Is Goolge baised to the Left.

Perhaps it's garbage to you because you happen to agree w/ their point of view.

I don't know how old you are, but judging from the fact that you're a very recent LSU grad, I'm going to assume you're pretty young. You may not remember a time when not everybody had cable, or access to broadcast news
other than CBS, NBC, or ABC. Most people STILL rely upon the "Big 3" for their
news intake (although Fox is closing the gap). So while you may not be "forced" to watch it, per se, network news is still the dominant method
of news intake, if by tradition only.

 

right. i dont generally like criticism of the media because people should just find media they like among the zillions of sources, but then it is always pointed out that people are too lazy and/or stupid to leave the major tv network news. too bad for them i say.

left leaning media is not really a problem. media bias in general is not a problem. there re so many sources now that the media will reflect the people more closely. that wasnt true when there were 3 networks, but it will be. now things will self-correct. nothing to get worked up over.

 

not so fast. you're assuming i'm a liberal, which i am only in a social sense. fiscally, i'm a hell of a lot more conservative than that W fella (so was clinton, i can prove that). put the 2 together and whadd'ya get? a newsmedia-hating, anti-state libertarian. either way, it's very rare that i agree with anything the media proclaims. it's just that it bothers me when ppl claim that newsmedia are 'forcing' things on ppl. a voluntary act that somehow entails being force-fed...there's a serious fundamental flaw there, particularly when you consider just how many different types of outlets there are nowadays.

you have to agree with me on one thing: people watch the news outlet that most adequately reinforces their view of the world. of course, that logic is very flawed. the truth is, if you want to strengthen your views, you should watch those programs/outlets that provide the strongest opposition. that's really the only way to get smarter, by living outside of your own little world. it doesnt make your opinion more valid if some 2-bit hotshot can word it more eloquently than you and sputter out incredibly skewed and self-serving statistics.

just for the record, i'm 26. and yes, i do remember when cable wasnt in every household. but the fact that ppl still remain reliant upon the stations you mentioned is their problem. if they're too lazy to seek out the truth, or at leat unbiased information, then they obviously dont care enough to make a difference.

either way, i am alway amused at the fact that the same ppl who denounce the general media for having a liberal bias are the same ones who will watch fox news for hours on end. it's funny b/c they claim to be angry at the media just for having a bias in the first place. but, in all honesty, there is simply no station with an agenda 1/10th as overwhelming as fox's. i just want them to admit that they don't care if news outlets have an agenda, as long as it fits theirs.

 

Actually, I believe a lot of people watch Fox (which yes, does indeed have a conservative slant) as a backlash against the other 3 networks. If the Big 3
worked a little bit harder at being as "fair and balanced" as Fox claims to be, then you'd see the gap start to close somewhat.

 

Yeah, i don't see what the big deal is. Have you seen the ratings lately?

Fox News OWNS the small screen currently. It is currently totally dominating both MSNBC (small leftish lean) and CNN (neutral). The Big 3 are all neutral, as far as the stuff I've seen. Well, probably not Rather, but I think he's gone anyway.

 

not to offend anyones choice of news networks, but this is really sad. expected and not surprising, but sad nonetheless. why? not for the anti-conservative sentimet that you would typically expect from a fox-basher. but b/c rupert murdoch, until 1996, was strictly in the business of entertainment. obviously and unfortunately, he still sees that as the case, despite the fact that he now owns a news outlet. fox entertainment began around the turn of the centrury by immigrants (italians, i believe) as a small-stage theatre. since then, and particularly in recent years, fox, inc. has continued to grow and pushed the boundaries of acceptable/controversial network telivision programming.

what am i getting at? well, fox news is the most hyper-sensationalized/speculative news outlet i've ever seen [insert random rather recant here]. it can be fairly assessed that they are much more focused on the entertainment aspect of what they do, and they don't appear to make much of an effort to hide it. hell, just listen to the lead in/out music. listen to how the anchors/reporters tease the stories. it's always riddled with an unecessary sense of urgency and exclusivity. but from their standpoint, it's a smart strategy. they know that people don't really care all that much about the news. most citizens watch it out of some sense of obligation, only to forget about what they have 'learned' within 24 hours. for the most part, people are bored by the news. it's hard to see how they couldnt be when you consider just how desensitized we've all become to the most horrible tragedies that don't happen on our own soil. so fox spices up their broadcast with an all-out, no holds barred, sensationalist blitz. and people absolutely love it. they can pretend to get news and actually be entertained at the same time.

now, i want to make it clear that i am, in now way, absolving other network news stations from utilizing these same tactics. it's just that fox is SO much more overwhelming about it, and it's obviously worked like a charm. as i've mentioned before, i believe that network news is a disgrace to humanity. i occassionally watch it for a good laugh, and not much else.

i understand that completely. however, these people cannot fault the other 3 merely for having an agenda, rather, for not having their agenda.

besides, from everything i've learned in history classes and random research, the media has almost innately always been a somewhat liberal entity. not 'liberal' in the hillary clinton sense, but 'liberal' in the sense that their objective is to inform people of things that go on so that, if they see fit, the people can demand change, which conforms to the first 2 definitions of the term.

lib·er·al ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
   2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

 

I don't see MSNBC or NBC as having all that much slant to the right, Red. Russert is about the only thing MSNBC has that could be even mildly construed as right, and he's pretty balanced in his approach (actually, he's about as even-handed a journalist as there is out there today). NBC is, at best, straight-up centrist. And CNN, while being reasonably centrist, has a pretty definite sway to the left.

 

Therein lies the problem. Individuals that watch Fox News don't watch it for reality. Reality is boring and sad. Sit down and watch the evening 30 minute local news show. Other than a 1 minute spoof or humorous picture or song at the very end, nothing good ever happens.

They are looking for the escapism and sensationalism that Fox News provides, not reality or true facts.