The U.S. Media with respect to Bush

[Loyal]

Let me say first of all, that I'm a political novice. I watch political talk shows sometimes and I watched the debates, but I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. Let me say this though: I have seen a lot of 9/11 documentaries and other Bush biographical things like the one I am watching right now, on tv lately. I am beginning to think that the media, which is controlled by fewer and fewer corporations each year, is favoring Bush over the Democratic candidates seeking to replace him. I feel like they are trying to prop him up because they feel he is friendlier to their corporate interests. I don't mean to start conspiracy theories or anything, this is just the way I feel. Any thoughts, links, or comments to help me understand this would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[madmax]

1. A list of great books that will confirm all your fears.

Big Lies by Joe Conason

What Liberal Media by Eric Alterman

[spooky3]

12. Pigs at the Trough by Arianna Huffington

[spooky3]

13. sorry, I duped someone else

[MasonJar]

2. Welcome, Loyal

This is a no-brainer. Since before the 2000 election, it has been painfully clear that the media was assisting Bush in his campaign. Our archives at DU are full of examples.

[Brucey]

3. You are right,

for a novice you have noticed what most people haven't. The big lie that the media is liberal has been swallowed by many. But you got it right, the media are owned by big conservative corporations (the least democratic institutions on earth). Corporations are dictatorships that work to keep in power those that help them; that is currently Bush and friends. Glad to have you with us - and it is very refreshing to see someone who admits they are just learning and hit the nail on the head!

[Zuni]

6. Media is different

Their best interest is putting out what people want to see and hear. If Bush is high in the polls, expect a lot of glowing praise. If he is low, expect attacks.

[Zuni]

10. wait

A Corporation is not by definition conservative. Look at Ted Turner--he married Jane Fonda and donated a billion to the UN.
They are not dictaorships, but they will promote politicians who are favorable.
I see media corporations as a different breed than Halliburton though.

[Brucey]

15. Are you confusing people with corporations?

Are there some corporations that elect their leaders, foremen, comptrollers, etc. by democratic means? I know there are corporations that do good work and help society. But aren't they dictatorships? What the boss says goes?

[madmax]

4. Links for you

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/media.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html

And Welcome to DU :)

[ixion]

5. Welcome to DU, Loyal....

You're not the only one who feels that way.

Glad to have you as part of the family. :toast:

Read Al Franken's latest, "LIES, and the Lying Liars who tell them"
It will open your eyes.

:hi:

[wryter2000]

7. Smart thinking, loyal

You've figured out on your own what most people will not get.

Welcome to DU

[Loyal]

8. Ok, here's a stupid question

I posted above in this thread why I feel the media is biased towards Bush. Now that we've established that, where do I go for all my news? I sometimes look at LBN, but it doesn't have all of the news that I want. I need suggestions! :D

[Zuni]

9. I disagree: Here is why

Media corporations are dependant on people watching them. So they are going to put out things that will increase their viewing audience. Before 9/11, the media was generally unfavorable to Bush. After 9/11, untill Iraq the media was largely favorable to him. The attacks in the media have become more and more common now. Why? Because Bush'e poll numbers have gone down, so the Media is pless wary of being more critical of him. As his poll numbers go down more, expect the media to be even more critical.
Media corporations will do anything to get a larger audience, which is their sole interest.

[unblock]

16. buzzzz, incorrect, thank you for playing.

nice try, but don't fall for that myth. if we had genuine competition, then sure, the media would be falling over each other for market share however they could get it.

but we don't have genuine competition, the right has a monopoly on news/opinion programming on the radio, and a near monopoly on television as well. so people listen to these programs even if they would prefer a less biased and/or more liberal slant simply because they're the only such shows on.

if there were only liberal opinion shows on, they would be just as popular, the right would listen but would get as annoyed as we liberals do with the present situation.

furthermore, the goal of the media (having abandoned any sense of moral duty to actually inform, present the truth, or be really fair and balances) is to make money. true, market share can help achieve this, but it's not the only was.

first of all, demographics are important. reaching a large audience is one thing, but reaching a well defined group is better, especially if it's a group the will spend money in response to advertising. again, market share helps here, but the media can often make more money on a program that appeals to a few people with plenty of spare cash (golf shows come to mind) than a program that appeals to a large number of people who don't have the means to have their spending swayed in response to advertising.

finally, the owners can also make money by thing quite unrelated to market share, e.g., tax savings, dividend deductions, easier mergers, less regulation or scrutiny, etc. THIS is why the media owners love bush, and used their corporate powers to help him out.

sadly,reality is often far more complex and less innocent than a simple idyllic myth.

[Q]

11. You're very perceptive for a 'novice'...

...and it's not just a 'feeling'. The American media IS owned by just a few corporations now and it should be obvious to anyone that they helped install George in office...and continue to cover for his lies and deceit.

- Good call.

[unblock]

14. look no further than the bush-gore debates

the first one especially, gore CRUSHED bush.

gore looked informed, knowledgeable, confident, in control, communicative, friendly, and very presidential.

bush looked like he was running for president of a fraternity and had nothing more to run on than a false promise of free beer for all. it was all he could do to finish a sentence. he was an embarassment.

and yet the commentators quickly dubbed dubya the winner, or maybe called it a draw. absolutely insane. inexcusable. explainable only by flagrant bias toward bush.

what got to me most was when gore walked over to bush (one of those 'ooh, look, a debate tactic') and bush was obviously startled and jumped back when he was gore 'in his space'. this is not the reaction of a leader. this is the reaction of a frightened little man who would pee in his pants if, say, we were attacked by terrorists; then he would have go way overboard on the vengeance quest to cover his initial, yellow reaction.

just imagine if it were reversed, and bush was coherent and confident, and gore was bumbling and speaking non-answers in sentence fragments. anyone wanna claim the media would have declared it a gore win or at worst a tie?

[Brucey]

17. You are correcto!