Those iPhone factories really rock!
I believe that I’m the Doper closest to the center on the Political Compass, or at least in the top 2-3.
The majority of the media leans left.
You forget that I mentioned that there is bias for sure, but not at the levels that the right assumes.
And repeating what you said will not change the fact that it does not contradict what I said.
As for Chomsky, reaching for the fallacy of killing the messenger is not effective for the simple reason that I only can speak for what he is saying regarding El Salvador in Manufacturing consent, but that is enough to say that I can confirm that Chomsky was telling the truth. (I’m a Salvadorean-American and I experienced the repression that in the USA was only a TV debate)
I learned back then that in the USA people that tell inconvenient truths can be vilified so much that it becomes a “fact” that they are not reliable while their critics, at least on this instance right wingers can lie with impunity on national television and can remain respectable and retire rich with the help of people that wilfully and forever continue to deny the truth.
John Silber that debated Chomsky (and part of that confrontation was a part of Manufacturing Consent) continued to be an asshole and against anything that smelled liberal at Boston university and in May 10, 2006 it was reported that he got a golden parachute of a compensation package. It was was worth $6.1 million in 2005. AFAIK none in the mainstream press ever took him to task for defending the sorry military regimes of El Salvador in the 70’s and 80’s.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1986----.htm
Of curse, but your position conveniently forgets that it is the owners and editors the ones that decide in the end what can be reported and at what levels, liberal subjects can get a hearing, but the opportunities to be broadcast are limited thanks to self censorship that has been learned and adopted.
As an example regarding the Human causes of the current global warming, there was good coverage back in 2009, but then almost all media went to either ignore it or disparage it like FOX did and does. What I see is that now that the evidence is showing that this issue will affect the bottom line of many corporations the coverage is increasing again in the last years, the point here is that if the media was as liberal as the right assumes then almost all would not had stopped reporting on this issue like they did until recently, but still old habits die hard:
I do think that currently there are many issues that right wing ideology has distorted so much that we have to be careful on assuming bias when it is just the right countering what the facts are, IMHO it is only by happenstance that a lot of the issues with scientific basis are currently (mostly) on the liberal side.
Looking back on climate change again one has to note that even Republican scientists are baffled by how distorted the media (specially the right wing one) and many Republican politicians are nowadays.
[QUOTE] Dr. Richard Alley on the frustrations of a conservative climate scientist. [/QUOTE][quote=“GIGObuster, post:44, topic:715672”]
I do think that currently there are many issues that right wing ideology has distorted so much that we have to be careful on assuming bias when it is just the right countering what the facts are, IMHO it is only by happenstance that a lot of the issues with scientific basis are currently (mostly) on the liberal side.
Looking back on climate change again one has to note that even Republican scientists are baffled by how distorted the media (specially the right wing one) and many Republican politicians are nowadays.
[/QUOTE]A plausible argument, except that the media, being formed of lovey-dovey hippie peacenicks, always feel like they need to give everyone a voice, even if it’s anti-vaxers or other nutjobs.
What I see is that lately, and thanks to the efforts of Republican politicians that I suspect are looking at a wedge issue, most of the media is not so accommodating to the anti-vaccers. When I look at places like Orange County * were the recent measles outbreak came from, it looks to me like that issue is also being embraced mostly by well to do folks that are not as liberal as it was assumed to be, and they are also anti-science.
A common feature of many on the right nowadays.
- A county that reliably sends very conservative and also nutzo representative Republicans to congress.
In my long ago days in a newsroom the overwhelming attitude was one of suspicion of anyone in a position of power, not necessarily one of ideology. More specifically, did an elected official or head of business attain his/her power fairly and exercise it fairly? The watchdoggedness was for corruption and influence rather than policy.
Admittedly, that may have been a generational blip. Young reporters in the 70s and 80s were part of a generation which harbored more distrust of authority than its predecessors. Authority didn’t like that very much, either.
What your position conveniently forgets is that owners and editors can be liberals too. Editors are usually just journalists who got promoted. Owners can be liberal too. There are plenty of corporations who are looking to make money off of green energy or the like who could buy advertising.
On global warming, liberals won’t be satisfied until anyone who dares voice an opposing opinion is pelted with rotten vegetables while being interviewed.
The media has a liberal bias by an reasonable standard. Extremists will also say it isn’t biased enough, but that is not a reasonable standard.
Extremism in the defense of liberalism is not a vice.
Read back about what I posted about the editor of The NY Post from the 1930’s, I can only conclude that you are not paying attention, I did already mention that owners can be liberal too but the duty to the corporation means that they can not “print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all their advertising contracts and go out of business”.
A very silly idea, the reality is that the media needs to do is to put deniers (not skeptics, the problem on that issue is that the right wing media calls deniers “skeptics” when they are not that at all) on the same column as Creationists and mostly ignore them.
But that is precisely the point of what I mentioned so far (that has not been debunked really) in reality the liberals can point to a size of an Atlantic ocean worth of subjects that are not talked much on the mainstream media, the right thinks that talking just about the Mediterranean sea is fair and balanced.
The deniers of climate change not only attempt to deny of misinterpret the data, they also do press the misguided idea that experts are divided about the issue. I do see something similar regarding the actual levels of bias in the media, the right even denies that there are a lot of liberal subjects that the mainstream media considers “obtuse” and not good entertainment or homogenized enough to talk about it.
Who first brought up questions about Hillary’s use of a personal email address for official business? The uber liberal New York Times.
Who gave this story legs and kept it front and center in the news for (to me) a surprisingly long time. The mainstream (liberal) media. Fox may have great ratings but they preach to the choir. Mainstream America still gets its news from the mainstream media.
Studies like this, and in fact any attempt to show bias in the media are always suspect. Who gets to decide what liberal even means? I’d say a “liberal” in Massachusetts might successfully run for office on a platform supporting strong gun control laws , while a “liberal” in Texas could do the same supporting only the banning of the most powerful semi-automatic weapons. There is no objective standard.