Media Bias of Conservatives

[Shakeyhands]

Of course - but it's all part of the brand, and calculated to get attention.

Then it's not really "news" then is it?

I'm sure that there are plenty of gay people, liberals and environmentalists who work there. Walk into any corporate office, and they look pretty much the same. You're not going to see bales of hay piled up with shotguns resting on them.

Actually... That's exactly how I picture it. :-)

[Michael Hardner]

Then it's not really "news" then is it?

What is news ? News is what's new... or what's new that people care about.

In the days of Thomas Paine, they were writing pamphlets about the role of government, rights and so on because they didn't have that. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson is thought to have won the election by playing a well-produced commercial that showed a little girl picking a flower whereupon a missile is launched. That was a turning point in political communications. The next big one was when Bill Clinton went on Arsenio Hall wearing shades and blowing the sax. Barack Obama had his own satellite channel, and Sarah Palin is a TV personality.

"Bread feeds the hungry, video feeds the full." - Monty Cantsin

[Oleg Bach]

Media bia will always exist as long as we have private ownership of media outlets..The attitude of the owner is always mirrored through his enterprise...which makes me wonder - about CBC being so bias and no one really owns it...kind of like a wandering dragon with it's head chopped off - I would rather have private media bias than uncontrolable public media bias.

[Pliny]

I wanted to add that FOX isn't the propaganda machine some imagine it to be: they are a business trading in what sells. This is why their news isn't serious right-wing economics, but populist news items intended to get ratings.

This is a company that offers same-sex benefits, and has a carbon-neutral policy. They also gave Michael Moore an hour-long show before he was a household name. Why ? They thought it could make money.

And MSNBC has abandoned the business model to promote a liberal agenda. It doesn't rally care if it makes money. FOX would not make money if there were no demand for it's right-wing bias. It may appear to you to be selling a point of view but people are buying which is the primary point.

I really like the political dialogue in the US right now. Maybe Barack Obama will get re-elected but I hope it doesn't take that to wake up the rest of America to the Weiners and other left wing hot dogs out there and their agenda. I hope Weiner gets his wish to stay on too, unfortunately, I don't think he will get his wish.

Funny, but Weiner although he appeared on TV news on a consistent basis as a point man for liberal causes is now, according to the left, "Anthony who?". No one has hardly heard of him. He's a nobody. he is a very unlikable character on top of it. Is Mr. Weiner, like Mussolini a former hero of socialist causes who after a falling out was denied a chair at the socialist table, a victim of the same after the fact derision. Is that the story that will evolve out of this - Anthony Weiner was not really a liberal?

There really is no such thing as the "left". Proof positive of the impossiblity of a left wing bias in the mainstream media. Democrats, and especially Barack Obama, are apparently not left wing in the least.

One of the greatest conundrums in political history is how the left never existed.

Funniest thing I ever heard.

Lift up a rock, find a left wing liberal and it tries to scurry under the next nearest rock, and if there isn't one - under the light of day they will argue they are what they are. Maybe claiming they are totally responsible individuals and thus shouldn't face any consequences, like resigning.

Well, if the Democrat elite wish to persist in pushing him out he'll show them - he'll run for mayor, first and then in a few years under a more comfortable rock he'll make a big return - first New York and then the world!

[Pliny]

Of course - but it's all part of the brand, and calculated to get attention.

To fill the demand. Once it is popular it already has attention.

I'm sure that there are plenty of gay people, liberals and environmentalists who work there. Walk into any corporate office, and they look pretty much the same. You're not going to see bales of hay piled up with shotguns resting on them.

I'm certain that gays, liberals and environmentalists are lining up at the door to get on staff.

I think they would prefer the less right wing biased media, which is what it must be called - the "less right wing biased media". There is no such thing as left wing biased media. Nyuk! Nyuk! Nudge! Nudge! Wink! Wink! Say no more! Say no more!

[Pliny]

Then it's not really "news" then is it?

You have to be able to differentiate between news and editorial opinion. That would be the first thing. Know for sure if you are watching news or editorial opinion. It may appear to you that Fox news is all editorial opinion and no news and the mainstream media is all news and no editorial opinion. That would be in error.

AS an example, if Barack Obama says he is going to "fundamentally transform America" and the mainstream media says, yay! That is an expression of "editorial opinion". What Barack Obama specifically has in mind would be "news".

[bloodyminded]

To fill the demand. Once it is popular it already has attention.

I'm certain that gays, liberals and environmentalists are lining up at the door to get on staff.

I think they would prefer the less right wing biased media, which is what it must be called - the "less right wing biased media". There is no such thing as left wing biased media. Nyuk! Nyuk! Nudge! Nudge! Wink! Wink! Say no more! Say no more!

I've given you every opportunity, eleven thousand times or so, to show some expansive evidence of this fabled "left wing bias."

But you have decided that evidence is bad--perhaps a sort of leftist bias in itself, I don't know--and instead think that mocking the very idea that the media isn't brimming with left wing bias is tantamount to proof.

Colour me unimpressed; so far; but the option for you to attempt to prove your thesis remains forever open.

[Michael Hardner]

To fill the demand. Once it is popular it already has attention.

The goal isn't to be popular, it's to increase presence and popularity to maximize profits.

I'm certain that gays, liberals and environmentalists are lining up at the door to get on staff.

I think they would prefer the less right wing biased media, which is what it must be called - the "less right wing biased media". There is no such thing as left wing biased media. Nyuk! Nyuk! Nudge! Nudge! Wink! Wink! Say no more! Say no more!

Who wouldn't want to work for a company that provided those benefits. I think MSNBC wants to make money too, though, but their product isn't as popular right now. Until Mutualism takes off... wink wink...

[Pliny]

So what exactly does the statement, "I would say the media is "liberal" from the perspective you state." really mean? Does it mean that some of the bias is from right wing liberals and is thus not left wing. Or that some of the bias is from left wing conservatives so is thus not left wing?

Why you seize on this one sentence--while ignoring my contextual remarks that both precede it and succeed it--is anyone's guess.

It is a precise statement of the argument. Your contextual remarks that precede and succeed it are simply an argument that the left doesn't exist at all and only the establishment exists. I see that from your frame of reference but from the perspective we are arguing from - that there is a left wing- bias exists. And your statment is an admisison of that fact.

I invite you to go back and re-read our debate, starting with your intially friendly and intelligent post (a tone and style which you quickly abandoned in subsequent posts, once you discovered I was not bowled over by such shining arguments as proposing FOX as the point of reference for...well, no good reason, actually).

My initial friendly and intelligent post if you look was not really friendly or intelligent either. I mean get real. Fox news as a point of reference is... well, no good reason to think so actually.

I figured this debate would quickly degenerate, especially since you have deemed yourself too busy for irritants like research, but just in case you remain interested, I'll quickly summarize:

The mainstream news media is affected by several factors; notable among them (and to some degree interrelated, or at least overlapping) are ownership, advertising, sourcing, and ideology.

Ideology would be the factor of concern here.

Your notion is that ideology, first, trumps everything, and second, tends to move in and/or derive from a single direction ("the left," or "liberals" or "conservatives-who-are-actually-the-left"...in other words, you want it every which way, and still can't offer much in the way of evidence).

Economics trumps all of those points but the most costly is ideology - which explains the sale of MSNBC.

Alternatively, I believe ideology is a single matter, not even the dominant one, and in any case moves a lot more fluidly and with greater complexity than you seem willing to allow.

Thank you, Mr. Chomsky.

And nationalism, or West-is-Best triumphalism, is a major part of it...even in cases where the West might be wrong. (An unthinkable event; offered platitudinously and in the abstract, but avoided assiduously in real-world scenarios.)

Who are the primary sources from which corporate entities who depend on government information and financial news get their soundbites?

Unions? Feminists? Homosexual activists" Homeless people? Leftist intellectuals?

No, as is perfectly predictable, and in fact demonstrably true, most of their sourcing comes from spokespeople for government and big business.

Big business and politicians like Al Gore, George Soros, Geoffery Immelt, all scoring fawning approval or minimally, an uncritical mention. Or big business and politicians like George Bush, Sarah Palin, the Koch Bros., Ann Coulter Rush Limbaugh who only deserve derision?

Evidence? You want evidence in the face of the obvious?

You might also note that one can scarcely distinguish the two; in part because business and government comprise a nexus (rather than enemies, as the more wild-eyed Randians submit); but more prosaically, because Public Relations is an industry, inherently tied to the advertising/marketing industry, and so they all speak roughly the same way, and for the interests of elites. They couldn't be expected to do otyherwise, now, could they?

Yes of course. The nexus proves fascism alive and well. And we haven't found the rock under which socialism can find the light of day?

The "elites" are not ideological in the least. George Bush, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, the Koch Bros., etc. could hardly be called "elites" could they. The Media caters to them and sells them as the driving social forces of the nation.

Where do you live?

So, for example, what happens when a war occurs? Well, matters like ownership (weapons manufacturers who are part of the media conglomerates) conflate quite nicely with idealist nationalism, and empty phrases about "the national interest." So even when some of the media are "anti-war" [sic], it is not so obviously the case. Really, they want "objectivity" and "balance"...which, in the case of the NYTimes or Washington Post, means "maybe we should continue on this heroic humanitarian mission...or maybe "it (this inherently heroic humanitarian mission) is not in our best interests."

They are continuing on in their inherently heroic humanitarian mission - minus one soldier now - you may have heard of him - Congressman Anthony Weiner. In case you never have he was laways there for the left wing cause as unlikable as he was at the time.

We have been over the war thing and left wing liberal democrats are not less likely to go to war than right wing republicans. Democrats voted with Bush on the recent wars but seem reluctant to win a war these days.

I mean, seriously, there IS "bias" there all right...plain as day.

Bias for heroic humanitarianism. Ideology - you are saying it trumps all the other factors, like advertising, sources, ownership? I think somewhere you accused me of that apparent faux pas?

One can see the "proper" boundaries of discussion drawn quite nicely. Those who dissent from this--who assert, for example, that maybe the war is fundamentally wrong, some sort of criminal enterprise--are deemed "the wild men in the wings"; though since in many cases such opinions are mainstream global opinion, the subversive rot must stretch very far indeed.

Or the tv networks hold endless debates using the identical parameters: "the war is just and necessary": vs the Kerryesque argument, that "the war is just and necessary, but not quite at this moment." Whew, such dissent! Such far-left ideology infesting the mainstream media!

We also got to witness the tv news presenting "independent military analysts," promoting the war. OK, so every "independent military analyst," all "experts" since they were all Generals, supported the war (as opposed to overwhelming global opinion). Well, it turns out that these "independent analysts" were first briefed at the Pentagon, given talking points, and that the Pentagon referred to them as "message force multipliers," about as Orwellian a term as I've heard recently.

A term coined by the Obama administration, perhaps? Certainly not Clinton - and GWB is too stupid.

We had intellectuals like Salman Rushdie extolling the self-evident altruism of US foreign policy (something that should have been anathema to the Ayn Rand libertarian set, but interestingly had them nodding like Pavlov's dogs); and Christoper Hitchens defending the deception itself as necessary, in the Straussian view that Wise men must deceive the stupid public into glorious wars of nobility, &co &co.

Probably conservatives but not the Ayn Rand Libertarian set. Strauss...hmmm..left wing guy, right? Part of the elite. Was he ever disparaged by the NY times?

Bill Ayers was kind of a socialist wasn't he? Both these guys seem to get a pass but Ayn Rand is a kook.

It just doesn't seem fair.

The mainstream news media was utterly complicit in all this...and totally silent about the fact that it was happening. (As usual, there were a few mea culpas after the damage was done, after nothing could stop the process.)

The media went along with George Bush all the way! Or maybe they were unsure because John Kerry and H. Clinton voted to go along with Bush?

I think you are still giving too much credence to ideology and forgetting about ownership, sources and advertising.

There was the "Saving Jessica Lynch" propaganda piece, in which the ancient story of masculine martial courage rescuing sexually-abused damsels was given a contemporary sheen by the adducement of Lynch's own battlefield courage, before she was captured by third-World sexual degenerates. (Almost every factor an invention, according to Lynch herself; her capture occurred, but nothing else, not the abuse, not even the rescue, as it was narrated to us.)

There was Pat Tilman...oh lord, you should look up what Ms. Coulter said about this All-American! The White House itself brought him up (though to be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush himself was as subject to the lies as you and I were); again, the whole story was fabricated, his very parents deceived, and all for the sake of heady war propaganda.

That's not a leftist news media, Pliny; it's an Establishment-centric, Establishment-friendly one; and it held the line endorsed by the political Right. That is, it is not inherently a "right-wing slant," though the Right were most in love with it in this instance. (The Democrats and Canadian Liberals had the pro-war media glory during Kosovo, in case you're wondering; and no, that most certainly does not constitute "left wing bias.")

I agree. The right did try and paint themselves as being right sometimes. Probably using "message force multipliers" to dupe the media out of some ideological concept of spreading democracy.

No, you're inferring it, but not from anything I've implied.

You know, I can't think of a darned thing you ever did imply.

[Pliny]

The goal isn't to be popular, it's to increase presence and popularity to maximize profits.

Really Michael. One has to sample opinion and deliver what is deemed to be the demand in order to increase presence and popularity. THe goal is to keep going - I never said the goal was popularity.

Who wouldn't want to work for a company that provided those benefits. I think MSNBC wants to make money too, though, but their product isn't as popular right now. Until Mutualism takes off... wink wink...

It's on it's way....all we need is to vote ourselves a few more favours and favours are popular I hear so it won't be long.

The only problem is paying for them but that is what government is for - solving problems.

[Michael Hardner]

The only problem is paying for them but that is what government is for - solving problems.

Right, which is better than the alternative - powerless government, able to do nothing (or even less than today) about our problems.

[bloodyminded]

It is a precise statement of the argument. Your contextual remarks that precede and succeed it are simply an argument that the left doesn't exist at all and only the establishment exists. I see that from your frame of reference but from the perspective we are arguing from - that there is a left wing- bias exists. And your statment is an admisison of that fact.

No, it isn't. I said, plainly and without equivocation, that the media had moved in what many people would consider a "liberal" direction over the decades, simultaneous with its moving what many would see as a "conservative" direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chomsky.

Ah, ok. I reject your overly simplistic, ideologically partisan view, of which you remain insistent upon withholding all evidence....and this is a bad thing.

Big business and politicians like Al Gore, George Soros, Geoffery Immelt, all scoring fawning approval or minimally, an uncritical mention. Or big business and politicians like George Bush, Sarah Palin, the Koch Bros., Ann Coulter Rush Limbaugh who only deserve derision?

From who? What is the agent you see which is laying down distinct appraisals? "The media"?

Again: evidence would be truly awesome.

Evidence? You want evidence in the face of the obvious?

What's obvious?

Perhaps your argument isn't as compelling as you think.

The "elites" are not ideological in the least. George Bush, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, the Koch Bros., etc. could hardly be called "elites" could they.

If George Bush and the Koch brothers are not elites, then no one is.

We have been over the war thing and left wing liberal democrats are not less likely to go to war than right wing republicans. Democrats voted with Bush on the recent wars but seem reluctant to win a war these days.

Yes, of course the Establishment liberals are quite extremely hawkish, as I've pointed out.

You conflate all manner of "liberal" "leftist" "socialist" and "fascist" to the point where you have no frame of reference (a frame of reference which you demanded, I remind you).

As I said before, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are far closer in worldview to Bush and Limbaugh than they are to Howard Zinn and Glenn Greenwald. You really didn't know this?

Bias for heroic humanitarianism. Ideology - you are saying it trumps all the other factors, like advertising, sources, ownership? I think somewhere you accused me of that apparent faux pas?

I was concentrating, in one passage, on one component. I don't know how else we can talk about anything.

A term coined by the Obama administration, perhaps? Certainly not Clinton - and GWB is too stupid.

It wasn't Obama, as you'd know if you read what I wrote (which you did not, begging the question of why you'd respond to it); since it predates Obama's term by some years, I think we can conclude this.

I don't know who coined the term; only that it was used over and over, as seen in official documents obtained by the NYTimes.

The tv networks--including the "leftist" MSNBC--have all remained silent on this fairly large story (outright government war propaganda, Soviet-style), presumably because they're all exposed as quislings and/or incompetents in the face of government inteference in the news. (Republican, in this particular case.)

Probably conservatives but not the Ayn Rand Libertarian set. Strauss...hmmm..left wing guy, right? Part of the elite. Was he ever disparaged by the NY times?

Strauss was a conservative, and is named by folks like Kristol and Wolfowitz as their political mentor.

Bill Ayers was kind of a socialist wasn't he? Both these guys seem to get a pass but Ayn Rand is a kook.

It just doesn't seem fair.

Ayers is held to be a kook by most people, and certainly doesn't have the drooling acolytes that Rand commands.

Strauss is in a different category; while I consider many of his ideas to be pretty ugly (anti-democratic, to say the least) he was, I believe, a lot more sophisticated than Ayn Rand.

But no, he's no leftist. He thought liberals were ruining everything, and that conservative philosopher-kings should rule, through deception. (This was only part of his work, however, most of which concentrated on Plato.)

Edited June 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

From who? What is the agent you see which is laying down distinct appraisals? "The media"?

Again: evidence would be truly awesome.

Although I usually leave things like evidence to people like shady who has several active threads on examples of left wing media bias. How about the latest from the NY Times and Washington post.

Apparently, they have about 34,000 e-mails form Sarah Palin that they would like to have help reading through. What for? I don't remember any such call from them to read through the Emails of Barack Obama.

When a few "right wing zealots" wanted to see his birth certificates they earned the pejoratively intended label "birthers".

Why is Sarah Palin so important to them? Why aren't they checking out Mitt Romney's e-mail? Sarah Palin hasn't even declared a run for the nomination but she has the press chasing her around the country on her tour like she's the queen of Alaska or something. It's kind of a fixation, I guess and...oh lordy... she just might run. Bizarre.

[Pliny]

Ayers is held to be a kook by most people, and certainly doesn't have the drooling acolytes that Rand commands.

Everyone, like Anthony Weiner, is declared a kook after the fact.

There were 55 stories on the mainstream media in a week when the Mark Foley story broke, mostly on the fornt page and he resigned within two days. There were seven stories on the "Anthony Who" story in a week.

Ayers may be held as a kook by most people but the mainstreamn media certainly isn't saying so.

Reason and logic are all that's necessary here, not evidence. The evidence is in your face.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

No, it isn't. I said, plainly and without equivocation, that the media had moved in what many people would consider a "liberal" direction over the decades, simultaneous with its moving what many would see as a "conservative" direction.

No equivocation whatsoever. the media had moved in what many people would consider a "liberal" direction but simultaneously moved in a conservative direction."

That's "unequivocal"???

Ah, ok. I reject your overly simplistic, ideologically partisan view, of which you remain insistent upon withholding all evidence....and this is a bad thing.

Evidence? Are you blind? I suppose so. Ideology tends to do that.

From who? What is the agent you see which is laying down distinct appraisals? "The media"?

Again: evidence would be truly awesome.

Observation and reality is out of the question then?

Perhaps your argument isn't as compelling as you think.

Perhaps you just think it should not be as compelling as you think.

If George Bush and the Koch brothers are not elites, then no one is.

LOL!! Good one! Geroge Bush is an elite. The left wing media would have trouble with that one. Do you mean George Senior or Dubya? I guess, like the disappearing "socialists" there are no elites.

Yes, of course the Establishment liberals are quite extremely hawkish, as I've pointed out.

Almost...(biting lower lip)...fascist even.

You conflate all manner of "liberal" "leftist" "socialist" and "fascist" to the point where you have no frame of reference (a frame of reference which you demanded, I remind you).

Oh, I have a frame of reference. It's when liberal is not left and you can't see any left wing bias in the media that there is no frame of reference.

As I said before, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are far closer in worldview to Bush and Limbaugh than they are to Howard Zinn and Glenn Greenwald. You really didn't know this?

They have to be when there is no frame of reference. Bush=Hillary Limbaugh=Obama - same thing. Anyone who can't see that is an idiot!!!

I was concentrating, in one passage, on one component. I don't know how else we can talk about anything.

We could start with a frame of reference.

It wasn't Obama, as you'd know if you read what I wrote (which you did not, begging the question of why you'd respond to it); since it predates Obama's term by some years, I think we can conclude this.

I don't know who coined the term; only that it was used over and over, as seen in official documents obtained by the NYTimes.

Must have been that subversive - Palin.

The tv networks--including the "leftist" MSNBC--have all remained silent on this fairly large story (outright government war propaganda, Soviet-style), presumably because they're all exposed as quislings and/or incompetents in the face of government inteference in the news. (Republican, in this particular case.)

How can you use "leftist" as an adjective of MSNBC? Are you just being sarcastic - Ok, I get it; you are. This story is very important, a very large story having to do with Republicans interfering in the news. That's very large news. Not so if it were democrats interfering in the news - just an "All is well" would be necessary.

Strauss was a conservative, and is named by folks like Kristol and Wolfowitz as their political mentor.

Strauss was an impatient liberal - call him a fascist if you like, that's what a fascist is basically - a socialist in a hurry, A communist is a socialist that wants everything now.

Strauss is in a different category; while I consider many of his ideas to be pretty ugly (anti-democratic, to say the least) he was, I believe, a lot more sophisticated than Ayn Rand.

Even more of an elitist, than Rand?

But no, he's no leftist. He thought liberals were ruining everything, and that conservative philosopher-kings should rule, through deception. (This was only part of his work, however, most of which concentrated on Plato.)

No argument there. He just wanted liberals to hurry things up a bit.

[bloodyminded]

Although I usually leave things like evidence to people like shady who has several active threads on examples of left wing media bias. How about the latest from the NY Times and Washington post.

Apparently, they have about 34,000 e-mails form Sarah Palin that they would like to have help reading through. What for? I don't remember any such call from them to read through the Emails of Barack Obama.

When a few "right wing zealots" wanted to see his birth certificates they earned the pejoratively intended label "birthers".

Why is Sarah Palin so important to them? Why aren't they checking out Mitt Romney's e-mail? Sarah Palin hasn't even declared a run for the nomination but she has the press chasing her around the country on her tour like she's the queen of Alaska or something. It's kind of a fixation, I guess and...oh lordy... she just might run. Bizarre.

To be fair to you, I have indeed been harping on your refusal to supply any evidence whatsoever for your fanatically ideological claims. But to be fair to me, I did point out, at the very beginning of this debate, that the evidence must be expansive, not cherry-picked and selective...because any point could be "proven" by pointing out unrelated bits of "evidence." Including a theory i don't believe: that of a right-wing media. Shady could "prove" this as well, wer he not religiously right-wing.

I know you understand this, because only a monumental idiot would not.

[bloodyminded]

No equivocation whatsoever. the media had moved in what many people would consider a "liberal" direction but simultaneously moved in a conservative direction."

That's "unequivocal"???

Of course it is. Are you so foolish as to believe the news media must move always in an ideologically unipolar direction?

Evidence? Are you blind? I suppose so. Ideology tends to do that.

Oh yes. You got that right.

Observation and reality is out of the question then?

You mistake your ideologically-motivated opinions for "observation and reality."

Perhaps you just think it should not be as compelling as you think.

There's no should or should not to the matter; you simply haven't offered a sound argument...but what's baffling is that you seem resistant to trying.

LOL!! Good one! Geroge Bush is an elite.

??? So...you don't think that the scion of one of America's profoundly wealthy and powerful Political/business-nexus families, a multi-millionaire from birth, who has owned large businesses and a sports team, was Governor and President...that he's not an elite?

Why? Because he charmingly fumbles his words in public?

Your desperation has become palpable.

The left wing media would have trouble with that one.

To what left wing media, exactly, are you referring?

Do you mean George Senior or Dubya? I guess, like the disappearing "socialists" there are no elites.

There are definitely elites. But you seem to believe the word synonymous with "liberal," for...some reason, unstated.

Almost...(biting lower lip)...fascist even.

You think the liberal and conservative American hawks are "fascist"?

I'm inclined to disagree; but you can take it up with our conservatives here on this board, and see what they have to offer by way of opinion. No doubt they'll disagree as I do. (The liberals will too, but you think they're all part of some sinister socialist conspiracy to hide their true opinion; but the conservatives, well, you might actually listen to them with a measure of respect.)

Oh, I have a frame of reference. It's when liberal is not left and you can't see any left wing bias in the media that there is no frame of reference.

Explain to me why you think there is a left wing bias--you haven't even done that yet--and then maybe we'll get somewhere with this.

Your unsubstantiated claims do not prove anything.

They have to be when there is no frame of reference. Bush=Hillary Limbaugh=Obama - same thing. Anyone who can't see that is an idiot!!!

I didn't say they were the same thing. Since you can read, you know this. What I said was that these folks are more alike in their world view than they are with the actual far left.

And yes, anyone who can't see that is demonstrably an idiot.

How can you use "leftist" as an adjective of MSNBC? Are you just being sarcastic - Ok, I get it; you are. This story is very important, a very large story having to do with Republicans interfering in the news. That's very large news. Not so if it were democrats interfering in the news - just an "All is well" would be necessary.

That's your frame of reference, not mine. I'm talking about government interference, which is bad no matter who is power. That trivial detail is not in any way relevant to me.

But what really matters about all this is the fact of it--not which party happened to be in power at the time. Yet you simply are not bothered by Big Government using Soviet-style propaganda to garner support for a war. To you, it's all about "Republicans vs Democrats"; left vs. right.

Strauss was an impatient liberal - call him a fascist if you like, that's what a fascist is basically - a socialist in a hurry, A communist is a socialist that wants everything now.

Strauss was a conservative. His acoytes are conservatives. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Every time a conservative says or does something you don't like, you brand him a "liberal." Nice trick, but I'm not buying.

How about those lefty Islamist extremists, eh?

Even more of an elitist, than Rand?

I believe so, yes. But it's an arguable point.

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

If we had no problems we would have no government. If we had no government we would probably have less problems...I wonder what they really do to earn their money - certainly not create any real wealth or do any real work. The only people actually working are those living in dictatorships and earning little. We are a society of bureacrats - don't tell me that a million people clicking on computers actually generates anything real!

[Pliny]

Explain to me why you think there is a left wing bias--you haven't even done that yet--and then maybe we'll get somewhere with this.

Your unsubstantiated claims do not prove anything.

What are you going on about?

You and I agree, "there is a left wing bias in the media from my perspective."

[bloodyminded]

What are you going on about?

You and I agree, "there is a left wing bias in the media from my perspective."

Yes, and you've been quite consistently conscious of how the "from one's perspective" notion doesn't tell us much, because of the politicized bent of the ideological worldview.

If your entire argument had been "it's leftwing from Pliny's perspective," rather than "it is leftwing objectively, if only ideology-addled bloodyminded could see it," then indeed there'd be no debate.

[Pliny]

Yes, and you've been quite consistently conscious of how the "from one's perspective" notion doesn't tell us much, because of the politicized bent of the ideological worldview.

If your entire argument had been "it's leftwing from Pliny's perspective," rather than "it is leftwing objectively, if only ideology-addled bloodyminded could see it," then indeed there'd be no debate.

Of course, my perspective doesn't tell us much. My perspective has nothing to do with anyone else's perspective whatsoever. It's entirely my perspective alone. Very convincing argument!

As though I have said nothing this whole thread from which you could determine a perspective.

We do agree there is a left wing and that the liberals are postioned there. That's pretty much "my" perspective; at least the one I am arguing from in this particular debate. You have also, said from that perspective there is a left wing bias. Need we continue?

[bloodyminded]

Of course, my perspective doesn't tell us much. My perspective has nothing to do with anyone else's perspective whatsoever. It's entirely my perspective alone. Very convincing argument!

As though I have said nothing this whole thread from which you could determine a perspective.

We do agree there is a left wing and that the liberals are postioned there. That's pretty much "my" perspective; at least the one I am arguing from in this particular debate. You have also, said from that perspective there is a left wing bias. Need we continue?

No, it appears to be pointless.

[dre]

Of course, my perspective doesn't tell us much. My perspective has nothing to do with anyone else's perspective whatsoever. It's entirely my perspective alone. Very convincing argument!

As though I have said nothing this whole thread from which you could determine a perspective.

We do agree there is a left wing and that the liberals are postioned there. That's pretty much "my" perspective; at least the one I am arguing from in this particular debate. You have also, said from that perspective there is a left wing bias. Need we continue?

Not much point. Hes explained what hes saying well enough for a 7 year old to get it, but you still dont.

Where can you really go from there?

[August1991]

Not much point. Hes explained what hes saying well enough for a 7 year old to get it, but you still dont.

Where can you really go from there?

Reading quickly through this thread, I have the impression that Pliny and BM are looking at two different aspects of the same target: one sees the elephant's trunk, and the other touches its tail.

For BM, the MSM represents established power and it presents a worldview that is essentially conservative, to maintain the status quo. For Pliny, the MSM is mostly populated by left wing/liberal arts/atheistic journalists who are often, to use another stereotype, "limousine liberals".

In a sense, both Pliny and BM are right. The North American English-language MSM represents the viewpoint of the so-called intellectual elite, which understandably wants to maintain its position.

History is rife with examples of people supposedly secure in their sinecure who then face a fronde. The Internet is challenging the MSM, and I suspect that both Pliny and BM are happy with this technological change.

Edited June 20, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

What struck me reading the thread was that when you answer "it just is!" when asked for proof youre in a lot of trouble. Pages and pages of people challenging Pliny for just a little bit of evidence to support his assertions and ZIP/ZILCH/NADDA.

And I find this all too often with folks that howl about media bias.

The North American English-language MSM represents the viewpoint of the so-called intellectual elite, which understandably wants to maintain its position.

I disagree with this characterization. Most of the MSM is just selling infotainment for profit. They represent the interests of their shareholders and sponsors and nothing else.

I dont think they are instrinsically left wing, or right wing. Theyre happy wherever the money is. They sell advertising products to corporate customers - that is the very core of their business model, and the single biggest influence on how they put programming together and who they hire.