Do I think the media is a juggernaut for Communism and leftist propaganda? Of course not. But I do think that most of the print and major broadcast media in this country tilts left, and because of that, is more sympathetic to the left and has a skewed idea of what is "mainstream" in the country. Don't believe me? Check out John Stossel's new book when you get the chance. It's called (you guessed it) "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists, and became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36623 Stossel is one of my favorite reporters. His "Gimme a Break" specials were awesome. His report on the lies and propaganda tactics of the radical environmentalist movement was awesome and absolutely devastating. ABC and his colleagues loved him and lauded him with many awards when he was primarily a consumer advocate investigating and helping nail corporate crooks. But when Stossel started exposing the biggest scheister of all, the Federal Govt., and questioning the motivations and tactics of public interest groups, he quickly became persona non-grata in the media world. Just like they turned on Bernard Goldberg, they turned on John Stossel. Once a crusader for justice, he is now a "corporate whore" and a "sellout" in the eyes of many. Stossel's story is an interesting one. We should listen, and would do well to acknowledge, not ignore, the serious problems mainstream papers and networks in this country have.
i love john stossel. i saw the special recently, the 10 myths that he reveals as untrue. it was spectacular. he is the best reporter on tv. i particularly love the things he does on the environment. and of course, the media is liberal, but i dont mind it. i also dont mind that fox, and the ridiculous paper i read, the new york post, are conservative. my theory about the media is that it is basically impossible to not allow your prejudices to show. it is perfectly obvious that peter jennings is liberal, and that shepard smith is relatively conservative. i am glad that we have both points of view, to me, the only annoying thing is that they both portray themselves as neutral. but basically i think as long as we have options, we are in great shape. thats why it so great fox news exists, even if you dont agree with their slant. they really filled a void, and are being rewarded with great ratings. anyways, i completely agree about stossel. he seems to be far more about free market capitalism and dispelling media alarmism than siding with republicans or democrats. i enjoy his reports and watching barbara walters look suprised at how he crumbles conventional wisdom about the environment or sweat shops or whatever. stossel rules.
The media is socially liberal. Not economically liberal. They have some pet causes that border on economic liberalism. But CBS/Viacom, Ruper Murdoch/FOX, AOL-Time Warner, etc. are not liberal entities. You won't see them skewer tax policies that benefit behemoths like themselves. But they are all extremely socially liberal. Pro-homo Pro-radical feminism Pro-abortion Pro-racial quotas
Good point M.O.M The media is extremely pro-hedonism. They also have a bias toward sensationalism. But on economics, they're just interested in the bottom line. Al Franken likes to point out that virtually no media outlet opposed NAFTA. Why? Because a journalist's job can't be exported to Mexico.
That's funny about NAFTA. Opposition was nil on that issue as you point out. They also spend alot more time on stories about individual tax issues and individual welfare issues and very little on corporate tax giveaways and big corporate welfare giveaways. I think the media is liberal song is only on tune in regards to their championing of social liberalism and that runs the gamut from the supposedly right-wing Murdoch controlled Fox Television which runs some of the raunchiest sit-coms on TV to the editorial pages of the New York Times.
Also if you have the chance, check out Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media"? Its a good counter to all the bias argumnents.
I saw Alterman on CSPAN with Al Franken debating 2 conservatives including that guy with the bow-tie on Crossfire. I haven't read his book. But he did say that the NY Times editorial page was not liberal. I'm not discounting his book since I haven't read it. But he lost some respectability with his NY Times editorial page comment. That is clearly very, very liberal.
Franken's very quick on his feet. He made a fol of Goldberg on Donahue--so badly that a caller said Donahue put Goldberg on to make conservatives look bad.
I haven't bought his books, but I enjoyed Franken in his old SNL days. I thought he made O'Reilly look like a fool. Which is sort of a shame. I may have to turn in my liberal card, but I have to confess I've enjoyed O'Reilly's show on occasion. He made too big a deal out of the Franken book and really made himself look like a fool.
Franken is a complete idiot, and a statement like that just makes it obvious. NY Times Editorial Board not liberal? We're talking about a paper that hasn't endorsed a Republican for President since Eisenhower in '56. By the way, to a certain extent, I buy your argument that major network/print journalism is socially liberal yet economically SELF-CENTERED (not conservative per-se). It really is all about the bottom line and sex sells, so that's what they are peddling, and they really could care less about how "the children" are affected. They are a little bit liberal economically in the sense that they love big govt. and high taxes and social welfare "Mommy State" programs for the impoverished peons. Read Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" on this and look at the chapter where he talks about a CBS newspiece that absolutely crucified Steve Forbes and his flat tax. Could that also be influenced by the desire for ratings and to be "loved" by the unwashed masses? Also, as Goldberg cites and I have seen this to be true in my observations, not all media outlets are dominated by liberals. Talk radio in America is OVERWHELMINGLY right of center, and has been for sometime. The Internet newsbiz is a political free-for-all, where you can get the most radical viewpoints from both ends of the spectrum and anywhere in between. Goldberg and Stossel are only talking about print and broadcast journalism (newspapers and television). With the rise of Fox News and conservative papers like the New York Post and the Washington Times, it's not as bad as it used to be. But the Big Four (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS) and the Old Guard national papers (NY Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, Chicago papers, USA Today) refuse to change or even acknowledge that there is a problem. And that is why their business and market shares continue to decline year after year.
