The media

[Roon]

I hang out in DU, freeperville, and in the yahoo chats. One thing that is indisputable is the media is hated on both sides. Both sides hate hardball for instance. This tells me that the media is doing a good job. What do you all think?

[agingdem]

1. And the color of the sky in your world is...?

[Roon]

4. Look

Both sides hate the media, how would YOU interpret that?

[agingdem]

9. What I know is this...

Bush is a media creation...they made this failed know-nothing frat boy into a viable candidate. They maligned Gore, said he was a geek...a wonk..cold, while their guy was warm, compassionate...full of humor...great guy to have a beer with. They stood in awe of Karl Rove...admired his political acumen...so he destroyed everything and everyone in his path...too bad the Dems didn't have one like him...and then 9/11...uh oh...have to make Bush look strong...call him resolute, determined...never mind that Curious George was flying the friendly skies, afraid to land...How about doing their due diligence pre-Iraq attack...not gonna happen...war is cool, war is neat...shock and awe. Unprovoked...who cares...no weapons of mass destruction..who cares...our kids dying, maimed...who cares. John Kerry...effete, stiff...not a real man like George...love the purple heart band aids. Their side hates the media, do you mean the media that has its lips firmly attached to Bush's ass?...too bad.

[Roon]

11. the right hates the media just as much as you do eom

[Dr Fate]

16. They hate any fact that happens to make Bush look bad.

We hate it when facts are omitted or lied about.

[Roon]

20. Ok, I gotcha...n/t

[CarolNYC]

32. It goes way back before Rove....

Rove never would have had the success he did without the decades of groundwork that had been laid by very smart conservatives who figured out how to control the message and had the money to actually do it...They've been at this a LONG time....I can't recommend Brock's book enough....Everyone should read it.

[CarolNYC]

2. The media is doing a lousy job...but the right wing

is doing a marvelous job of convincing people that there is a liberal bias to the media, even as that same media spouts right wing talking points at every turn.

Read David Brock's "Republican Noise Machine".

[Warpy]

3. check out FAIR's survey of the media

and get back to us.

Freepers hate the media because they bought the lie that it's liberal.

DU hates the media because of their massive lies by omission.

I simply have no use for any of them. I switched off on 11/2/04 and have never found a reason to tune back in.

[Roon]

5. Interesting!

Could you spare some examples?

[Dr Fate]

15. How about their refusal to report the truth about Powell's U.N. Speech?

Foreign & independent media reported all the forged & plagerized documents w/i hours or days. This was BEFORE the invasion.

Freepers hate the media when they present facts that happen to make Bush look bad. We hate the media for what they refuse to report important facts or for reporting outright lies as facts.

[Roon]

26. I have been getting a lot of that tonight

What they DON'T report...

[Dr Fate]

35. Bias by ommision is a fact. n/t

n/t

[Writer]

18. FAIR is a liberal site who is convinced that the media are conservative.

That is not exactly an apolitical assessment.

[ragin_acadian]

52. i'm a FAIR subscriber,

i think it is more complex than just being convinced that the media is conservative. from what i have seen, FAIR claims the media is corporate - the media collaborates with the republican party to ensure that they stay in power to further deregulate the various industries that the parent companies of the media are in. it's not that outrageous an idea, and it makes good business sense if you look at it from the perspective of say, GE or something - another thing to consider is the effects advertising have on news coverage -

Bagdikian and Rampton/Stauber say pretty much the same thing - the media is not inherently tilted right, it just serves their purpose to keep the right in power.

that is a pretty apolitical assessment.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Media smells like shit and is bought and paid for.....

by corporate entities--see General Electric, Time-Warner, Viacom, etc., etc., etc.

No the media is NOT doing its job.
If it were, we would NOT:

1. Be bogged down in Iraq Today.

2. Feeling that the WireTapping Scandal has been hushed down to a whisper

3. have the feeling that most voters do not understand the problem with Diebold voting machines.

4. be seeing Cheney's face....cause he should be under the jail for allowing the leak of a Covert CIA Agent.

5. Be told that Democrats don't have ideas about Iraq by the media over and over again. The Democrats have a variety of plans, they just don't get any press coverage...plus, they are not the ones that made this bigAss mess.....so why should they hold the key in closing up Pandora's Box.

6. Be told that Democrats are "soft" on National Defense, when it was Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman and JFK who were the strongest on National Defense during our history.

7. be ignorant about the fact that it is America that provided a lot of Chemical WMDs to Iraq years ago.

8. have to endured the devotion of News readers' obsession with missing blondes in Aruba.

9. have been frightened unreasonably about some Pandemic Bird Shit Flu.

10. have to hear them telling us that 9/11 changed everything...when it really is business as Usual, except for when a Bin laden Tape is released during convenient political times beneficial to this White House.

12. Making us feel like New Orleans is "back again" based on some Mardi Gras sham parade...when New Orleans is barely on the road to recovery.

13. De-emphazise how much money we have spent in Iraq.

14. De-emphazise the Casualties of Americans and Iraqis by not showing the realities or war.

Shit...I could go on, but I'm getting depressed just listing all of the things that the "Bought and Paid for by your friendly giant corporation" FREE Press has missed the ball on.

So the answer to your questions is HELL NAW! considering that the Media's job is to inform.....not to opine, speculate, spread rumors, and cherry pick what's news.....they are doing a fucked up lousy job!

[Roon]

7. Those are some great examples

but for every one you post, the right could refute it with a post of their own.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So why don't you go over there....and post some of those here?

That way we can debate "their posts"....cause it ain't about having something to post (cause like opinions, everyone has one), but rather whether their posts can be demonstrated as being so.

Your response here reminds me of C-Span with the call in shows. One Democrat, One Republican and one Non affiliated. Each has a turn...so many would argue that this is balanced; problem is it doesn't give us an insight on what is the majority view. i.e., an issue polls 3 to 1 pro...yet if one would watch C-Span, one would get the impression that the issue stands at 50/50. So again, it ain't about the fact that they have something to post...more like what is the voracity of what those posts hold in their content.

[Roon]

10. I'd post over there, if I could

but the fact remains...both sides hate the media

[FrenchieCat]

12. Hate is not a fact, hate is an emotion....

I don't hate the media (ain't got the time nor the fortitude), but you did ask me if I felt that it was doing its job.....
I answered NO, and gave you reasons why I thought not.

What are the reasons the Right gives for "hating" the media? Specifically....

[Dr Fate]

14. They hate it when media presents facts that happen to make Bush look bad

That is the definition of "Liberal media": facts that happen to make Bush look bad.

WE hate it when they IGNORE facts or present out-right lies.

The presentation of "facts that happen to make Bush look bad" are few & far between considering how many scandals exist at once.

[Roon]

25. by not reporting the success in Iraq

not reporting the great economy,the success in afghanistan, etc.

[FrenchieCat]

29. when the Iraqi people and our soldiers stop dying....

from explosions and such....when the unemployment rate in Iraq is reduced....when 80% of Iraq has electricity for more than 4 hours a day.....

then we can start reporting on how peachy keen the new schools are and such.

[Dr Fate]

39. I see, so Freeps want the MSM to make up even MORE lies.

THEN they will be happy! ;)

But really, the media does focus on what few good things are happening over there- like elections- they really harp on that one.

[Dr Fate]

13. Are the Freepers mad b/c the media was opposed to going into Iraq?

Or are they mad because the media opposed tax cuts?

Are they mad b/c the media ran countless reports about the faked WMD evidence in the days leading up to the war?

Are they mad at all the openly pro-Democratic talk show hosts on cable news?

I KNOW- they are mad at the media for siding with Micheal Moore!!!

[Writer]

17. It means that the media are doing an exemplary job...

of not consistently taking one side over another. But that we'll never cease reading our own biases into every report we read.

[Roon]

21. OK

I think that's the answer I was looking for.

[Dr Fate]

36. They DID take one side on the invasion of Iraq....

And they did take sides when they all called for Clinton to resign. A call they have not made for Bush yet.

THey all took the side that "Al Gore is liar" and "Kerry is a flip-flopper."

What are the pro-DEM/anti-Repub parallels to these examples?

[FrenchieCat]

41. Bullshit to all that you said.......Ask Walter Cronkite and

Ted Turner and Moyeres.....the "REAL" journalists and the guys that were on the front lines and they will tell you what I tell you-- Today's media is fucking us bigtime!

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010507/moyers
BILL MOYERS--
What's the role of journalism in all this? The founders of our nation were pretty explicit on this point. The First Amendment is the first for a reason. It's needed to keep our leaders honest and to arm the powerless with the information they need to protect themselves against the tyranny of the powerful, whether that tyranny is political or commercial.
snip
The Founders didn't count on the rise of mega-media. They didn't count on huge private corporations that would own not only the means of journalism but also vast swaths of the territory that journalism should be covering. According to a recent study done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press for the Columbia Journalism Review, more than a quarter of journalists polled said they had avoided pursuing some newsworthy stories that might conflict with the financial interests of their news organizations or advertisers. And many thought that complexity or lack of audience appeal causes newsworthy stories not to be pursued in the first place.

TED TURNER--
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.
Snip

without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.

WALTER CRONKITE--
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/cronkite.shtml
I think the concern today is that the ownership of the networks, it does not have the background of clear-cut responsibility in broadcasting that the pioneers had. It's not the fault of anybody in particular except they've come along in the second and third generation when that responsibility has not been pounded into them as it was with the pioneers with the government itself having some doubts about how licenses should be granted and so forth. So they have inherited a growing business. Business. Not a, not a gut feeling that the others had about the future of broadcasting and what broadcasting would do for the country and bringing the nation together, linking cities with these wire arrangement. That's no part of their thinking. Their thinking is how do you maximize profit. You do it by entertainment, primarily. News is hanging in there still but unfortunately as a profit center, became that partly because of 60 Minutes, and that has changed the attitude. In the early days of television went on for years the news broadcasts were lost leaders. They were prestige items. The networks spent the money to build up the news department because that's the way the public judged their discharge of public responsibility. That doesn't exist any more, that's gone.

[KansDem]

19. It's a lot like Pavlov's dogs

The neo-Cons have been conditioned since the Watergate, Reagan, and Iran-contra eras to "hate" the media because they're "liberal." So when one mentions "media" to a right-winger, he instinctively begins to salivate, and scream "LIBERAL!"

I don't like the media because they are not doing their jobs. In essence, each member of the media is a sinecure, refusing to investigate and report stories that might be damaging to Bush.

[Roon]

23. So, it;s what they don't report

I heard that from another poster. It's a great point!

[KansDem]

46. Essentially, we have a dichotomy.

Right-wing conservatives despise the media because of what it will do: report and investigate corruption and wrong-doing in government. That's how we learned about Watergate and Iran-Contra, both incidents that was leading to impeachment of the GOP POTUS.

Left-wing liberals despise the media because of what it won't do: it won't report and investigate corruption and wrong-doing in government, like 9/11, WMDs, Plame, Katrina, etc. So we won't learn about these incidents that would lead to the impeachment of a GOP POTUS.

Oh, and the fact that Fox, CNN, and others have been lying and misinforming for the past several years in order to prop up the present GOP regime doesn't set too well with lefties, either.

[Ciggies and coffee]

22. Think?

I would rather drink after thinking how much they make us fight each other.

[President Jesus]

24. blaming 'the media' is the first sign you are...

...on the losing end of a national issue.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just telling it like it is.

[Roon]

27. If that were true..

both sides feel they are at the losing end. Is this good?

[President Jesus]

33. yes, but rarely on the same issue

I didn't say "losing side" in general, I said "losing side of a national issue."

For example, barely a Democrat is crying about the massive coverage of both Dick Cheney's shooting or the UAE port deal, while Republicans are all a flutter.

Conversely, our side is outraged over the lack of coverage on election shenanigans while the Republicans couldn't have been happier.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Blaming the media is because the media needs to be blamed

cause they aren't doing their goddamn job.

How is reporting on a blond missing in Aruba for a whole fucking month as though it was the only event going on doing a job? In the meantime, any stories dealing with our corrupt government last about two days max before the media starts complaining about itself to itself if they bother to cover the story at all?

How is the media speculating on how Hillary is the Democratic nominee for election 2008, literally "telling" us that's what it's gonna be....while neglecting to report on various races for 2006, doing a job?

And in reference to your statement....
HELL YEAH WE ARE ON THE LOSING END OF MOST NATIONAL ISSUES....CAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL LOSE WHEN THE 4TH ESTATE DOES A JOB "ON" THE POPULACE IT IS SUPPOSED TO SERVE INSTEAD OF DOING A JOB "FOR" THE POPULACE IN ORDER TO SERVE IT.

The media stinks like a 10 year old camembert.....and that is pretty damn strong and nasty!

[President Jesus]

34. perhaps you should buy a newspaper or change the channel

uhhh, 'the media' does not equal CNN and Fox News. In fact, they only serve about 4% of the electorate, combined.

Watch the News Hour and buy a NY Times if you don't want to hear about Natalie Holloway.

[Dr Fate]

38. You mean Judith Miller's not-so- reluctant employers can be trusted?

I'll pass on that one.

[President Jesus]

43. good Lord, it must suck to be so perfect

I mean, you are surrounded by incompetence everywhere, and cannot tolerate anything that is not 100% to your liking and 100% ideologically pure.

Yes, dismiss the entire NY Times because a writer or two doesn't meet your purity standard. The whole product is therefore worthless.

I wonder why you even need to read or watch any news product, since you seem to know it all already.

[Dr Fate]

49. I dismiss them because they helped Bush lie us into a war.

I know- small stuff.

[Dr Fate]

60. I also dismiss them for with holding the wire-tap story until after '04.

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

40. CNN and Fox News lead the others, if you haven't noticed....

cause you see, there are the owned and there are the boughts.

Newsweek is owned by Washington Post Corporation, who also owns guess what? Yep...the WAPO. In addition, Newsweek works closely with MSNBC (see the Newsweek on line website for the MSNBC logo) which like it's sister station CNBC and its network mother NBC are all owned by General Electric. Time-Warner owns...well...the Times and other publications as well as CNN who closely collaborate with ABC owned by Disney. Fox....well we know that Murdock has a media empire and collaborates with the Washington Times, the London Mirror and a few others.

So please advise....what papers or publications should I read in order to stay "informed".

But in the end....this ain't about me and what I think....it's about the average woman and man out there and how the news is "doing them", as a whole, a great diservice.

Please understand something that I believe is important...this ain't personal. So don't make it be that. Compris?

[President Jesus]

45. when you find me a journalist that tells us that...

...some corporate overlord instructed him/her to report x,y,or z, or even an editor at say WaPo instructs and editor at Newsweek to cover x a certain way, I'll give your theory a touch of credence.

Until then, I see it as a severe tinfoil hat trick.

What corporate overlord was the NY Times serving when they broke the domestic spying story?

And to answer your post above, I totally reject that CNN and Fox lead the way. All they do is pick up on original reporting done that morning by the NY Times, WaPo, or regurgitate what Drudge has culled out of the AP and Reuters.

[FrenchieCat]

47. You are wrong about that.....and how regurgitating what Drudge prints

Journalism?

The New York Times didn't lead with the Missing Blonde in Aruba for a Month.

I totally reject your defense of this Good for Nothing media. The Associated Press ain't all that either. They are also biased. I know, cause I watch them like a hawk!

One day you will wake up....until then, you know little of what you speak!

PS. Your name irritates me....cause Jesus, you ain't!

[Dr Fate]

50. Why would a journalist speak ill of the man who signs his pay check?

???

[Dr Fate]

37. Were we on the losing side when we asserted Bush was lying about WMDs?

Or was the media just refusing to report the documented truth in a balanced manner?

[President Jesus]

42. yes we were on the losing side, prior to the war

Look, I think you are confusing 'losing' with 'incorrect.' They don't mean the same thing, obviously.

There's no question that prior to the war we were on the losing side of the national issue as to whether Iraq posed a threat to this nation, witnessed by the fact that a strong majority of Americans supported invasion. What did we do? Blame the media.

A few months after the invasion, who reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Hint: the media. Whom did the nationalists blame for reporting 'bad news'? The media.

Of course, we lapped it up when 'the media' reported day after day that no WMDs were found, and posted every possible link we could find to that effect. Would you like to know why (I think you've figured it out): we were on the winning side of the issue.

[Dr Fate]

51. And then the media called DEMS flip floppers once the truth came out.

The non U.S. & non-corporate media was reporting that the WMDs were a lie weeks BEFORE the invasion.

You say the MSM reported that there were no WMDs After the fact? Well, real journalists who were on "the right side of the issue" reported that fact BEFORE 2,500 U.S. troops were killed.

Sorry, but the MSM was months late in reporting the facts (AKA the right side of the issue)on Iraq.

[Dr Fate]

58. So we let the media & Bush define what the "winning" issues are?

So if the media presents Bush's lies as facts, and we point it out, that means we are "on the losing side?"

I'm dizzy- this all seems very circular. It seems we are only on the losing side if we sit back and let the media lie about an issue w/o calling them on it.

Should we let the media lie about and define the issues and not call them on it, for fear of being percieved as being on the wrong side?

[rman]

44. So in your opinion the media simply *can not* be biased either way?

The media is automagically always fair, balanced and objective - even though by law they don't have to be that anymore. And even though the bulk of the MSM is owned by large transnational corporations, such as General Electric, Verizon - which do have other interests besides objectively informing the public.

[President Jesus]

54. that is absolutely not even remotely what I said

reading comprehension...look into it.

I did not speak one word to 'bias,' nor is that what this thread is about. This thread is about why activists on the left and right both hate the media.

Activists pick their issues, and when they feel like the public at large is not on their side, they naturally blame the media. It happens in EVERY SINGLE CASE. Go take a look at freepville and see if the arguments against the "MSM" aren't IDENTICAL to here.

I know you won't possibly do this, but it would be fantastic if you could find me one journalist who was directed to cover a story a certain way because his/her corporate overlords instructed him to do so. That would add at least an iota of credibility to your collective arguments about how the corporate "MSM" willfully misinforms the public. Otherwise, you really are just talking out of your ass, aren't you?

[Dr Fate]

59. Okay- Aaron Brown: "Truth no longer matters in...cable news."

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html

Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News.

[Armstead]

30. No. It's more than shooting the messenger.

The old maxum is that if both sides are angry at a reporter, he must be doing a good job does not apply in this case.

That only applies if the reporter is bring hard information that is so objective and complete that at some point every side is going to react to the news itself. In that case, that would hold true.

I think what is at the crux of it is that the modern media is doing such a bad job that the partisans on both sides are offended. We call it the MSM Corporate Media, the freeps call it the liberal media. But the real problem is a lack of depth and seriousness.

The media sucks because it is shallow and superficial and stupid. And in that environment, the depth that both liberals and conservatives would prefer to see is lacking.

[agincourt]

31. If the media was several degrees,

to the right of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, many of them would still be screaming "liberal media"!

[ronnie624]

48. What do I think?

"This tells me that the media is doing a good job."

I think that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have read in a long time.

I do not want "balanced" reporting, nor do I base my judgment of the television news media on what "freepers" and other assorted right wing scum "think" about it. I want factual and accurate information with regard to world events and nothing more. Cable television clearly does not provide this as anyone who uses the internet as a source of information should know.

The television media's purpose is to promote a world view that is conducive to consumerism and the accumulation of profits by the corporations that own them, including military contractors like Westinghouse, General Electric and Microsoft. The profits of these companies and many others have increased dramatically since the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and will continue to increase even further with the planned attacks against Iran, hence the obvious warmongering.

May I respectfully suggest less "chat" and more reading?

[cry baby]

53. The media is corporate owned, so they do whatever is in the

best interest of their $$. That usually means they lean right. Just yesterday, Matthews on softball said that dems are weak on national security like it was a fact.

[depakid]

55. What it means is

that there's serious backing (in the country) for major media re-regulation. People would OVERWHELMINGLY support reinstating just about every regulation that Reagan's corrupt FCC chairman systematically dismantled.

The fact that Clinton didn't do so- and instead handed the Republicans thier single greatest weapon, is one of the biggest failures of his entire presidency- one that historians will look back on with sheer astonishment.

[JohnWxy]

56. MSM pretty much worthless. They are avoiding covering what's

really going on to please the current administration. ONly reason to watch Corporate NEtwork News is to see what the latest propaganda is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2477463

[JohnWxy]

57. MSM pretty much worthless. They are avoiding covering what's

really going on to please the current administration. ONly reason to watch Corporate NEtwork News is to see what the latest propaganda is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2477463

[newspeak]

61. ah yes,

I remember the Clinton BJ fest....Everyone was talking about it 24/7. I mean that's all the media could play was Clinton's indescretion--I remember my boss asking me if I was watching the hearings, and I told him "NO"-it was like some kind of National Enquirer sensationalism--I told him, that I was more interested in what was happening behind the scenes while the Neocons were playing out their little "moral high road" act. Of course, we all know that some of those Congress critters had dirty laundry too. Then came the 2000 campaign and what did I see and hear from our talking head "experts?" Al Gore is stiff, he's a liar-he said he invented the internet (no he didn't), but tell that to some of the gullible populace. Well, I already knew some things about the Bush Family, so I waited to see what the media would say about Bush. Let's see, there was that insider trading deal, they let him pass with "My mother-in-law lost money in that." While the press were fawning and kissing his feet and allowing him to explain why he wasn't charged with insider trading. Then there was his DUI's and drug usage-yep, George didn't want to answer that question because it might influence the little kiddies. Did the media ask him why his DL record was purged and a new DL was issued? Now I remember when they asked Clinton about drug usage and he said he tried MJ once but didn't inhale; and the press had a field day with that one. How about the untruths George told about his educational programs, the insurance program that he was forced by Federal law to do--no, no it was all his idea. The media created George W. Bush, right down to the pig farm. He is a PR creation and the media is complicit in creating the creation. The media is corporate owned and their masters pull the strings--I mean, come on, GE is the fifth largest defense corp., do you honestly think their not making money off of this boondoggle of a war?

[newspeak]

62. one other comment

I bet the corporate bosses pat themselves on the back everytime they can coerce the clueless. Now which newspaper owner patted himself on the back during the Spanish-American War and boasted that he alone, with his sensationalistic, yellow journalism initiated that war?

[FrenchieCat]

63. mmmm.....mmmmm.... was that

Randolf Hearst?

You are absolutely correct in all that you said.

The media is screwing us slowly and surely!