, Chomsky has always said that that media **tends **to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.
You are just swallowing the idea that “elite” in his case means just someone like the academics or Hollywood “elites” that is, what Romney and others are talking about.
But, it is clear that in the article you cited Chomsky is referring to the well to do, the privileged people; in that frame what you see as left leaning bias is actually a few meager and already compromised leftist points that the well to do should not ignore, but the key word here is “compromised” indeed, one just have to remember what J.David Stern the owner of the New York Post in 1936 said:
“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?” (Nowadays it is the right wing wolf that is fed more at the Post)
There is clear evidence that if the media was liberal (since Ted Turner retired it is tough to point at any owners that are liberal) the news focus would be on expanding and continuous explanations about subjects that are deemed important by the liberals, instead, what we get is just more of what we got even in the last century from the corporate media: just superficial or inadequate information regarding all those subjects.
What is interesting is that the same complaint from Stern and with the same subjects could be made even today! And it shows up in issues that would affect that corporate elite, like health care and climate change:
That’s still not necessarily proven, and I suppose it depends on what you mean by “right-wingers.” The 50% of independents that see the media as liberally biased might be conservatives themselves. As far as I could find, only about 20% of independents identify themselves as liberal; the rest are moderates or conservatives. Cite. I think this at least suggests that if you see a liberal bias in the media, you are probably ideologically conservative. Now, whether that’s synonymous with “right-winger,” that’s up to you guys to scuffle over.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
This comes under the heading of “Duh”.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I suggest that you make this your sig.
So you sincerely don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “national news outlets like CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc”?
I don’t believe you when you claim to be sincere.
Sorry.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re not telling me what makes them mainstream and not other outlets. Is Fox mainstream? As for being sincere, I was, but now no longer care. You’re not going to be specific, so there’s no point to this.
C’mon, man the answer’s as plain as the nose on your face! It’s their presence on that list that makes them mainstream!
