Full Version: The Myth of the Liberal Media
QUOTE
Best of AD Award Winner: Best Topic, The Media (tie), 2002-2003
It's a favorite conservative argument that the US has a media that is biased toward liberal politics. The reality strikes me as being quite different. I have a lot to say on this issue, but as I'm heading off to my Thanksgiving feast shortly, I'll keep this first posting relatively brief.
Once everyone starts attacking me, I'll come back with more as required.
Ever since the deregulation of the Reagan years, the US media has become increasingly monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. In other words, conservatives have powerful friends in the media, both print and electronic: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor, pro-consumer, and pro-environment issues. There is evidence of massive pro-corporate bias in the media and the coverage of national elections has become increasingly slanted toward the Republican Party and Republican candidates.
Many journalists and news anchors themselves may tend to be personally liberal (though much more so in the 1980s than today). However, no study has shown that they give their personal bias to the news. Even if they are able to indicate bias through their delivery or expression, they are limited to "biasing" the stories their owners and editors allow them to cover. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits - who are encouraged to express opinion - leans heavily to the right. This is true of op ed writers in the print media and talking heads on TV, but the most extreme example is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent.
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly (and successfully) oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is one of the better proofs that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.
Both the coverage of the "War on Terror" and the legislation surrounding it (the USA Patriot Act and HR 5005, for example) have been ridiculously biased toward the conservative - with the widespread opposition virtually ignored.
Can someone produce evidence of the purported liberal bias in our media? Or is it just a myth (perpetuated on talk radio!) to which more and more people are subscribing without question?
The "liberal media myth" simply refers to the gatekeeping authority of news media, that is, they control what stories run and how important they should be. But that power is open to both liberal and conservative media.
There may be "more" liberal outlets and "more conservative" ones, but on the whole I don't think there's any one pervading media controller in terms of political slant. If it were, then audiences of the mass media would be tending towards a single political party. Instead, with the increase of media, what we've really seen is a balancing of the two -- a clear 50/50 division of the public's political views.
There may be "more" liberal outlets and "more conservative" ones, but on the whole I don't think there's any one pervading media controller in terms of political slant. If it were, then audiences of the mass media would be tending towards a single political party. Instead, with the increase of media, what we've really seen is a balancing of the two -- a clear 50/50 division of the public's political views.
QUOTE(dscvry @ Dec 11 2002, 06:16 PM)
The "liberal media myth" simply refers to the gatekeeping authority of news media, that is, they control what stories run and how important they should be. But that power is open to both liberal and conservative media.
There may be "more" liberal outlets and "more conservative" ones, but on the whole I don't think there's any one pervading media controller in terms of political slant. If it were, then audiences of the mass media would be tending towards a single political party. Instead, with the increase of media, what we've really seen is a balancing of the two -- a clear 50/50 division of the public's political views.
There may be "more" liberal outlets and "more conservative" ones, but on the whole I don't think there's any one pervading media controller in terms of political slant. If it were, then audiences of the mass media would be tending towards a single political party. Instead, with the increase of media, what we've really seen is a balancing of the two -- a clear 50/50 division of the public's political views.
The news media can still be liberal even though there is a 50/50 split between the parties because:
1. The liberalism may be ineffective
a. People may be more aware of it.
b. People may be avoiding it.
3. The liberalism could be temporarily dormant.
a. This could be because of 9/11.
You are using the term "conservative" media to refer to fact based media (which includes CNN, MSNBC and the like). In fact based media, guests outwardly represent themselves as being "liberal" or "conservative", and the main focus is on information rather than on entertainment. Because the media is widely accepted as being "liberal", people refer to its contrast as being "conservative" even though it is not. Using entertainment to provoke political action (as the liberal media has done) is much different from a fact based media that debates issues, reports information, and represents editorials as being editorials.
jjirout
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 28 2002, 01:55 PM)
Can someone produce evidence of the purported liberal bias in our media? Or is it just a myth (perpetuated on talk radio!) to which more and more people are subscribing without question?
Talk radio does perpetuate some myths, but it does perpetuate some truth, as well. The liberalism in the news media is truth. (Talk radio's popularity suggests that another viewpoint was both 1. desired and 2. needed - because mainstream media was bias. But I doubt that this is the "evidence" you are seeking.)
Presently, the media's liberalism has been a little dormant (people are more aware of it, there has been severe criticism of it, and there is now more competition in the news generally speaking). But let's look back a little (something that was so blantantly bias is not going to suddenly turned over a new leaf).
A. There are reputable scientists who do not believe that humans are causing global warming and who do not believe that global warming is happening at all. While this was true years ago and true today, the (liberal) media was showing ten minute long spots on how the world is coming to an end. "The future of our earth is uncertain" they would say (to appear unbiased) while picture spots spurred a whole nation into fearing tomorrow. It was s o biased and manipulative.
It is illogical to assume that we are destined for destruction because of some environmental problems. The tactic here is to exaggerate and by showing everyday person after everyday person complaining about environmental problems, the public is being coerced to believe in it also. Appeal to popularity - logical fallacy #4. "Everyone thinks so and so you should too."
B. Clinton. The camera angles, all of the air time, the public reactions that were both screened and carefully selected to show Clinton in the most charming of ways. There is also the lack of accusations, the glossing over of dirt. The liberal media is capable of being profound in its subtly. It will bring up an opposing view, but give it less air time, more controversial questions, less lighting, more opposition with the conclusion always clear. Liberals are right.
It works like this.
1. People "seem" to be chosen at random, but they are not. It is staged, and they are carefully selected because their points of view support the doctrine of the day.
2. Theories are represented as facts, insofar as they represent the doctrine of the day.
3. Anything opposing the doctrine of the day is either discounted quickly or avoided altogether.
jjirout
[quote=Wertz,Nov 28 2002, 01:55 PM]conservatives have powerful friends in the media, both print and electronic: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor, pro-consumer, and pro-environment issues. There is evidence of massive pro-corporate bias in the media and the coverage of national elections has become increasingly slanted toward the Republican Party and Republican candidates.[/quote]
You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Conservatives are not represented by corporations. Conservative Republicans may be, but all in all, corporations support themselves - exclusively.
[QUOTE]As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor, pro-consumer, and pro-environment issues. There is evidence of massive pro-corporate bias in the media and the coverage of national elections has become increasingly slanted toward the Republican Party and Republican candidates.[/QUOTE]
Hello? Arthur Anderson? The media is slanting towards Bush? Pro-corporate bias = conservative bias? Corporations are only interested in their own profit. Corporations change political ideology in order to appease the moment. They are always fickle because that is how they profit best. Corporations are not unequivically conservative.
[QUOTE]However, no study has shown that they give their personal bias to the news. Even if they are able to indicate bias through their delivery or expression, they are limited to "biasing" the stories their owners and editors allow them to cover. [QUOTE]
Here, you underestimate the power of the media. Presently, the media has power over any one corporation. One wrong word or suggestion and stocks drop. This is the information age - not the industrial age. Information is where it is at.
[/QUOTE]Both the coverage of the "War on Terror" and the legislation surrounding it (the USA Patriot Act and HR 5005, for example) have been ridiculously biased toward the conservative - with the widespread opposition virtually ignored.[QUOTE]
There hasn't been much opposition, but we are in strange times. People have little patience for anything that isn't nationalistic. Where were your criticisms during peace time? That is where you will find true colors surfacing. Now, people are nationalistic. We have been attacked and need leadership. Unfortunately, objective debates are taking second place. There is likely an agenda at work here, but you'd have to wait another year or two, and then point fingers. Everyone is still recuperating...
You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Conservatives are not represented by corporations. Conservative Republicans may be, but all in all, corporations support themselves - exclusively.
[QUOTE]As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor, pro-consumer, and pro-environment issues. There is evidence of massive pro-corporate bias in the media and the coverage of national elections has become increasingly slanted toward the Republican Party and Republican candidates.[/QUOTE]
Hello? Arthur Anderson? The media is slanting towards Bush? Pro-corporate bias = conservative bias? Corporations are only interested in their own profit. Corporations change political ideology in order to appease the moment. They are always fickle because that is how they profit best. Corporations are not unequivically conservative.
[QUOTE]However, no study has shown that they give their personal bias to the news. Even if they are able to indicate bias through their delivery or expression, they are limited to "biasing" the stories their owners and editors allow them to cover. [QUOTE]
Here, you underestimate the power of the media. Presently, the media has power over any one corporation. One wrong word or suggestion and stocks drop. This is the information age - not the industrial age. Information is where it is at.
[/QUOTE]Both the coverage of the "War on Terror" and the legislation surrounding it (the USA Patriot Act and HR 5005, for example) have been ridiculously biased toward the conservative - with the widespread opposition virtually ignored.[QUOTE]
There hasn't been much opposition, but we are in strange times. People have little patience for anything that isn't nationalistic. Where were your criticisms during peace time? That is where you will find true colors surfacing. Now, people are nationalistic. We have been attacked and need leadership. Unfortunately, objective debates are taking second place. There is likely an agenda at work here, but you'd have to wait another year or two, and then point fingers. Everyone is still recuperating...
I dont think its a far stretch to say that pro-corporate bias equals pro-conservative bias. Most corporations want lax regulations soemthing that most conservatives are in favor of, while those that are left leaning are for more government regulations. And its true that the media gave relativley little attention to corporate crimes (are any of these criminals in jail? I dont know..). Look at how quickly and how long, the subject of Iraq has been in the news, compared to corporate crime. This may also have to do with the American public not really understanding the ramifications of corporate crimes, or they may be unsure of how to react, since they can not voice opposition to corporate America, or their entire world would crumble (if Americans faced up to the reality of how awful most corporations tend to be, what would Americans buy? Nothing. There is no choice left.)
What in the world are you talking about? Clinton's sex scandal(s) got more airtime than any of the Bush scandals, even though Clintons scandals didnt cost people their jobs or retirement money. Ever since Clinton took office, it was one thing after another (Gennifer Flowers, Paula...whatever her name is, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and then he left office, so it stopped). There has been very little opposition to Bush after he was announced winner in 2000.
I still think that the "liberal" media, is merely a joke, and those things that are found as "liberal" are only "popular liberal" ideologies (such as abortion).
Also, heres a good piece (editorial though) about talk radio.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1203-08.htm
QUOTE
B. Clinton. The camera angles, all of the air time, the public reactions that were both screened and carefully selected to show Clinton in the most charming of ways. There is also the lack of accusations, the glossing over of dirt. The liberal media is capable of being profound in its subtly. It will bring up an opposing view, but give it less air time, more controversial questions, less lighting, more opposition with the conclusion always clear. Liberals are right.
What in the world are you talking about? Clinton's sex scandal(s) got more airtime than any of the Bush scandals, even though Clintons scandals didnt cost people their jobs or retirement money. Ever since Clinton took office, it was one thing after another (Gennifer Flowers, Paula...whatever her name is, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and then he left office, so it stopped). There has been very little opposition to Bush after he was announced winner in 2000.
I still think that the "liberal" media, is merely a joke, and those things that are found as "liberal" are only "popular liberal" ideologies (such as abortion).
Also, heres a good piece (editorial though) about talk radio.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1203-08.htm
QUOTE
Here's why the talk radio scene is so dominated by the right, and how it can become more democratic. First, a very brief history:
When radio first became a national force in the 1920s and 1930s, most stations programmed everything. Country/Western music would be followed by Big Band, followed by Mozart, followed by drama or comedy. Everything was jumbled together, and people needed the newspaper program guides to know when to listen to what.
As the market matured, and drama and comedy moved to television, radio stations realized there were specific market segments and niches within those segments to which they could program. And they realized that people within those niches had very specific tastes. Country/Western listeners only wanted to hear Country/Western - Big Band put them off, and classical music put them to sleep. Classical music fans, on the other hand, became irritated when Country/Western or the early versions of Rock 'n Roll came on the air. And Rock fans clicked off the moment Frank Sinatra came on.
So, as those of us who've worked in the business saw, stations began to program into these specific musical niches, and it led to a new renaissance (and profit windfall) in the radio business.
But to make money in the new world of radio that emerged in the 1950s, you had to be true to your niche.
When I was a Country/Western DJ, if I had tried to drop in a song from The Rolling Stones, my listeners would have gone ballistic, calling in and angrily complaining. Similarly, when I was doing morning drive-time Rock, it would have been suicide to drop in four minutes of Mozart. Smart programmers know to always hold true to their niche and their listeners.
At first, radio talk shows were seen as a way of fulfilling FCC community service requirements. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I was a reporter and news anchor at WITL-AM/FM in Lansing, Michigan, we had an afternoon talk show that ran from 2 to 3 pm. Usually hosted by the station's general manager, the late Chuck Drake, and sometimes fill-in hosted by us in the news staff, the show was overtly run to satisfy the FCC's mandate that stations "serve the public interest." Thus, our talk show focused mostly on public-interest issues, from local and national politics to lost dog reports, and we tried hard to present all viewpoints fairly (as was then required by the FCC's Fairness Doctrine).
In that, we were following a long radio tradition. Modern talk radio as a major force in America started in 1926, when Catholic priest Father Charles E. Coughlin took to the airwaves. By the mid-1930s, as many as a full third of the entire nation - an estimated 45 million people - listened to his weekly broadcasts. His downfall, and the end of the 15-year era of talk radio he'd both created and dominated, came in the early 1940s when the nation was at war and Hitler was shipping millions of Jews to the death camps. For reasons still unknown (Alzheimer's is suspected), Coughlin launched into hard-right anti-Semitic tirades in his broadcasts, blaming an international Jewish conspiracy for communism, the Great Depression, World War II, and most of the world's other ills. His sudden shift to the radical right disgusted his listeners, and led his superiors in the Catholic Church to demand he retire from radio and return to his parish duties where he died in relative obscurity. Many say the Fairness Doctrine came about in part because of Coughlin.
A generation later, a new Father Coughlin emerged in the form of Rush Limbaugh, an articulate and talented talk-show host out of Sacramento. Joe Pyne (a conservative who almost always had a liberal with him on the air) was dead, and conservative investors and programmers were looking to unseat the fabulously popular liberal talker Alan Berg and bring "balance" to America's airwaves. (In June of 1984, the year Rush began "issues talk" on Sacramento's KFBK, Berg was machine-gunned to death by right-wingers claiming they were from the Aryan Nation.) Within four years, Rush rose to national status by offering his program free of charge to stations across the nation. Station managers, not being business dummies, laid off local talent and picked up Rush's free show, leading to a national phenomena: the Limbaugh show was one of America's greatest radio success stories, spreading from state to state faster than any modern talk show had ever done. (Such free or barter offerings are now standard in the industry.)
And, station managers discovered, there is a loyal group of radio listeners (around 20 million occasional listeners, with perhaps one to five million who consider themselves "dittoheads") who embraced Rush's brand of overt hard-right spin, believing every word he says even though he claims his show is "just entertainment" to avoid a reemergence of the Fairness Doctrine and the political-activity provisions of McCain/Feingold. The sudden success of Rush led local radio station programmers to look for more of the same: there was a sudden demand for Rush-clone talkers who could meet the needs of the nation's Rush-bonded listeners, and the all-right-wing-talk radio format emerged, dominated by Limbaugh and Limbaugh-clones in both style and political viewpoint.
Thus, the extreme fringe of the right wing dominates talk radio not because all radio listeners are right-wingers, but, instead, because the right wingers and their investors were the first to the market with a consistent and predictable programming slant, making right-wing-talk the first large niche to mature in the newly emergent talk segment of the radio industry. Listeners always know what they'll get with Rush or one of his clones, and programming to a loyal and identifiable audience is both the dream and the necessity of every radio station's management.
When radio first became a national force in the 1920s and 1930s, most stations programmed everything. Country/Western music would be followed by Big Band, followed by Mozart, followed by drama or comedy. Everything was jumbled together, and people needed the newspaper program guides to know when to listen to what.
As the market matured, and drama and comedy moved to television, radio stations realized there were specific market segments and niches within those segments to which they could program. And they realized that people within those niches had very specific tastes. Country/Western listeners only wanted to hear Country/Western - Big Band put them off, and classical music put them to sleep. Classical music fans, on the other hand, became irritated when Country/Western or the early versions of Rock 'n Roll came on the air. And Rock fans clicked off the moment Frank Sinatra came on.
So, as those of us who've worked in the business saw, stations began to program into these specific musical niches, and it led to a new renaissance (and profit windfall) in the radio business.
But to make money in the new world of radio that emerged in the 1950s, you had to be true to your niche.
When I was a Country/Western DJ, if I had tried to drop in a song from The Rolling Stones, my listeners would have gone ballistic, calling in and angrily complaining. Similarly, when I was doing morning drive-time Rock, it would have been suicide to drop in four minutes of Mozart. Smart programmers know to always hold true to their niche and their listeners.
At first, radio talk shows were seen as a way of fulfilling FCC community service requirements. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I was a reporter and news anchor at WITL-AM/FM in Lansing, Michigan, we had an afternoon talk show that ran from 2 to 3 pm. Usually hosted by the station's general manager, the late Chuck Drake, and sometimes fill-in hosted by us in the news staff, the show was overtly run to satisfy the FCC's mandate that stations "serve the public interest." Thus, our talk show focused mostly on public-interest issues, from local and national politics to lost dog reports, and we tried hard to present all viewpoints fairly (as was then required by the FCC's Fairness Doctrine).
In that, we were following a long radio tradition. Modern talk radio as a major force in America started in 1926, when Catholic priest Father Charles E. Coughlin took to the airwaves. By the mid-1930s, as many as a full third of the entire nation - an estimated 45 million people - listened to his weekly broadcasts. His downfall, and the end of the 15-year era of talk radio he'd both created and dominated, came in the early 1940s when the nation was at war and Hitler was shipping millions of Jews to the death camps. For reasons still unknown (Alzheimer's is suspected), Coughlin launched into hard-right anti-Semitic tirades in his broadcasts, blaming an international Jewish conspiracy for communism, the Great Depression, World War II, and most of the world's other ills. His sudden shift to the radical right disgusted his listeners, and led his superiors in the Catholic Church to demand he retire from radio and return to his parish duties where he died in relative obscurity. Many say the Fairness Doctrine came about in part because of Coughlin.
A generation later, a new Father Coughlin emerged in the form of Rush Limbaugh, an articulate and talented talk-show host out of Sacramento. Joe Pyne (a conservative who almost always had a liberal with him on the air) was dead, and conservative investors and programmers were looking to unseat the fabulously popular liberal talker Alan Berg and bring "balance" to America's airwaves. (In June of 1984, the year Rush began "issues talk" on Sacramento's KFBK, Berg was machine-gunned to death by right-wingers claiming they were from the Aryan Nation.) Within four years, Rush rose to national status by offering his program free of charge to stations across the nation. Station managers, not being business dummies, laid off local talent and picked up Rush's free show, leading to a national phenomena: the Limbaugh show was one of America's greatest radio success stories, spreading from state to state faster than any modern talk show had ever done. (Such free or barter offerings are now standard in the industry.)
And, station managers discovered, there is a loyal group of radio listeners (around 20 million occasional listeners, with perhaps one to five million who consider themselves "dittoheads") who embraced Rush's brand of overt hard-right spin, believing every word he says even though he claims his show is "just entertainment" to avoid a reemergence of the Fairness Doctrine and the political-activity provisions of McCain/Feingold. The sudden success of Rush led local radio station programmers to look for more of the same: there was a sudden demand for Rush-clone talkers who could meet the needs of the nation's Rush-bonded listeners, and the all-right-wing-talk radio format emerged, dominated by Limbaugh and Limbaugh-clones in both style and political viewpoint.
Thus, the extreme fringe of the right wing dominates talk radio not because all radio listeners are right-wingers, but, instead, because the right wingers and their investors were the first to the market with a consistent and predictable programming slant, making right-wing-talk the first large niche to mature in the newly emergent talk segment of the radio industry. Listeners always know what they'll get with Rush or one of his clones, and programming to a loyal and identifiable audience is both the dream and the necessity of every radio station's management.
There is only one media in the United States. That is the Jewish Media.
QUOTE(FadeTheButcher @ Dec 23 2002, 10:40 AM)
There is only one media in the United States. That is the Jewish Media.
Do you believe half the stuff you type, Butcher - or do you just have a really sick, twisted sense of humor?
He's trying to bate people with his Jews remarks. 
He tried it on Who's running the country. Only got one taker.
Madtown
He tried it on Who's running the country. Only got one taker.Madtown
From Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting:
On the news media's use of data or spokespeople from "thinktanks:"
and an excellent report here: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
Thought I'd throw these into the mix...
QUOTE
A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.
On the news media's use of data or spokespeople from "thinktanks:"
QUOTE
The overall percentages for the year were consistent with findings for previous years, with conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnering 48 percent of the citations, centrists receiving 36 percent and progressive or left-leaning think tanks receiving 16 percent. However, centrists dominated the think tank spectrum post-September 11, with Brookings and NBER receiving the most citations. Conservative think tanks had 40 percent of citations after the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks, while progressive citations declined to 11 percent. Progressives were especially absent from broadcast media, earning just 8 percent of citations after September 11.
QUOTE
Fox daytime anchor David Asman is formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute. The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration. Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox's parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998; Fox News Channel's senior vice president is John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.
QUOTE
The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.
and an excellent report here: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
Thought I'd throw these into the mix...
The liberalism in the news media is truth.
If that were true the news would be full of stories about the criminals that Bush seems to favor when filling posts and Enron stories like we did Clinton/Monica/Whitewater.
Talk radio's popularity suggests that another viewpoint was both 1. desired and 2. needed - because mainstream media was bias.
The problem may have been that the mainstream was simply the same crap it is now. What the hell happened to journalism, investigative reporting, or on location interviews and witnesses?
Instead we get Barbies and Kens that repeat the same four or five stories all day. In between we get their hired analysts telling us how to interpret and feel about today's menu of topics. It wasn't bias. It just wasn't real news and it still isn't.
the (liberal) media was showing ten minute long spots on how the world is coming to an end. "The future of our earth is uncertain" they would say (to appear unbiased) while picture spots spurred a whole nation into fearing tomorrow. It was so biased and manipulative.
Everything in your post is exactly what they've been doing for a year with the Scary Saddam stories. Talk about trying to forward a political agenda. I feel manipulated every time I watch the news.
As proof that there is no liberal bias look at the things they leave out.
Liberals would include the fact that if he had weapons he couldn't deliver them. If he was working with terrorists which ones or at least why would we assume so. They would show the international protests like in Italy and Washington. Or ask how Saddam got where he is and who helped him. If he has weapons, who sold the stuff and how did they get through the sanctions and no fly zones. What happens next and who takes over when he's gone. How long will it take and can we afford it. What if the other 2 axis countries and any unexpected threats pop up at once? How many deaths can we expect on both sides, how many were there last time, and how many of those were civilians. There have been no answers to anything so how do we know if we support it?
I never notice conservatives asking these questions. They must have changed their stance and decided they will trust in having more government control of everything from here on out. I thought the GOP was the less government party?
Clinton. The camera angles, all of the air time, the public reactions that were both screened and carefully selected to show Clinton in the most charming of ways. There is also the lack of accusations, the glossing over of dirt.
BAHAHAHAA. Are you trying to be funny or doing a little revisionism? The reality was the opposite of every word you just said.
The liberal media is capable of being profound in its subtly. It will bring up an opposing view, but give it less air time, more controversial questions, less lighting, more opposition with the conclusion always clear. Liberals are right.
I've noticed the same thing but reversed. Maybe we are both right. The 30 seconds they give each side, not counting the constant interruptions, makes everyone feel they can't talk or make a point. But the time and respect given is predominantly to conservatives, IMO.
It works like this.
1. People "seem" to be chosen at random, but they are not. It is staged, and they are carefully selected because their points of view support the doctrine of the day.
2. Theories are represented as facts, insofar as they represent the doctrine of the day.
3. Anything opposing the doctrine of the day is either discounted quickly or avoided altogether.
Bingo. I agree with this 100%.
The answer may be that we are both right because so much of the story isn't told. TV/cable news is doesn't satisfy or educate anyone.
If that were true the news would be full of stories about the criminals that Bush seems to favor when filling posts and Enron stories like we did Clinton/Monica/Whitewater.
Talk radio's popularity suggests that another viewpoint was both 1. desired and 2. needed - because mainstream media was bias.
The problem may have been that the mainstream was simply the same crap it is now. What the hell happened to journalism, investigative reporting, or on location interviews and witnesses?
Instead we get Barbies and Kens that repeat the same four or five stories all day. In between we get their hired analysts telling us how to interpret and feel about today's menu of topics. It wasn't bias. It just wasn't real news and it still isn't.
the (liberal) media was showing ten minute long spots on how the world is coming to an end. "The future of our earth is uncertain" they would say (to appear unbiased) while picture spots spurred a whole nation into fearing tomorrow. It was so biased and manipulative.
Everything in your post is exactly what they've been doing for a year with the Scary Saddam stories. Talk about trying to forward a political agenda. I feel manipulated every time I watch the news.
As proof that there is no liberal bias look at the things they leave out.
Liberals would include the fact that if he had weapons he couldn't deliver them. If he was working with terrorists which ones or at least why would we assume so. They would show the international protests like in Italy and Washington. Or ask how Saddam got where he is and who helped him. If he has weapons, who sold the stuff and how did they get through the sanctions and no fly zones. What happens next and who takes over when he's gone. How long will it take and can we afford it. What if the other 2 axis countries and any unexpected threats pop up at once? How many deaths can we expect on both sides, how many were there last time, and how many of those were civilians. There have been no answers to anything so how do we know if we support it?
I never notice conservatives asking these questions. They must have changed their stance and decided they will trust in having more government control of everything from here on out. I thought the GOP was the less government party?
Clinton. The camera angles, all of the air time, the public reactions that were both screened and carefully selected to show Clinton in the most charming of ways. There is also the lack of accusations, the glossing over of dirt.
BAHAHAHAA.
Are you trying to be funny or doing a little revisionism? The reality was the opposite of every word you just said.The liberal media is capable of being profound in its subtly. It will bring up an opposing view, but give it less air time, more controversial questions, less lighting, more opposition with the conclusion always clear. Liberals are right.
I've noticed the same thing but reversed. Maybe we are both right. The 30 seconds they give each side, not counting the constant interruptions, makes everyone feel they can't talk or make a point. But the time and respect given is predominantly to conservatives, IMO.
It works like this.
1. People "seem" to be chosen at random, but they are not. It is staged, and they are carefully selected because their points of view support the doctrine of the day.
2. Theories are represented as facts, insofar as they represent the doctrine of the day.
3. Anything opposing the doctrine of the day is either discounted quickly or avoided altogether.
Bingo. I agree with this 100%.
The answer may be that we are both right because so much of the story isn't told. TV/cable news is doesn't satisfy or educate anyone.
Danya,
Good rebuttal. Every now and then The Independent, a local alternative paper, runs an issue about news stories ignored in the mainstream media. These are all stories that can be considered "liberal" in that "conservatives" don't like them.
Do right wing AM radio hosts ever do this? You know, give heed to ignored conservative stories? Whatever happened to that guy Rush Limbaugh loved who handled his hard economic times with bake sales? Where's G. Gordon Liddy with his human genome researcher who claimed there isn't a homosexual gene? Maybe the guy with the bake sales turned out to be gay.
Good rebuttal. Every now and then The Independent, a local alternative paper, runs an issue about news stories ignored in the mainstream media. These are all stories that can be considered "liberal" in that "conservatives" don't like them.
Do right wing AM radio hosts ever do this? You know, give heed to ignored conservative stories? Whatever happened to that guy Rush Limbaugh loved who handled his hard economic times with bake sales? Where's G. Gordon Liddy with his human genome researcher who claimed there isn't a homosexual gene? Maybe the guy with the bake sales turned out to be gay.
This has been an interesting discussion so far.
One thing I've noticed is the absence of discussion of other forms of media besides news/news discussions. I think plenty has been said regarding new/news discussion media. We must not neglect to consider the subtle bias that is evident in other forms such as TV, movies, advertisements, magazines, music videos, websites, music (I'm sure I'm missing something here).
The liberal bias becomes more evident once you leave the comfortable, homogenized world of news and pundit discussions.
Like I said, bias is mostly subtle. I can think of a whole bunch of non-news examples that were definitely slanted against conservatives. There was that "Friends" episode where one of the characters had a baby out of wedlock on purpose (meaning no father). Conservatives didn't write that script.
Another example is the fact that a good number of music videos tend to condone premarital, if not permiscuous sex. That is not a conservative value. Additionally, that media targets youth. What does that say about the people making the statement?
How about those awful Smirnoff commercials that show young people in a laundromat, who, upon opening their Smirnoff, proceed to trash the place and have a party, hot girls included? How does that display any conservative ideal?
I think you see where I'm going with this. The Media is much more pervasive than just the news. Bias can be anywhere and lean to anyside.
One thing I've noticed is the absence of discussion of other forms of media besides news/news discussions. I think plenty has been said regarding new/news discussion media. We must not neglect to consider the subtle bias that is evident in other forms such as TV, movies, advertisements, magazines, music videos, websites, music (I'm sure I'm missing something here).
The liberal bias becomes more evident once you leave the comfortable, homogenized world of news and pundit discussions.
Like I said, bias is mostly subtle. I can think of a whole bunch of non-news examples that were definitely slanted against conservatives. There was that "Friends" episode where one of the characters had a baby out of wedlock on purpose (meaning no father). Conservatives didn't write that script.
Another example is the fact that a good number of music videos tend to condone premarital, if not permiscuous sex. That is not a conservative value. Additionally, that media targets youth. What does that say about the people making the statement?
How about those awful Smirnoff commercials that show young people in a laundromat, who, upon opening their Smirnoff, proceed to trash the place and have a party, hot girls included? How does that display any conservative ideal?
I think you see where I'm going with this. The Media is much more pervasive than just the news. Bias can be anywhere and lean to anyside.
I see what you mean but trashing laundry mats, pimpin' ho's or violent video games aren't anyones political philosophy as far as I know. Strict censorship seems to be mostly a conservative bent but liberals seem to resist that. Maybe because the conservatives are apt to impose their supposed morality on others. Who wants someone like Bill O'reilly that thinks Britney Spears, shows like the Soprano's, and all rappers are destroying this countries youth deciding what should be censored?
Unwed single mothers may have more liberal acceptance but so does birth control, stopping teen pregnancy, and advocating not having a baby until you can take care of it. All things that conservatives strongly resist.
The commercials that compare pot smokers to terrorists bombers are conservative views. The War on Drugs and the War on Terror aren't wars they're campaigns. But we hear the phrase 'America at war' so often it's lost any shock value. War on Iraq? OK...no big deal. To us that doesn't mean death, agony, or human suffering. It's another campaign to root for and put stickers on your car and wave your flag over. GO TEAM. War is something on TV that can be turned off or on at will. That is conservative media.
TV, movies, advertisements, magazines, music videos, are all based on what sells and commercialism...those are conservative views. Those that work in those industries, though, tend to be liberal. So, I would say those are somewhat balanced.
The only thing not twisted one way or another (as a whole) is the web and that's only because it's easy to reach all kinds of opinions and stories all over the world. But Bush is working hard on changing that using the war on terror as an excuse and I hope he fails. What we have now is really global free speech. How American is that? The net could be the best tool for spreading democracy. Hoping to control that information sounds more like communism or dictatorship.
Unwed single mothers may have more liberal acceptance but so does birth control, stopping teen pregnancy, and advocating not having a baby until you can take care of it. All things that conservatives strongly resist.
The commercials that compare pot smokers to terrorists bombers are conservative views. The War on Drugs and the War on Terror aren't wars they're campaigns. But we hear the phrase 'America at war' so often it's lost any shock value. War on Iraq? OK...no big deal. To us that doesn't mean death, agony, or human suffering. It's another campaign to root for and put stickers on your car and wave your flag over. GO TEAM. War is something on TV that can be turned off or on at will. That is conservative media.
TV, movies, advertisements, magazines, music videos, are all based on what sells and commercialism...those are conservative views. Those that work in those industries, though, tend to be liberal. So, I would say those are somewhat balanced.
The only thing not twisted one way or another (as a whole) is the web and that's only because it's easy to reach all kinds of opinions and stories all over the world. But Bush is working hard on changing that using the war on terror as an excuse and I hope he fails. What we have now is really global free speech. How American is that? The net could be the best tool for spreading democracy. Hoping to control that information sounds more like communism or dictatorship.
I also tend to think that those views shown on TV are empty and "popular" liberal views, and I think Danya made a good point that they are spreading those views because its what sells, which is a conservative POV. You hardly hear anything about the labor struggles, environmental problems, national health care, or anything about state run programs. I would keel over if I heard about Buffy deciding to spend her time cleaning up an oil spill. And this time of year, you always hear pity stories about those in need for the holidays, but are there ever any issues raised about welfare spending?
I dont watch alot of television, so I could just be making this stuff up.
I dont watch alot of television, so I could just be making this stuff up.
Good points ladies. I didn't intend to imply any that any of my examples represented any liberal media - only that they didn't really represent conservative views. Although, I concede to you, Danya, that capitalism is a traditional conservative view.
So the question is (and Wertz, if you want me to start a new topic, I will) - who are these people that are so willing to spread messages of irresponsibility and why does it sell?
So the question is (and Wertz, if you want me to start a new topic, I will) - who are these people that are so willing to spread messages of irresponsibility and why does it sell?
I'm not sure I got your points Kim...what's POV? And did you say liberals were selling these values Because the commercialism is just as much, if not more of a conservative trait. I don't know why it is that farmers tend to be conservatives and actors tend to be liberals but neither make the decisions on what gets promoted and shown. So my question is the same as Jaime's...who is in charge of those things?
labor struggles, environmental problems, national health care, or anything about state run programs. I would keel over if I heard about Buffy deciding to spend her time cleaning up an oil spill. And this time of year, you always hear pity stories about those in need for the holidays, but are there ever any issues raised about welfare spending?
I think that both sides of any of those issues are polarized so badly that there is no middle ground anymore...just stagnation. If you did have debate on them you would just have a bunch of people dismissing each others opinions as being either flaming liberals or right wing extremists. Those issues are quietly controlled by the party in power at the time. That's just my vague impression of it and maybe I'm wrong.
labor struggles, environmental problems, national health care, or anything about state run programs. I would keel over if I heard about Buffy deciding to spend her time cleaning up an oil spill. And this time of year, you always hear pity stories about those in need for the holidays, but are there ever any issues raised about welfare spending?
I think that both sides of any of those issues are polarized so badly that there is no middle ground anymore...just stagnation. If you did have debate on them you would just have a bunch of people dismissing each others opinions as being either flaming liberals or right wing extremists. Those issues are quietly controlled by the party in power at the time. That's just my vague impression of it and maybe I'm wrong.
POV means point of view.
Sorry, I guess what I was trying to say was that the reason that there is so much commercialism in TV (not specifically in the news, as Jaime has already pointed out) has to do with conservative free market ideals. Although the ideas that are selling right now arent necessarily what conservative ideals at all, I was really just agreeing with what you said Danya. And, I made a small side point of saying that ideas that are being perpetuated on TV such as single moms (the Friends episode Jaime was referring to), etc. are really more socially acceptable "liberal" views, which hardly scratches the surface of what the true left really is.
And whos in charge of this stuff? In a roundabout way, everyone. Its big corporations that are trying to make a profit off media, but at the same time they are only catering to what the populace wants. Its a vicious cycle, and I know most people are aware of some form of media manipulation (except possible children), but its still being perpetuated. Why arent we trying to change it? Its something weird that Ive noticed in our society....Even if the majority seems dissatisfied with the current product, we are so apathetic and no change comes about. Where as in France, if they dont like something, everyone takes to the streets. And from what I heard, British college students do the same thing when they think their tuition is going to be raised.
Sorry, I guess what I was trying to say was that the reason that there is so much commercialism in TV (not specifically in the news, as Jaime has already pointed out) has to do with conservative free market ideals. Although the ideas that are selling right now arent necessarily what conservative ideals at all, I was really just agreeing with what you said Danya. And, I made a small side point of saying that ideas that are being perpetuated on TV such as single moms (the Friends episode Jaime was referring to), etc. are really more socially acceptable "liberal" views, which hardly scratches the surface of what the true left really is.
And whos in charge of this stuff? In a roundabout way, everyone. Its big corporations that are trying to make a profit off media, but at the same time they are only catering to what the populace wants. Its a vicious cycle, and I know most people are aware of some form of media manipulation (except possible children), but its still being perpetuated. Why arent we trying to change it? Its something weird that Ive noticed in our society....Even if the majority seems dissatisfied with the current product, we are so apathetic and no change comes about. Where as in France, if they dont like something, everyone takes to the streets. And from what I heard, British college students do the same thing when they think their tuition is going to be raised.
Clinton. The camera angles, all of the air time, the public reactions that were both screened and carefully selected to show Clinton in the most charming of ways. There is also the lack of accusations, the glossing over of dirt.
Danya writes: BAHAHAHAA. Are you trying to be funny or doing a little revisionism? The reality was the opposite of every word you just said.
Clinton was elected by a liberally biased media. That is what I saw through my own individual eyes and during a time when I was - although now ashamed to admit it - liberal. Disagree if you like, but insults are not necessary.
The media was not always liberal, nor is it presently touting liberal doctrine.
The liberal bent began in the 1960's as a reaction to the overwhelming conservative bent in the 1950's. The liberal bent escalated in the 1990's and after being severely criticized by much of the intellectual underground, it changed.
Presently, the media is unsure of itself. 1. It has been rightly criticized for being liberal 2. There is more competition in the news 2. And after 9/11, this country became sympathetic to conservativism.
Everything in your post is exactly what they've been doing for a year with the Scary Saddam stories. Talk about trying to forward a political agenda. I feel manipulated every time I watch the news.
As proof that there is no liberal bias look at the things they leave out.
Over the past year, the media has likely towed the conservative line, but no thinking individual would imagine that it has truly adopted a conservative perspective. One year of conservative bias is nothing compared to what they have shown themselves capable of.
During peace time, the media had free reign, less competition, less pressure from the public, and more time to indulge their fancies, and here, they absolutely choose to tout liberal doctrine.
Now they are simply and desperately trying to satify everyone.
The current climate is dictating everything and the media, more concerned about staying alive than spreading its religion, is going along for the ride.
At the moment, it doesn't really have a choice.
jjirout
Danya writes: BAHAHAHAA. Are you trying to be funny or doing a little revisionism? The reality was the opposite of every word you just said.
Clinton was elected by a liberally biased media. That is what I saw through my own individual eyes and during a time when I was - although now ashamed to admit it - liberal. Disagree if you like, but insults are not necessary.
The media was not always liberal, nor is it presently touting liberal doctrine.
The liberal bent began in the 1960's as a reaction to the overwhelming conservative bent in the 1950's. The liberal bent escalated in the 1990's and after being severely criticized by much of the intellectual underground, it changed.
Presently, the media is unsure of itself. 1. It has been rightly criticized for being liberal 2. There is more competition in the news 2. And after 9/11, this country became sympathetic to conservativism.
Everything in your post is exactly what they've been doing for a year with the Scary Saddam stories. Talk about trying to forward a political agenda. I feel manipulated every time I watch the news.
As proof that there is no liberal bias look at the things they leave out.
Over the past year, the media has likely towed the conservative line, but no thinking individual would imagine that it has truly adopted a conservative perspective. One year of conservative bias is nothing compared to what they have shown themselves capable of.
During peace time, the media had free reign, less competition, less pressure from the public, and more time to indulge their fancies, and here, they absolutely choose to tout liberal doctrine.
Now they are simply and desperately trying to satify everyone.
The current climate is dictating everything and the media, more concerned about staying alive than spreading its religion, is going along for the ride.
At the moment, it doesn't really have a choice.
jjirout
In past years, I believe that the media has been unconscienable in its liberal bias, but I am not against liberalism. There are many policies that, thank god, liberals have implemented and despite conservative barriers. However, wholesome conservative values have contributed a great deal to our country's success.
How do you explain the differences?
I hope that no one here is so naive to believe that "conservatives want to destroy nature". Statements like this are ridiculous and avoid the heart of the matter entirely.
What is essentially the differences between the two ideologies?
In my understanding: Liberals focus on people; Conservatives focus on progress.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to insure that people are treated fairly. Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to insure that people have the freedom to progress.
Liberals are generally understood as supporting "single mother families" and socially progressive ideologies (gay rights). Conservatives are in support of the "nuclear family" and, traditional socially, look to ideologies that revolve around economic policies.
Saying that conservatives hate homosexuals (liberal myth #42) is like saying that liberals hate the economy. It is not hate here, but a different focus on what is important. If the focus is on progress, than the nuclear family has traditionally supported it. If the focus is on people, than the idealization of the nuclear family leaves many people out of the loop...
jjirout
How do you explain the differences?
I hope that no one here is so naive to believe that "conservatives want to destroy nature". Statements like this are ridiculous and avoid the heart of the matter entirely.
What is essentially the differences between the two ideologies?
In my understanding: Liberals focus on people; Conservatives focus on progress.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to insure that people are treated fairly. Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to insure that people have the freedom to progress.
Liberals are generally understood as supporting "single mother families" and socially progressive ideologies (gay rights). Conservatives are in support of the "nuclear family" and, traditional socially, look to ideologies that revolve around economic policies.
Saying that conservatives hate homosexuals (liberal myth #42) is like saying that liberals hate the economy. It is not hate here, but a different focus on what is important. If the focus is on progress, than the nuclear family has traditionally supported it. If the focus is on people, than the idealization of the nuclear family leaves many people out of the loop...
jjirout
I disagree with most of what you said. I didn't mean to insult you but I stand by the statement that you are 100% wrong about how the media treated Clinton while he was in office. Not to sidetrack but I have to back up my argument and really this is all perception on both of our parts but here's what I saw:
It wasn't the media that got him elected when he first ran. He was just a much better candidate. He was a relative unknown when he ran meaning he wasn't built up first or touted as a candidate for a couple of years ahead of time making a name or anything like that.
And being a wartime president Bush Sr. felt very confident in the beginning. I actually think Clinton coming along and being so popular(until the media got ahold of him) was a fluke. It was the debates that lost it for Bush and nothing else. Bush Sr. was shocked, crushed, and then bitter and the whole clan is still is.
It wasn't the media that got him elected when he first ran. He was just a much better candidate. He was a relative unknown when he ran meaning he wasn't built up first or touted as a candidate for a couple of years ahead of time making a name or anything like that.
And being a wartime president Bush Sr. felt very confident in the beginning. I actually think Clinton coming along and being so popular(until the media got ahold of him) was a fluke. It was the debates that lost it for Bush and nothing else. Bush Sr. was shocked, crushed, and then bitter and the whole clan is still is.
Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to insure that people have the freedom to progress.
Here is my view:
Less Government:
Conservatives SAY they are for less government but seem to be for putting limits on personal freedoms. Always interested in defining morality. Finding ways to introduce Christianity in government where it is better left alone. That seems like pro-government. When you say they are for less government I can only assume they mean for corporations being able to profit without rules or regulations.
Progress:
I don't see them as progressive in any sense. Maybe anti-progress even in things like medical technology. Progress would mean they would find alternative solutions to problems. Like fuel for cars. When Carter was in office we got our first clue that an alternative would have to be found and could be profitable if we were ahead of the game. Oil will eventually run out anyway. The environment part of it is nice but it would be progressive and profitable even if it did nothing for the environment. And we both know how they feel about social progress.
Fiscally Responsible.
They say they are the ones that are fiscally responsible and help the economy but from Reagan on they don't. They treat budgets like magical bottomless piggy banks. Economically, they are only good for the most wealthy and believe that if they are rich it will be good for everyone else because they can hire everyone.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to insure that people are treated fairly.
I wouldn't say it's completely up to them. It's the responsibility of society, employers, and law enforcement first. Government should be able to address grievances and enforce laws ensuring our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Liberals are generally understood as supporting "single mother families" and socially progressive ideologies (gay rights).
First of all, 'single mother families' are not a goal for liberals. That's why they promote birth control. I would say conservatives do more to support the number of single mothers by not doing enough to promote birth control. However, the alternative to single mothers are women forced to stay in or enter into an unhappy or unsafe marriage. Why? She might be a burden to the economy. Or are they looking for a Taliban type society? Government enforces morality.
Second liberals are socially progressive in that all people deserve the same basic opportunities and human respect. Liberals do not try to force a single culture, morality, religion, or lifestyle on the masses. I believe that consentual sex between adults should never be the business of government. Don't they want to leave us any privacy? Actually, gays would be good for the economy so I'm not sure why they don't support them.
Conservatives are in support of the "nuclear family" and, traditional socially, look to ideologies that revolve around economic policies.
In other words, they believe women should go back to their proper role. Marry, stay at home, have babies, and give men their jobs back. That lowers unemployment rates, keeps women dependent on their husbands. And powerless to try and leave him and possibly becoming a government burden.
I believe you are correct about that. It goes back to being non-progressive. But it's fruitless. They can't take back what we've already earned. And the very idea that they want to reverse the progress we've made in the hopes of a stronger economy is so repulsive. BTW, slavery might cause an economic boom. I don't know what stops them from publicly promoting that if they have the nerve to promote 'nuclear traditional families'.
Here is my view:
Less Government:
Conservatives SAY they are for less government but seem to be for putting limits on personal freedoms. Always interested in defining morality. Finding ways to introduce Christianity in government where it is better left alone. That seems like pro-government. When you say they are for less government I can only assume they mean for corporations being able to profit without rules or regulations.
Progress:
I don't see them as progressive in any sense. Maybe anti-progress even in things like medical technology. Progress would mean they would find alternative solutions to problems. Like fuel for cars. When Carter was in office we got our first clue that an alternative would have to be found and could be profitable if we were ahead of the game. Oil will eventually run out anyway. The environment part of it is nice but it would be progressive and profitable even if it did nothing for the environment. And we both know how they feel about social progress.
Fiscally Responsible.
They say they are the ones that are fiscally responsible and help the economy but from Reagan on they don't. They treat budgets like magical bottomless piggy banks. Economically, they are only good for the most wealthy and believe that if they are rich it will be good for everyone else because they can hire everyone.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to insure that people are treated fairly.
I wouldn't say it's completely up to them. It's the responsibility of society, employers, and law enforcement first. Government should be able to address grievances and enforce laws ensuring our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Liberals are generally understood as supporting "single mother families" and socially progressive ideologies (gay rights).
First of all, 'single mother families' are not a goal for liberals. That's why they promote birth control. I would say conservatives do more to support the number of single mothers by not doing enough to promote birth control. However, the alternative to single mothers are women forced to stay in or enter into an unhappy or unsafe marriage. Why? She might be a burden to the economy. Or are they looking for a Taliban type society? Government enforces morality.
Second liberals are socially progressive in that all people deserve the same basic opportunities and human respect. Liberals do not try to force a single culture, morality, religion, or lifestyle on the masses. I believe that consentual sex between adults should never be the business of government. Don't they want to leave us any privacy? Actually, gays would be good for the economy so I'm not sure why they don't support them.
Conservatives are in support of the "nuclear family" and, traditional socially, look to ideologies that revolve around economic policies.
In other words, they believe women should go back to their proper role. Marry, stay at home, have babies, and give men their jobs back. That lowers unemployment rates, keeps women dependent on their husbands. And powerless to try and leave him and possibly becoming a government burden.
I believe you are correct about that. It goes back to being non-progressive. But it's fruitless. They can't take back what we've already earned. And the very idea that they want to reverse the progress we've made in the hopes of a stronger economy is so repulsive. BTW, slavery might cause an economic boom. I don't know what stops them from publicly promoting that if they have the nerve to promote 'nuclear traditional families'.
ITA with Danya. I'd say more than that, but it would be a weak aftershock compared to D's post.
QUOTE(Danya @ Dec 26 2002, 01:24 AM)
Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to insure that people have the freedom to progress.
Here is my view:
Less
Progress:
I don't see them as progressive in any sense. Maybe anti-progress even in things like medical technology. Progress would mean they would find alternative solutions to problems. Like fuel for cars. When Carter was in office we got our first clue that an alternative would have to be found and could be profitable if we were ahead of the game. Oil will eventually run out anyway. The environment part of it is nice but it would be progressive and profitable even if it did nothing for the environment. And we both know how they feel about social progress.
Fiscally Responsible.
They say they are the ones that are fiscally responsible and help the economy but from Reagan on they don't. They treat budgets like magical bottomless piggy banks. Economically, they are only good for the most wealthy and believe that if they are rich it will be good for everyone else because they can hire everyone.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to insure that people are treated fairly.
I wouldn't say it's completely up to them. It's the responsibility of society, employers, and law enforcement first. Government should be able to address grievances and enforce laws ensuring our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Liberals are generally understood as supporting "single mother families" and socially progressive ideologies (gay rights).
First of all, 'single mother families' are not a goal for liberals. That's why they promote birth control. I would say conservatives do more to support the number of single mothers by not doing enough to promote birth control. However, the alternative to single mothers are women forced to stay in or enter into an unhappy or unsafe marriage. Why? She might be a burden to the economy. Or are they looking for a Taliban type society? Government enforces morality.
Second liberals are socially progressive in that all people deserve the same basic opportunities and human respect. Liberals do not try to force a single culture, morality, religion, or lifestyle on the masses. I believe that consentual sex between adults should never be the business of government. Don't they want to leave us any privacy? Actually, gays would be good for the economy so I'm not sure why they don't support them.
Conservatives are in support of the "nuclear family" and, traditional socially, look to ideologies that revolve around economic policies.
In other words, they believe women should go back to their proper role.
I believe you are correct about that. It goes back to being non-progressive. But it's fruitless. They can't take back what we've already earned. And the very idea that they want to reverse the progress we've made in the hopes of a stronger economy is so repulsive. BTW, slavery might cause an economic boom. I don't know what stops them from publicly promoting that if they have the nerve to promote 'nuclear traditional families'.
Here is my view:
Less
Progress:
I don't see them as progressive in any sense. Maybe anti-progress even in things like medical technology. Progress would mean they would find alternative solutions to problems. Like fuel for cars. When Carter was in office we got our first clue that an alternative would have to be found and could be profitable if we were ahead of the game. Oil will eventually run out anyway. The environment part of it is nice but it would be progressive and profitable even if it did nothing for the environment. And we both know how they feel about social progress.
Fiscally Responsible.
They say they are the ones that are fiscally responsible and help the economy but from Reagan on they don't. They treat budgets like magical bottomless piggy banks. Economically, they are only good for the most wealthy and believe that if they are rich it will be good for everyone else because they can hire everyone.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to insure that people are treated fairly.
I wouldn't say it's completely up to them. It's the responsibility of society, employers, and law enforcement first. Government should be able to address grievances and enforce laws ensuring our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Liberals are generally understood as supporting "single mother families" and socially progressive ideologies (gay rights).
First of all, 'single mother families' are not a goal for liberals. That's why they promote birth control. I would say conservatives do more to support the number of single mothers by not doing enough to promote birth control. However, the alternative to single mothers are women forced to stay in or enter into an unhappy or unsafe marriage. Why? She might be a burden to the economy. Or are they looking for a Taliban type society? Government enforces morality.
Second liberals are socially progressive in that all people deserve the same basic opportunities and human respect. Liberals do not try to force a single culture, morality, religion, or lifestyle on the masses. I believe that consentual sex between adults should never be the business of government. Don't they want to leave us any privacy? Actually, gays would be good for the economy so I'm not sure why they don't support them.
Conservatives are in support of the "nuclear family" and, traditional socially, look to ideologies that revolve around economic policies.
In other words, they believe women should go back to their proper role.
I believe you are correct about that. It goes back to being non-progressive. But it's fruitless. They can't take back what we've already earned. And the very idea that they want to reverse the progress we've made in the hopes of a stronger economy is so repulsive. BTW, slavery might cause an economic boom. I don't know what stops them from publicly promoting that if they have the nerve to promote 'nuclear traditional families'.
Danya writes: Conservatives SAY they are for less government but seem to be for putting limits on personal freedoms.
Your use of the term "seem" here is important. Yes, the media makes it "seem" this way. Huge generalities are easy for dimwits to accept and promote. But truth is never this simple. Truthfully, there are policies on both sides that want to put limits on personal freedoms, and there is a great deal of conflict within the parties themselves. The liberal media would have you believe that "all conservatives" want horrible things. It's unconscienable demonization and your going along for the ride.
But, don't let reason get in the way of your doctrine!
Always interested in defining morality.
You can't replace a value system with nothing. You can only replace a value system with a value system and liberals are presently striving to replace the conservative value system with an environmentally centered ideology. "The Environmental Movement" is as much an ideology as is conservative Christianity. Both parties are interested in defining morality.
Finding ways to introduce Christianity in government where it is better left alone.
Here, you are presuming righteousness and discounting other points of view entirely. Isn't this what liberals accuse conservatives of doing? Of being so involved in doctrine that it cannot tolerate opposing views. Perhaps anyone that believes something contrary to what you believe should be blacklisted...
That seems like pro-government. When you say they are for less government I can only assume they mean for corporations being able to profit without rules or regulations.
Of course you can only assume the worst because you believe that all conservatives are evil at heart. The liberal media is very effective.
Marry, stay at home, have babies, and give men their jobs back. That lowers unemployment rates, keeps women dependent on their husbands. And powerless to try and leave him and possibly becoming a government burden.
This is like saying that liberals support heavy drug use.
The liberal media has you believing that conservatives support 1940's ideology. They have been so effective.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
jjirout
Nice try but if you haven't noticed I have a brain of my own and don't rely on someone else- not the media, not a political party, not a church, and not a man, to tell me what to think or how to feel. These are all mine and if you don't like them you can dismiss them as being brainwashing if you want to. I could care less.
BTW, since I do not understand the way conservatives think...I am only trying to make sense of it. You aren't helping me do that. And you need to get over the environmental stuff...no one bases everything on the environment. Except maybe the green party but I don't know much about them either.
BTW, since I do not understand the way conservatives think...I am only trying to make sense of it. You aren't helping me do that. And you need to get over the environmental stuff...no one bases everything on the environment. Except maybe the green party but I don't know much about them either.
IT IS VERY TRUE
The major newspapers all over the country including, what is it?, New York Times? somethinglikethat.
Those are all liberal.
L. Zeved
The major newspapers all over the country including, what is it?, New York Times? somethinglikethat.
Those are all liberal.
L. Zeved
The major newspapers all over the country including, what is it?, New York Times? somethinglikethat.
Those are all liberal.
More sweeping statements with no substance. In other words...show me. Things aren't true simply because you say so. I'm not picking on you I'm just trying to give you a hint on posting styles...no one is going to pay a lot of attention to something that obviously has no thought process going on behind it.
Those are all liberal.
More sweeping statements with no substance. In other words...show me. Things aren't true simply because you say so. I'm not picking on you I'm just trying to give you a hint on posting styles...no one is going to pay a lot of attention to something that obviously has no thought process going on behind it.
Danya,
You are good. That's all I have to say about this, other than carry on!
The mainstream media does not support the nuclear family. It doesn't support the extended family. It doesn't support anything, period.
It is a vehicle for commercialism, AKA, capitalism.
Stick that in yer pipe and smuck it.
If you don't like it, support NPR and PBS, and try to push those media back to the original ideals.
Otherwise, embrace Fox and Ruppert Murdock. He loves to yank yah.
You are good. That's all I have to say about this, other than carry on!
The mainstream media does not support the nuclear family. It doesn't support the extended family. It doesn't support anything, period.
It is a vehicle for commercialism, AKA, capitalism.
Stick that in yer pipe and smuck it.
If you don't like it, support NPR and PBS, and try to push those media back to the original ideals.
Otherwise, embrace Fox and Ruppert Murdock. He loves to yank yah.
I wonder how well Danya would hold up in a conservative thread.
jjirout
jjirout
And Danya, I'm really not trying to be mean. I have been on both sides of this ideological battle. I have been very liberal, and I can sometimes really sympathsize with liberal points of view.
Yes, corporations play an all too important part in this struggle for power and influence, but Hollywood is in it just as deep, and they manipulate and exaggerate just as much.
There is some undeniable truth in Marxism. Who can argue with "class war" ideology? The rich keep the poor down. They do. And religion could reasonably be considered "the opium of the masses"; Christianity has been at odds with science for centuries. But sound doctrines are not immune to corruption.
United by these wonderful ideologies, The Soviet Union was a horrible place to live. Desolate. Corrupt. Hopeless. It is unfortunate, but people use sound ideology simply to further their own interests.
jjirout
Yes, corporations play an all too important part in this struggle for power and influence, but Hollywood is in it just as deep, and they manipulate and exaggerate just as much.
There is some undeniable truth in Marxism. Who can argue with "class war" ideology? The rich keep the poor down. They do. And religion could reasonably be considered "the opium of the masses"; Christianity has been at odds with science for centuries. But sound doctrines are not immune to corruption.
United by these wonderful ideologies, The Soviet Union was a horrible place to live. Desolate. Corrupt. Hopeless. It is unfortunate, but people use sound ideology simply to further their own interests.
jjirout
I have debated with conservatives. It's not a game and I'm not trying to win anything. Normally, the more conservative they are the more personal and insulting they can get. Think Limbaugh. Even before I knew anything about politics I couldn't stand listenting to that man.
I also have some conservative friends that I have debated and we respect each other very well. I don't feel that I have any fixed ideology. I don't look at an issue and ask myself what a democrat would do. I look at it and ask myself what would do the most good, be the most efficient, cause the least pain. That kind of thing.
But, make no mistake, I can be a sarcastic mean little witch. I'm not some peace-nick new aged hippie by any means. But go ahead and label me if you want to. I'm getting used to it. It comes with the territory when you try to express an idea or opinion. People think it can't be original, it must be planted there. Probably because so few people think for themselves anymore.
I also have some conservative friends that I have debated and we respect each other very well. I don't feel that I have any fixed ideology. I don't look at an issue and ask myself what a democrat would do. I look at it and ask myself what would do the most good, be the most efficient, cause the least pain. That kind of thing.
But, make no mistake, I can be a sarcastic mean little witch. I'm not some peace-nick new aged hippie by any means. But go ahead and label me if you want to. I'm getting used to it. It comes with the territory when you try to express an idea or opinion. People think it can't be original, it must be planted there. Probably because so few people think for themselves anymore.
Yup, conservatives can get a little nasty when you don't agree with them. Right here on this board, I've been called
Absolutely crazy
One who doesn't read (2 times)
Filled with hate
One who must be prayed for
Closed minded
One who has never had a thought proce
Unwashed
There's more, but this is what comes to mind right now.
Madtown
Absolutely crazy
One who doesn't read (2 times)
Filled with hate
One who must be prayed for
Closed minded
One who has never had a thought proce
Unwashed
There's more, but this is what comes to mind right now.
Madtown
Try posting conservative or libertarian thoughts at www.smirkingchimp.com (A far left website). I was called white trash, moron, idiot, neanderthal, etc before they started deleting all my comments. Actually I seldom hear Rush, unlike most of the Rush wannabees, attack a liberal caller personally. Liberals hate Rush because he is a threat to them.
Check out a site called DemocraticUnderground.com. There isn't a conservative alive that they haven't called a whore. They are the nastiest, most hateful vile spewing people I have run across.
Liberals have gotten more vindictive since the last election. A lot of sore losers.
QUOTE(hugo @ Dec 29 2002, 12:59 PM)
Liberals have gotten more vindictive since the last election. A lot of sore losers.
Please share some examples, hugo.
QUOTE(Danya @ Dec 26 2002, 11:51 PM)
Danya writes: Think Limbaugh. Even before I knew anything about politics I couldn't stand listenting to that man.
You may dislike Limbaugh, but he has made some astute points over the years.
I look at it and ask myself what would do the most good, be the most efficient, cause the least pain.
But responding with knee jerk emotional reactions to cool handed statements shuts down communication.
But go ahead and label me if you want to. I'm getting used to it. It comes with the territory when you try to express an idea or opinion. .
So far, everything that you have written has been embraced and purported by influential organizations.
People think it can't be original, it must be planted there. Probably because so few people think for themselves anymore
It is illogical to assume that my opinion about your lack of originiality is derived from a lack of originality on my part. You don't need to be feeling rage in order to identify that it is prevalent in someone else...
jjirout
QUOTE(Danya @ Dec 25 2002, 12:10 PM)
The liberalism in the news media is truth.
If that were true the news would be full of stories about the criminals that Bush seems to favor when filling posts and Enron stories like we did Clinton/Monica/Whitewater.
[b
If that were true the news would be full of stories about the criminals that Bush seems to favor when filling posts and Enron stories like we did Clinton/Monica/Whitewater.
[b
THese supposed criminals that President Bush is using to fill government posts, where are they? Another figment of liberal imagination. In fact the opposite is true. One of the many hallmarks of Bush's term so far is the lack of scandal and the attention to serious matters. Unlike the CLinton years, when we had former bar bouncers(Craig LIvingston) nosing through REpublicans FBI files, or taudry affairs occurring regularly, now we have a PResident who is actually attending to the work that was left untouched for eight years. Thanks to CLinton, our borders, our military, our security was criminally neglect. Now G.W. and all of Congress and the Senate see the huge work to be done. But nobody wants to do the hard stuff like cutting budgets or keeping program at freeze levels. THe bias of the media is a myth. I never believed that media outlets are for one party or another. It is not in their best interests. Besides everybody knows that the Democrats always produce the best bedroom gossip that America seems to love, for whatever reason.
Jaime, you can find plenty of examples at www.smirkingchimp.com.
Iran-Contra scandal conspirators current line of work in the Bush administration:
1. JOHN POINDEXTER- Convicted in 1990 on five felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice (the conviction was later overturned); now heading the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness Project
2.ELLIOTT ABRAMS- Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress (he was later pardoned by the first President Bush); recently promoted to serve as Bush's point man on the Middle East
3. JOHN NEGROPONTE -Ambassador to Honduras while illegal aid was funneled through that country to the Contras; now serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
4. OTTO REICH- In charge of an agency accused of running a covert propaganda campaign against the Nicaraguan government; now serving as the State Department's special envoy to Latin America
1. JOHN POINDEXTER- Convicted in 1990 on five felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice (the conviction was later overturned); now heading the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness Project
2.ELLIOTT ABRAMS- Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress (he was later pardoned by the first President Bush); recently promoted to serve as Bush's point man on the Middle East
3. JOHN NEGROPONTE -Ambassador to Honduras while illegal aid was funneled through that country to the Contras; now serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
4. OTTO REICH- In charge of an agency accused of running a covert propaganda campaign against the Nicaraguan government; now serving as the State Department's special envoy to Latin America
The Iran-Contra affair is a perfect example of how conservative the bias is in our media.
Thats funny....Lack of scandal? Hardly. I think the Onion said it best when it had the headline "People would be outraged if they understood Enron." The Bush scandals are just too complicated for laymen to understand and its hard to grasp things economically (at least it is for me). Clinton had an easy scandal, because everyone understands the taboo of having sex.
I actually hate him because I think hes a bigot who perpetuates stupidity. Ive only heard him a few times, and most of it was about how we should bomb some countries, and that people really shouldnt read.....I guess it is threatening to think that a society embraces him and what he stands for. Aside from which, he has constantly misrepresented news reports, or gotten facts wrong. Why does anyone bother believing his crap?
QUOTE
THese supposed criminals that President Bush is using to fill government posts, where are they? Another figment of liberal imagination. In fact the opposite is true. One of the many hallmarks of Bush's term so far is the lack of scandal and the attention to serious matters.
Thats funny....Lack of scandal? Hardly. I think the Onion said it best when it had the headline "People would be outraged if they understood Enron." The Bush scandals are just too complicated for laymen to understand and its hard to grasp things economically (at least it is for me). Clinton had an easy scandal, because everyone understands the taboo of having sex.
QUOTE
Liberals hate Rush because he is a threat to them.
I actually hate him because I think hes a bigot who perpetuates stupidity. Ive only heard him a few times, and most of it was about how we should bomb some countries, and that people really shouldnt read.....I guess it is threatening to think that a society embraces him and what he stands for. Aside from which, he has constantly misrepresented news reports, or gotten facts wrong. Why does anyone bother believing his crap?
Kim,For someone who has only listened to Rush a few times you sure know a lot about him. Rush is no bigot. That is just what liberals call everyone who opposes their minority preference programs.
I've avoided him since the mid 90's but back then he was defninitley a bigotted hate monger. He's only a threat to the soft minded people that listen to him.
For my two cents, I agree with most of what Rush says, but I don't listen much anymore....he talks to much and does not have on enough callers to debate.
There's a great Libertarian talk show host named Neal Boortz who is just as offensive to liberals, but debates callers much more.
I would like to hear a liberal radio show, it'd be entertaining, but thats one arena the conservatives have locked up.
There's a great Libertarian talk show host named Neal Boortz who is just as offensive to liberals, but debates callers much more.
I would like to hear a liberal radio show, it'd be entertaining, but thats one arena the conservatives have locked up.
If Rush was only a threat to the intelligent people that listen to him the Democrats would not be trying to figure out how to counter talk radio. My guess is another attempt at censorship.
Well, that's one thing I must not have in common with the democrats. Besides, the last time there was a popular liberal radio host he was murdered.
QUOTE(hugo @ Dec 29 2002, 12:43 PM)
Try posting conservative or libertarian thoughts at www.smirkingchimp.com (A far left website).
Well, yeah - it's an unashamedly liberal blog. Try posting a liberal or progressive thought at a far right web site, Hugo - oh, my God!QUOTE(dontreadonme109 @ Dec 29 2002, 12:48 PM)
Check out a site called DemocraticUnderground.com. There isn't a conservative alive that they haven't called a whore. They are the nastiest, most hateful vile spewing people I have run across.
Check out a site called FreeRepublic.com. There isn't a liberal alive - or dead - that they haven't called a whore or far worse. And there are a fair number of living liberals that they've wished dead. They are the nastiest, most hateful vile spewing people I have ever run across - and I've run across a lot of people.QUOTE(hugo @ Dec 29 2002, 12:59 PM)
Liberals have gotten more vindictive since the last election. A lot of sore losers.
Er - I think you mean sore winners - but, then, you've probably been mislead by the "liberal" media.
I think the point Madtown was making was that she's been on the receiving end of some pretty vile invective here - on an allegedly neutral discussion board. I've only been posting here for a few months, but have not noticed similar language coming from the left at all (well, apart from a few of my own posts, maybe). I have followed threads at SmirkingChimp and FreeRepublic and there are, granted, a lot of attacks on the opposition in both places. However, I have also posted to a number of more or less neutral boards and, in my experience, the extremists on the right tend to far more abusive than anyone on the left. There are, of course, aggressive, offensive posters on both sides, but having posted to political debates in a wide variety of forums for several years now, the right wing (again, in my personal experience) has a definite edge on nastiness.
Hmmm...this is probably venturing off topic, so I apologize in advance, but Wertz, could you define 'sore winners'?
The election Hugo was referring to didn't exactly go to the liberals.
And I have lurked for quite some time at FR, didn't come away with quite the same impression.
The election Hugo was referring to didn't exactly go to the liberals.
And I have lurked for quite some time at FR, didn't come away with quite the same impression.
DontTread: I refer primarily to the media portraying the 2002 election as some great victory for the Republican Party and President Bush. On the contrary, it was a very close election, with a lot of very close races. There were thirty races where party control of the seat changed: the Democrats and Republicans each won fifteen. That's even closer than the 2000 presidential election. The Republicans gained two entire seats in the Senate and four in the House - some mandate. Democrats won governor's races in the key presidential battleground states of Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (which had all been Republican seats) - and Democrats gained three gubernatorial seats overall. In the Lousianna run-off, where the RNC spent an unprecedented amount of time, money, and personal appearances by big party guns, including the President, the Democratic candidate won. None of this is a very good showing for a wartime president with ridiculously inflated popularity figures. Yet to hear the "liberal" media reports of the election, 2002 was something of a landslide. Hardly.
If there's been an increase in vindictiveness by liberals as a result of the last election, though, I'd suggest that it has primarily been directed at the Democratic Party for being such a crowd of whimps and their failure to challenge the autocratic Bush administration in any meaningful way - indeed, to have capitulated far too often of issues of import.
And, DTOM, lurking among the Freepers is one thing; try posting something critical of the Bush administration (or, worse, say something negative about Reagan) - then be prepared to "duck and cover".
We now join our regularly scheduled thread already in progress:
As talk radio has come up several times now - and Rush Limbaugh in particular - I should add to the excellent piece that Kimpossible quoted. Liberal talk-radio hosts, it must be admitted, are almost non-existent. Conservatives blame this on the low ratings of liberal talk show hosts - which is a curious argument considering the sheer size of the liberal wing among the US population. The fact is that corporate owners of the media simply do not promote liberal talk show hosts. When ABC first hired Rush Limbaugh, they spent millions promoting him, ghost-writing his books, and arranging appearances on Nightline, The McNeil/Lehrer Report, and even Donahue. No liberal talk show host has received anything even remotely resembling this kind of promotion. It's just another way that corporations ensure the conservative slant of the media.
If there's been an increase in vindictiveness by liberals as a result of the last election, though, I'd suggest that it has primarily been directed at the Democratic Party for being such a crowd of whimps and their failure to challenge the autocratic Bush administration in any meaningful way - indeed, to have capitulated far too often of issues of import.
And, DTOM, lurking among the Freepers is one thing; try posting something critical of the Bush administration (or, worse, say something negative about Reagan) - then be prepared to "duck and cover".
We now join our regularly scheduled thread already in progress:
As talk radio has come up several times now - and Rush Limbaugh in particular - I should add to the excellent piece that Kimpossible quoted. Liberal talk-radio hosts, it must be admitted, are almost non-existent. Conservatives blame this on the low ratings of liberal talk show hosts - which is a curious argument considering the sheer size of the liberal wing among the US population. The fact is that corporate owners of the media simply do not promote liberal talk show hosts. When ABC first hired Rush Limbaugh, they spent millions promoting him, ghost-writing his books, and arranging appearances on Nightline, The McNeil/Lehrer Report, and even Donahue. No liberal talk show host has received anything even remotely resembling this kind of promotion. It's just another way that corporations ensure the conservative slant of the media.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.