You have got to be kidding me!
An addendum:
I will acknowledge the media is much less obvious in its bias than before, but this is due to the tremendous success of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly. Prior to the advent of their ascendance, the media was arrogantly indifferent to complaints of bias. Then, once it began to hit them in the ratings and the pocketbook they began to adopt a more moderate approach.
And what difference does it make if the news president I quoted was retired? He was over CBS News for thirty years! He certainly knew what he was talking about. And besides, do you really expect an acting network news president to come out and say, “Yeah, we’re liberal. That the way the world works when it comes to journalism.” I’d like to be fly on the wall in the corporate boardroom when that little scenario took place.
Yes, the liberal media that has been nothing but a mouthpiece for the status quo (i.e.: conservative) for a couple decades now. THe media that long ago lost its gag reflex where GWBUsh is concerned.
No, I’m not fucking kidding. “Liberal media” has been nothing but an empty rightwing buzzword for almost 20 years.
My point was that a retired executive may not have the clearest eye on the planet when it comes to relatively recent developments in the field. In the first place.
In the second place, the media is not some highly specialized bit of esoterica. Experts on things such as preColombian lefthanded basketweaving are properly deferred to when commenting on their field. But any consumer of the media is just as qualified–if not more so–to comment on it, in the general terms of this context, than your expert. WHo is just as likely to be blindered and narrowly focused as the next individual, so his opinion holds no special weight.
Tell me, do you think Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly are good news analysts?
I’m sure Starving Artist also considers Ann Coulter to be accurate and honest in her propaganda as well.
When the Fox National conven–I mean Republican National Convention–beat the free networks in the ratings, the free networks definitely have to take notice.
The demonization of O’Reilly works in his favor, especially when he churns out relatively reasonable editorials–‘See, I am not that bad’ he could say in response.
‘Billo’ is not the only TV news and opinion guy who had outbursts on the air. William Buckley has been known to slam books and storm to his seat during televised debates. Ted Koppel once said ‘I know bullshit when I hear it’, or some variation, on television while taking to the Serbs. Only wish he said it to Al Campanis while he had him on. John McLaughlin’s favorite pastime is to shout ‘Wrong!!’ to his guests. I am surprised that Pat Buchanan wasn’t caught on air yet.
My revulsion at O’Reilly has nothing whatever to do with his politics, and everything to do with the man himself. He’s a colossal ass. He is a whiny child, a bullying bastard, and nauseatingly smug. He’s a liar, and his ego couldn’t be contained by the LA Coliseum. He’s aggressively and obnoxiously awful in almost every conceivable particular.
I’ve noticed that people on the right who are strongly partisan are convinced the media has a liberal bias, and that people on the left who are strongly partisan are convinced that the media has a conservative bias. This leads me to the conclusion that the media is, in general, pretty much moderate.
Heh.
Here is a nice piece from Krugman on how the “liberal media” covered the 2000 debates:
The media is liberal in the same sense that people who engage in mob violence are actually anti-violence, because they would never have done it on their own.
Heheh, tak about your liberal media personalities…
I seem to recall that the whole idea of the “liberal” media originated with Pat Buchanan during the Nixon administration.
Make of that what you will.
I recall Spiro Agnew referring to the media as “nattering nabobs of negativity.” (Funny how little some things change, eh?)
At any rate, the liberal news media was long and well established by the time Nixon became president. It could be that it was at that point that people began to speak of it openly, because the hatred and vitriol they had subjected Nixon to since the forties had finally come to a head and there was outright animosity being expressed by both sides. Prior to that time its liberal bent was the press’ dirty little secret…kind of like Kennedy’s affairs.
And actually, to tell the truth, I would hate to be a liberal and have to report the news. They have to strive mightily to hide their true feelings, and they very often have to report that the side they loathe is getting its way on this subject or that. It’s funny to watch Peter Jennings try to disguise his contempt for the electorate when an election isn’t going his way. (Anyone remember his “the nation threw a temper tantrum” analysis of the '94 elections when the Republicans took over Congress?)
I’m sure liberal news people feel they do an excellent job of trying to be fair and balanced, because they have to stifle their true feelings on almost everything they report. It must be awfully frustrating.
They consume large bags of pretzels and cases of french wine and cheese to console themselves, while having conversations in Thai about the good old days of Saddam Hussein and burning Dubya in effigy. :rolleyes:
I think the “liberal news bias” rests on one simple assumption: People who work in the major news outlets (newspapers and TV) are, to a large extent, more likely to be to the left of the average American. Or, if you like, people who report the news are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Does anyone have a cite that indicates what percent of news reporters for the mainstream media outlets are Republican vs Democrat? If, in fact, there is a significant imbalance wrt to the general population, it would seem to me that one would expect the news* to be biased in that direction. Unless, of course, one were to assume that all reporters were able to overcome their inate bias, or, even more extreme, to overcompensate for it and slant the news the other way.
*as a whole-- not any given story or any given network
I agree. Bush has gotten such a free ride over the past four years, it ain’t even funny. The media was also very unkind to Gore when he ran. Liberal bias, my eye.
Good
*In one of his first two books, both of which I own (given to me, not bought), he very, very explicitly says that the United States is rigged to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. And he doesn’t just say it; he devotes a whole chapter to the topic. Rather than seeming like a conservative there, he seems like an outright leftie, which is fine with me. I’ve always had a good measure of respect for him after reading that.
*He’s fairly intelligent, witty, entertaining, etc.
*He’s a good entertainer and overall skilled at what he does.
Bad
*He is a dick to guests and a bully at times. He gets bent out of shape and loses his cool. This might be a style that the audience likes, but to me it’s a big minus. Fortunately, it doesn’t happen every show.
*He doesn’t know when he’s out of his depth, which is often. Recently he had two (I think they were both Swiss) journalists on to discuss why GWB is so hated in Europe. O’R came up with a paltry thesis, the journalists calmly and cooly disagreed with him, and O’R basically resorted to argument by repetition, as is his wont. It was clear that he had no real basis for his thesis and really knows nothing about Europe.
All in all, if O’R is the best we’ve got to do what he does, that’s a sad thing. But I don’t particularly despise him, and I do find his show entertaining and mildly informative.