# Who’s got more control over the media, liberals or conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349 "2004-12-17T15:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/41 "2004-12-18T08:14:42Z")
Whoops, I need to make a correction. I was doing part of the George Will shenanigans from memory, which was faulty. It wasn’t a speech he wrote for Reagan. It was the debate with Jimmy Carter. Will secretly helped coach Reagan and then went on Nightline and praised the Gipper’s performance. What a dick. Yet he continues to appear on “liberal” ABC each Sunday. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/42 "2004-12-18T08:59:20Z")
Let me pluck a paragraph from **2sence’s** excellent post: “CNN’s flagship political show is Crossfire. It features well known conservatives Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson. It contrasts them with centrists James Carville and Paul Begala. Not a liberal in sight. Begala and Carville are strong minded Democrats but that doesn’t make them liberal. They helped Bill Clinton orchestrate the Democratic Party’s move to the right by co-opting Republican issues of welfare reform and free trade. They are sell outs.” Time and time again, this is what we get: the right debating the middle. It’s _presented_ as being right vs. left, but it isn’t. It’s right vs. middle. The left is left out. I would say that only someone pretty far to the right could believe that all Democrats were genuine, dyed in the wool, liberals. Senator Lieberman and former President Clinton, to cite two examples, are too far toward the right end of the Dem’s 1/2 of the spectrum to be counted as liberals. Moderates might be a fair term. One problem with debates like this is that the two terms, “liberal” and “conservative” are too vague and ill-defined. The image seems to be of a straight line with a notch at the exact mid-point – 1/2 left, 1/2 right. An over-simplication, IMO, but let’s use it for discussion. On either half, there is an enormous range of opinion between that midpoint notch and the end of the line. My estimate would be that the Repubs streach from the midpoint to about 1/3 the way toward their end, and the Dems streach from the midpoint to about 1/3 the way toward their end. A lot of people are to the right of the Repubs and to the left of the Dems. Yet the Repubs seem to believe that the terms “Democrat” and “liberal” both mean the same thing; that both terms refer to everyone to the left of the midpoint. And the Dems believe the same about “Republicans” and “conservatives”. We could talk more sensibly if we had more precise terms. Heck, if we just plain had more terms. As we talk as though Repub and conservative were synonyms and Dem and liberal were as well, we have, in effect, only two terms for the whole political spectrum. This is plainly inadequate. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/43 "2004-12-18T13:39:37Z")
**2sense** - that the memos were forged was clear before the 60 Minutes story aired. Three of the four experts CBS consulted told them that the documents could not be authenticated. James Carville is centrist? My mistake, then. Y’all are correct, then - there are two points of view in the news. One is the extreme, hard-line, fanatic, ultra-right-wing viewpoint of Fox. On the other is the centrist. “Centrist” in this context meaning pro-abortion. pro-gay marriage, pro-Democratic, pro-government spending, anti-military, anti-Bush, anti-school voucher, and anti-Republican generally. You know, centrist. 😃 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/44 "2004-12-18T16:36:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I would say that only someone pretty far to the right could believe that all Democrats were genuine, dyed in the wool, liberals. Senator Lieberman and former President Clinton, to cite two examples, are too far toward the right end of the Dem’s 1/2 of the spectrum to be counted as liberals. Moderates might be a fair term. You think you’re going to get conservatives to stop calling Clinton and Leiberman liberals? Now that the election’s over, conservatives have gone back to calling John McCain and George Pataki liberals. Here’s a litmus test: how many politicians describe themselves as being a liberal? Reputable cites required and nothing more than twenty years old (or I’ll point out that the Blessed Reagan used to be a Democrat). ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/45 "2004-12-18T16:45:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **2sense** > “Centrist” in this context meaning pro-abortion. pro-gay marriage, pro-Democratic, pro-government spending, anti-military, anti-Bush, anti-school voucher, and anti-Republican generally. > > You know, centrist. 😃 > > Regards, > Shodan Well then lets look at the views of who the conservatives called the number one most liberal senator in the senate (that’s John Kerry). He is for civil union and against gay marriage. Against abortion, but believes in a woman’s right to choose. He is pro-democrat. He is for the war but does not like the way it is being handled by the current administration. That is pretty close to the center as it gets and he is still seen as liberal by conservatives. Shows what conservatives believe to be “liberal”. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/46 "2004-12-18T17:16:54Z")
There is a difference between spinning the news that is delivered versus choosing what and what not is delivered. Fox spins more than any liberal media source, but the liberal media completely omits stories that doesn’t support its agenda. Unfortunately, conservative commentators are too busy pointing out the absurdity of the left to take the time to cover stories that would really give balanced coverage. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/47 "2004-12-18T17:28:18Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > There is a difference between spinning the news that is delivered versus choosing what and what not is delivered. Fox spins more than any liberal media source, but the liberal media completely omits stories that doesn’t support its agenda. Unfortunately, conservative commentators are too busy pointing out the absurdity of the left to take the time to cover stories that would really give balanced coverage. Can you provide some examples of stories that the mainstream media surpressed? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/48 "2004-12-18T17:48:11Z")
**2sense** said: > [@](#): > > No, it isn’t. At FOX they actually get a daily memo that outlines how they should frame the issues. Apparently they sometimes seem to come directly from the GOP. Thankfully they were the only major outlet to copy the Bushies Newspeak of “homocide bombers”. If CNN got talking points from the Democrats, or even the appearance of such a thing, you would hear conservatives howl to the moon. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/49 "2004-12-18T17:50:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Can you provide some examples of stories that the mainstream media surpressed? You can find plenty at the website of Project Censored – [http://www.projectcensored.org/index.html](http://www.projectcensored.org/index.html) – but these are suppressed stories that would embarrass conservatives, not liberals. If there’s a right-wing analogue to Project Censored I don’t know about it. There is, of course, Accuracy in Media ([http://www.aim.org/](http://www.aim.org/)), which is a right-wing analogue of liberal news criticism organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ([http://www.fair.org/](http://www.fair.org/)) and David Brock’s Media Matters for America ([http://mediamatters.org/](http://mediamatters.org/)). ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/50 "2004-12-18T19:02:17Z")
I agree with Rob Cordy on The Daily Show. The _facts_ are biased against Bush. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/51 "2004-12-18T23:12:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Can you provide some examples of stories that the mainstream media surpressed? I didn’t say “supressed,” nor did I mean to imply it. I can count on five fingers of my fingerless hand stories that covered something positive about the invasion of Iraq. I didn’t see mention of, or at least adequate coverage of, the French massacre of civilians on the Ivory Coast. Nor do I ever hear about the Geneva Convention not being applicable to the terrorists or insurgents. The sheer volume of coverage of Abu Grahib and the Falluja marine betrays a liberal bias, and that’s before the spinning even began. Why don’t you ever see pictures like these on the front page of the NYT: > **[Galleries by kburch](https://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq_you_wont_see_in_the_news)** Now in defense against the liberal slant I will admit that the media tends to point out the faults of any incumbent’s policies regardless of his/her political affiliation. Not only does controversy sell better, but I think the media is petrified at the thought of ever being viewed as the propaganda arm of the US government. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/52 "2004-12-18T23:44:08Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Why don’t you ever see pictures like these on the front page of the NYT Maybe for the same reason you don’t find a listing in the news of all the people who _didn’t_ commit crimes on a given day. “Good news” isn’t news because decent behaviour is the _default_ of a civilised society. We _expect_ our soldiers to care about the Iraqi people. So it’s newsworthy when some of them don’t live up to that expectation (e.g., Abu Ghraib, Falluja). Are you saying that expectation is a liberal bias? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/53 "2004-12-19T00:09:26Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Nor do I ever hear about the Geneva Convention not being applicable to the terrorists or insurgents. Reason being, the Conventions _are_applicable. > [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > but I think the media is petrified at the thought of ever being viewed as the propaganda arm of the US government. Fear and Quaking in FoxNews. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/54 "2004-12-19T00:33:04Z")
> [@](#): > > If Fox were an honest news source, it would have no idea how many liberals or conservatives it employs. It would simply enforce honest and rigorous reporting. I disagree, I think is would be dishonest in anyone reporting the news w/o 1st stating their personal bias. This is where Fox is way ahead of the curve. Also I think part of the liberal viewpoint is that you feel you are int he center and unbiased, which would explain why the ‘conventinal media’ thinks they are fair and objective and why liberals agree. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/55 "2004-12-19T00:54:07Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Maybe for the same reason you don’t find a listing in the news of all the people who _didn’t_ commit crimes on a given day. > > “Good news” isn’t news because decent behaviour is the _default_ of a civilised society. > > We _expect_ our soldiers to care about the Iraqi people. So it’s newsworthy when some of them don’t live up to that expectation (e.g., Abu Ghraib, Falluja). > > Are you saying that expectation is a liberal bias? While I know what you mean when you say “good news isn’t news,” I don’t think its applicable to coverage of a war. Everything that happens in Iraq, good or bad, is essentially news if its a change from the way things were previously. People from other countries who watch CNN may think that decent behavior is far from the default of the US. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/56 "2004-12-19T01:14:41Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Reason being, the Conventions _are_applicable. > [@](#): > > Article 2 > > In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the **High Contracting Parties** , even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. > > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. > > Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power,\*\* if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.\*\* > > … > > Article 4 > > A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: > > 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. > > 2.\*\* Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: > > (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; > > (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; > > (c) That of carrying arms openly; > > (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.\*\* > > 1. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. > > 2. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. > > 3. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. > > 4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,\*\* provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.\*\* > > B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: > > 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. > > 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. > > C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. [Bolding mine] You still think the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists and insurgents? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/57 "2004-12-19T01:18:29Z")
I’ve posted this before, but it bears repeating: During WWII, a bunch of German spies were captured wearing American uniforms in the Battle of the Bulge. They were lined up against a wall and summarily executed. No one batted an eye. They were not wearing their uniforms, they were not subject to the Geneva Conventions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/58 "2004-12-19T01:50:18Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I’ve posted this before, but it bears repeating: During WWII, a bunch of German spies were captured wearing American uniforms in the Battle of the Bulge. They were lined up against a wall and summarily executed. No one batted an eye. They were not wearing their uniforms, they were not subject to the Geneva Conventions. But **insurgents,** whether they even have uniforms or not, are generally acknowledged to have the right to be treated according to the rules of war. That goes back a lot further than the Geneva Conventions. When the British captured American rebels during the Revolut, when the Union troops captured Confederates in the Civil War, when the Republicans captured Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War, they didn’t just line them up and shoot them. Why is the situation in Iraq any different? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/59 "2004-12-19T02:02:36Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > While I know what you mean when you say “good news isn’t news,” I don’t think its applicable to coverage of a war. Everything that happens in Iraq, good or bad, is essentially news if its a change from the way things were previously. Well, you can’t cover _everything_ that happens. The disagreement here seems to be about “balance”. You have to weight the coverage according to the magnitude of importance. When you have fatalities occuring daily, unresolved and new allegations of abuse, a fuel shortage, power outages, etc. - how pertinent is it that some soldiers gave out candy or toys to a group of kids? How much time should you devote to that? If you were living in that situation, what would _you_ consider to be the most important news? Would you really think there should be _equal_ time spent on that type of “good news”? > [@](#): > > People from other countries who watch CNN may think that decent behavior is far from the default of the US At what point does featuring this “good news” become promoting propaganda for the US? Is that the role of an independent media? As we know, most people from other countries consider the invasion/occupation itself to be a deviation from decent behaviour (as do many inside the US). Is it CNN’s job to popularise or justify the war? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349/60 "2004-12-19T02:41:02Z")
> [@](#): > > But insurgents, whether they even have uniforms or not, are generally acknowledged to have the right to be treated according to the rules of war. That goes back a lot further than the Geneva Conventions. When the British captured American rebels during the Revolut, when the Union troops captured Confederates in the Civil War, when the Republicans captured Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War, they didn’t just line them up and shoot them. Why is the situation in Iraq any different? The situation in Iraq is different because the insurgents have tried to use the rules of war as a fighting tactic. For example, waving a white flag, waiting for Americans to leave cover, then opening fire on them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-s-got-more-control-over-the-media-liberals-or-conservatives/280349.md?page=4)