liberal/conservative media

[photosynthesis]

I'd argue that american mass media are mostly liberal, but that's just me

[Lounge Daddy]

hell yes - its liberal

[photosynthesis]

although the media are not one giant monolithic entity... it's a collection of smaller organizations and sources. I'd say the majority of the American media are liberal, but it depends on the place and the time in history

[Nathan]

I would say that the mass media in North America and in Europe is extremely secular, and therefore, liberal. The atheistic/agnostic wordview and moral relativism is widely presented as the norm. People and organizations who dissent from that norm are naturally shown in a negative light in the mass media.

Media outlets that identify themselves as conservative generally have a lot more respect for faith and religious people, and the traditional ethics and values that come from religious faith. Lines on moral issues are drawn clearly in the sand. They allow people of faith to have a voice in far greater numbers than the mass media does; the individuals who run the relatively small number of conservative magazines/newspapers/television stations, etc, usually are people of faith and their works reflect that.

The conservative media is really a fringe, almost a rebel movement. There aren't that many conservative media outlets out there; you have to search and dig.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Nathan

[photosynthesis]

i remember being in media/poli sci classes and when everyone talked about their final paper topics, there were always 5 or so people in the class that would say "I am going to write about fox news' conservative bias." and the professor always would say "couldn't you pick a more interesting topic than that?"

[White Knight]

There so Liberal, it makes me sick.

[Theoketos]

Most media sources are not even handed at all, whether they are conservative or liberal politically.

[Sojourner]

To me, the bigger problem than the political bent of members of the media is the fact that checks and balances in the media are few and far between. Who's watching the watchers? Many media outlets are, for all intents and purposes, monopolies. And things are reported so quickly that people don't take care to make sure that a) they understand what they're reporting and b) they get it right. I see it all the time.

[photosynthesis]

exactly.. i think the media are less biased toward the left and to the right and more biased toward themselves

[Sojourner]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 20 2005, 04:50 PM']exactly..  i think the media are less biased toward the left and to the right and more biased toward themselves
[right][snapback]831982[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Too true. We get all full of ourselves and think we're the shiznit.

Which is, of course, true.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 20 2005, 01:26 PM']Most media sources are not even handed at all, whether they are conservative or liberal politically.
[right][snapback]831894[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Everyone has an agenda, except me.

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 20 2005, 04:31 PM']Everyone has an agenda, except me.
[right][snapback]832096[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yer cute.

[Antonius]

The media are socially liberal because of all the smut on there, but politically neo-conservative, because, well, the media are unfortunately owned by mega corporations who inhibit free speech and want right wing tax cuts. By utilizing sexual liberation, they give the people what their passions desire and they make money. They keep the money by controlling the stories that come out of their outlets, specifically ignoring anything anti-corporate.

It is sad, but in my eyes the mass media can only be counted on to broadcast the Pope's funeral Mass and the next terrorist attack or alien invasion.

If I had kids, I'd probably not own a TV and get my news from some trusty internet sites or local NPR stations. My uncle did it and my cousins are great people.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Antonius

[Socrates]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Dec 20 2005, 06:17 PM']The media are socially liberal because of all the smut on there, but politically neo-conservative, because, well, the media are unfortunately owned by mega corporations who inhibit free speech and want right wing tax cuts.  By utilizing sexual liberation, they give the people what their passions desire and they make money.  They keep the money by controlling the stories that come out of their outlets, specifically ignoring anything anti-corporate.

It is sad, but in my eyes the mass media can only be counted on to broadcast the Pope's funeral Mass and the next terrorist attack or alien invasion.

If I had kids, I'd probably not own a TV and get my news from some trusty internet sites or local NPR stations.  My uncle did it and my cousins are great people.
[right][snapback]832183[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
FOX is the only politically "neo-conservative" Republican-leaning TV news outlet.
All the others are politically liberal.

People in national news media (both newpapers and TV) tend to be overwhelmingly politically liberal and Democrat.
That is not just a right wing conspiracy theory, but is repeatedly confirmed by surveys and polls of media personel's personal political views.

But the liberal stranglehold on the media is no longer as monolithic as it once was.

It's amusing how liberals were all about "free press" when they had a near-total monopoly on the media, but then began to scream and howl, first about Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio, and then about FOX news.

It seems that liberals like "free speech" only as long as they are the ones talking.

(And NPR tends to be politically VERY liberal, btw).

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 20 2005, 08:34 PM']FOX is the only politically "neo-conservative" Republican-leaning TV news outlet.
All the others are politically liberal.
[right][snapback]832202[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
interesting that the majority of the people who work at FOX News voted Dem...
is it possible that all the other networks are liberal to the point of being irresponsible ... but then FOX News is just reporting the news?
in contrast FOX really would seam "conservative"
but in reality they are simply being responsible

[photosynthesis]

i'm applying to sinclair broadcasting.... let's see if they like me!

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 21 2005, 12:32 AM']i'm applying to sinclair broadcasting....  let's see if they like me!
[right][snapback]832431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh wow - good luck with that!

[Antonius]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 20 2005, 06:34 PM']FOX is the only politically "neo-conservative" Republican-leaning TV news outlet.
All the others are politically liberal.

People in national news media (both newpapers and TV) tend to be overwhelmingly politically liberal and Democrat. 
That is not just a right wing conspiracy theory, but is repeatedly confirmed by surveys and polls of media personel's personal political views.

But the liberal stranglehold on the media is no longer as monolithic as it once was.

It's amusing how liberals were all about "free press" when they had a near-total monopoly on the media, but then began to scream and howl, first about Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio, and then about FOX news.

It seems that liberals like "free speech" only as long as they are the ones talking.

(And NPR tends to be politically VERY liberal, btw).
[right][snapback]832202[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Let me clarify...

When I am talking about the media, I have in mind the corporate oligopoly dominated by our wonderful merged and conglomerated friends such as News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and TCI. These supergiants of the mass media not only control the major news outlets but also have telvision networks, cable channels, and retail stores. "Time Warner, for example, owns music recording studios, film and television production studios, several cable television channels, cable broadcasting systems, amusement parks, the WB television network, book publishing houses, magazine publishing interests, retail stores, motion picture theaters, and other things" (McChesney, [i]Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy[/i]). Without delving further into how much has been divided and conquered to be controlled among so few, I'm talking about Big Business and that the mass media as an industry, not merely whether they say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."

Big Business naturally has allied with itself Big Government, so that together they might control us, the average man (and woman). It seems that the present Repulican and Democratic parties are both politically "liberal," with one party keeping the religious people distracted and theo the other side keeping the communistas distracted. The media, by being owned and controlled by mega corporate conglomerates is pro-business, because it ignores stories relating to communications reform and corporate reform, or even reform in general. An anti-corporate candidate could not run for president, because, I think, the media stations would ignore him.

Part of my political ignorance is precisely because the media have depoliticized the news, because the media exist to sell themselves. In order to sell themselves, they will give the people what they will buy. They have depoliticized the news by paying pundits to argue back and forth with each other, in effect becoming clowns who wear bow ties and call candidates "flip floppers" or, to be cool with MTV, join the Bush Bashing club.

I agree with you that many stations pander to "left-wing" politics, but it's only a sham. I also agree that it seems that the vast majority of the messages we receive seek to promote a liberal state. That is because Big Business and Big Government [i]are [/i]liberal, even if the President says his prayers, takes the war to the terrorists, and nominates pro-life judges.

I think greater concern, as sojourner pointed out earlier, should be for media reform, so that there is a free and open discourse of policy for all Americans. Who [i]will[/i] guard the guards? With the 1980s deregulation of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the finishing move of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the media can say and do what they want with very little governemental control, which is part of the reason Big Pornography is allowed to flourish.

Another point of concern... Have we noticed how every major media outlet has engaged in scare tactics since 11 Sept 2001? Playing on the fear we all have of the next disaster and nurturing it? I think that Michael Moore's politics are wrong and he's personally a glutton for attention, but, I cannot but cheer him on for what he does best, lamblasting Big Business. After watching Bowling for Columbine, I cannot look at any news show in the same way ever again. I also enjoyed his Big Business critiques in [i]The Big One[/i] and[i] Roger and Me[/i]. I didn't see [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i].

No, I'm not a Jesuit social justice liberation theology freak. I try to stay away from politics. If anything, I'm very sympathetic to Distributism.

I just don't want to be controlled or enslaved to sin or to the worldly powers that be.

What do you think? (Yeah, I'm hoping that NPR gets real government funding someday and can be a fair and balanced news source just as the BBC.)

[photosynthesis]

i have nightmares about michael moore.

i met him at the republican national convention once. he smelled.

[Antonius]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 20 2005, 11:26 PM']i have nightmares about michael moore.

i met him at the republican national convention once.  he smelled.
[right][snapback]832486[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Haha! I can just imagine! He really is a fat slob, the poor guy... He made some interesting documentaries, even if he nastily twists people's words and makes them look like idiots.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Antonius