Reply #132: There is an important difference.. [View All]

[sendero]

.... between bias and control. There is not much question that large segments of the news media are infected with right wing bias. But control? No.

Do you think Americans would have ever seen the debacle called Katrina if there was control? Do you think that any of the handful of tv personalities who have gone from decisively pro-Bush to decisively anti-Bush would still be on the air if there was "control"?

Do you think that back in the 70s when the media was decidedly liberal, that someone was "controlling" it? No.

Yes the media is biased. There is no quick remedy to that situation, yet it is actually a self-correcting one IMHO. The media cannot allow their reporting and spin to diverge too far from reality, their credibility (already lost for many here, but not in the whole country) is at stake.

There are two factors that can realistically change things. First, Bush is toast, his credibility is shot and no matter how much the media spins it is not coming back. They might be able to stop the bleeding, but they cannot put the blood back. All of the pundits who continue to act like Bush is not the abject failure that he is run the risk of being considered irrelevant. So I think you will see Bush being covered in a positive light less and less.

Second, and I've made this point early and often, Dems are total failures at manipulating the media compared to Republicans. The news media lives on controversy, drama, outrageousness. The Reps serve it up with glee while Dems make nuanced policy statements that Americans TUNE OUT.

Bottom line, yes the media is biased but their mandate is still to make money. Sure there are shows that retain sponsorship because despite bad ratings. But to act like it is an either/or situation, that there isn't a mix of manipulation and self-interest, is unrealistic.