Is a blatant strawman. I never said the show was “completely value neutral” (indeed, I said the exact opposite, its trying to display the value of “working together”). I said seeing it as a political allegory was silly, since working togeather isn’t a value that is specific to a political ideology.
News has become more partisan because of several factors. More cable stations mean less viewer-ship, so you go after a particular demographic/viewpoint rather than trying to capture the whole market. Changes in the law no longer require TV stations to have programming to the public good, so they turned news into a profit center. The idea of “noblesse oblige” has disappeared as media outlets are no longer privately held. Murdoch imported tabloid-style journalism from England to ruin everything. Media companies are now allowed to own multiple outlets in the same market, whereas before it was prohibited. MSNBC is a reaction to Fox and Air America is a reaction to Rush and his ilk. The culture wars divided the country and red-staters became disillusioned of media filled with people that were not like them (e.g., people in the media supported outrageous stuff like equal rights for women and gays, and thought it was OK to provide abortions for women that were raped).
ETA: in the end it’s not that a bunch of news outlets catered to liberals, it’s that when new media outlets appealed to conservatives, eventually the remaining companies decided that it made sense to appeal to the remaining viewers. Air America is an exception, because it was specifically stated to counter the hate-filled talk radio programs.
The “value neutral” I was referring to was about political ideology.
I wasn’t referring to all the ohter infinite values implied such as “working together”, or the amount of cleavage shown on Ginger (too modest?), or the lack of tongue on tongue kissing and groping, etc.
If they wanted to be like like Fox, but on the left, they would just be making shit up like Fox does. I think that there are still people with integrity employed in the traditional media that will only sink so far. MSNBC didn’t create astroturf rallies to challenge McCain’s citizenship.
At least it’s nice to see someone admit that working together is not a conservative principle
I think the opposite. The liberal slant on mainstream media is outstanding and the conservatives have no talent on their side that is equal to Jon Stewart, etc. Rush Limbaugh is fat, makes stupid statements and is constant subject of mockery.
How could mainstream media do a “better job” for liberal viewpoints?
MSNBC is the more left-leaning of the news networks, but don’t forget that their morning show is three hours with a right-wing former Republican Congressman.
It’s easy to forget just how unwelcome progressive voices were in the mainstream from 2001 until 2005. They were already few and far between, but when Bush and the right claimed patriotism for themselves and equated disagreement with them to support for terrorism, what little was out there disappeared. The blogosphere was building steam, but the traditional media only acknowledged it when it supported the point they were making anyway. The typical “debate” show lineup was a firebreathing conservative/Bush apologist on the right vs. a mainstream non-opinion journalist, or at best a milquetoast like Alan Colmes, “on the left”.
I said the same thing in the Michael Moore thread–this is why we flocked to his movies. There are plenty of pundits out there now offering full-throated criticism of the right-wingers, but back then Moore was about it.
It all changed in 2005, thanks to two things: 1.) Cindy Sheehan, who has since proven herself pretty well nuts but made it OK to stand up and oppose the war in Iraq, and 2.) the administration’s response to Katrina, which was an undeniable display of incompetence. Voices of the left suddenly started to creep back into mainstream punditry.
So from that standpoint, the “liberal media” (by your definition) couldn’t help but rise. The lefty blogosphere continued to build up, and that helped build an audience for Olbermann and eventually for his far superior (IMO) spinoffs Maddow and Schultz.
On the other hand, you have to admit that Limbaugh is extremely talented at getting large numbers of people to listen to him. No, I don’t know how he does it, but whatever he’s doing, it’s clearly working.
My secret plan to turn this into a thread about Gilligan’s island has worked. Dance puppets dance.
The right wing slant during the bush years was caused by bush’s policies of so-called “freedom speech,” where he would kill stories critical of the war or his government by blackmailing the media with cutting off access to military sources.
But, really, “liberal” media? If the media criticizes repubs, it’s liberal? What if the repugs are wrong?
The truth about Gilligan’s Island.
The media is not that liberal. Read Dan Rather’s lawsuit. CBS’ owner at the time, Viacom, did not want to air any news stories that would endanger Bush’s chances at stealing a second election.
MSNBC is not FOX. Sure, Maddow and Schultz and Matthews and Olbermann skew left, but unlike FOX, they have research staff, editors, and journalistic standards.
When PBS runs a story, it has a liberal and a conservative on at the same time. They are of equal weight. If you actually watched PBS ,you would see that. We are so used to having the right and corporate side presented by itself , that it appears liberal when you see it.
We need to go back to the days when every story had to present the opposite view.
Democracy Now has a slight liberal slant. The Daly show skewered Obama badly last week. When does Fox ever step on a conservative?
That premise was not exactly new - see, for instance, “The Admirable Creighton.” I’d say that the society was a libertarian one if anything. Unless, that is, you think the rich oppressing the poor as a conservative ideal.
Remember also that at the time a lot of Hollywood was still reacting to the blacklist, and any liberal scent you think you find would be a result of trying to say things impossible to say a few years earlier. Gilligan’s Island is a bad example - if you want a good one, try “Have Gun will Travel.” In one episode Paladin, the hero, protected a school teacher who was trying to teach the truth about a Civil War battle which some townspeople, former Confederates, didn’t want taught. It was a parable of McCarthyism back then, but today it would fit in perfectly with what is happening with the Texas School Board.
In answer to the OP: The liberal media are rising because the stars are right. It was foretold in the Economicon of the Mad Briton al-Keenaz.
Because roughly HALF the US population IS “liberal” (or more liberal than media outlets like Fox, Rush, et al, which isn’t saying a lot ;)) Yes, a huge market to sell to, and businessmen/women, right-wing personally or not, will make money where they can.
But I challenge the current definition of “liberal”…the political climate in the US lately (meaning the last few decades, say) has moved SO far to the right that anyone left of say, Hitler, is cast as a “socialist”, “extreme leftist”.
Point in case: Obama, a moderate pragmatist along the lines of Clinton, imo, and actually not close to being “liberal” enough for me or many I know who consider themselves “liberal/left”.
And some of the programs and outlets you mention are not, imo, esp. “leftist”…more “centrist”.
I recently did a research project/presentation for a college class on bias in the media, and after looking at as many studies and surveys (and taking into account the sources and methodology) concluded that if anything, there is a “moderate to conservative” bias overall. Note that by “media”, I mean mainly NEWS media outlets, not popular entertainment.
Try as I could (and I DID) I was unable to find any reliable data supporting the idea of some vast liberal bias in the mainstream media. At most, I found some surveys of the general public (with questionable methodology) conducted by organizations with a strong right-wing bias, which found, surprise! a PERCEPTION of such a bias among the gen. public. :dubious:
Some telling findings: "…Studies like the one which analyzed the media citations of the top 25 think tanks in 2008 and found that “…conservative or right-leaning think tanks” garnered 31% of quotes, “progressive or left-leaning think tanks” 21% and “Centrist think tanks” were quoted as sources in the “corporate media” the most, with 48% of citations. (FAIR). "…
…"a large 1998 survey of journalists’ views on social and economic issues, which found that the vast majority self-identified as “centrists”, not “leftists” when it came to social issues (57% “center“, 30% “left). The gap was even more pronounced when it came to economic issues, with only 11% choosing “left” and 64% describing themselves as “center.” …
(this one went on to break down the positions of the respondents by particular issue…taxes, SS, welfare, role of government in general, etc…and found that most journalists were further to the right on these issues than the general population…I suspect the the income level of the respondents had something to do with this, as it was much higher than that of the general population)
…"(The Pew Center) conducted ( in Al Franken’s words) a “comprehensive study examining 1, 149 stories from 17 leading news sources” to determine if the media coverage of the 2000 presidential election was liberally biased. The results reveal that positive coverage of Bush was almost twice as prevalent as it was for Gore (24% vs. 13%), negative coverage of Gore exceeded that of Bush (56% vs. 49%) and neutral coverage of both candidates was similar (31% of Gore vs. 27% of Bush). (Franken, Al, pg. 38-9.)…
Another Pew survey from 2004 of journalists’ attitudes and concerns found that:
“…More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need….” and questioned whether they mean the same thing by the term “liberal”, when they identify themselves as such, as critics or the general public, noting their actual views tend to be more “libertarian” than anything. “On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
The minority of journalists who do not identify with the “center” are more likely to identify with the “right” when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the “left” when it comes to social issues.” (Pew Research Center)."
This is without doubt the most bizarre interpretation of anything I’ve heard, at least since the time my high school Advanced Reading teacher claimed that the theme of Jurassic Park was that adults warm up to kids once they get used to them.
“Misidentifying prominent Republicans as Democrats when they do something stupid” is a journalistic standard, isn’t it?
I don’t know what your high school teacher was smoking but as far as Gilligan’s Island is concerned, Sherwood Schwartz said he believed TV had a responsibility to show what society should look like. It’s all in his book.
Isn’t that what conservatives want? They want TV shows to display good values rather than just reflect how the world is? Do you think that people in real life don’t swear, or smoke, or fuck?
Dup
I think you misread my post. I said PBS is not liberal. I watch it often and prefer it over all other sources.
Is that a call for the fairness doctrine?