If liberals held the majority of gov't, would the media play

[GreenPartyVoter]

the big tough protectors for them or continue to snark from a conservative pov?

In other words, do they blow with the wind our are they mostly unabashed conservatives?

[Terran1212]

1. Ask yourself this:

How often do we hear the term "liberal media"

Ok, now ask yourself this, how often do you hear the opposite outside of our progressive circles?

They've imbibed this image of a "liberal media" -- extrapolating it on a media that worships power and wealth -- so well that it's stuck in their minds. So even if liberals were in power it'd be unlikely the media switched from its positions of sticking to the politicians and not people, which is inherently anti-left.

[bryant69]

2. I think they blow with the wind

Actually I think they are generally nuetral (but easily played) on political issues, generally conservative on Economic Issues and slightly liberal on Social issues. They tend to be quite a bit more conservative on economic issues than they are liberal on social issues.

And Republicans are quite good at playing the press; look back at Joe McCarthy's success. He knew reporters, he knew who to feed stories to, and he knew how to time his releases so as to get maximum exposure with minimum scrutiny. Modern Republicans have learned from his lessons.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Gabi Hayes]

4. neutral, like they were during the previous administration, right?

you might want to read Fools For Scandal, and/or The Hunting of the President

neutral?

that's funny

did you see the CNN coverage of the Wilsons' press conference?

neutral?

[Terran1212]

7. They literally stalked the President over Monicagate

But don't care much to go after one who engages in illegal war.

Oh sure there's plenty of criticism of Bush policy -- but it's all in the realm of basically agreeing that it's good and right and noble -- but maybe a little incompetently carried out. That's the "liberal" of the "Liberal media."

[bryant69]

9. I've read the Hunting of the President, and Clintons War

They went after Nixon too. They've gone after Delay - they've gone after Bush on some things - not as much as they should. They go after stories they think we'll tune into watch - and the Clinton story had a lot going for it.

[Gabi Hayes]

10. and Nixon was how many years ago? that was an abberration, when

considering the way they've performed ever since

the media started in on Carter, skipped a generation with Reagan/Bush (see Walter Karp, Liberty Under Siege, then Robert Parry, Lost History)

and AFA DeLay, they've pretty much ignored him. compare the coverage of his criminal reign in the house to that given to Gary Condit

what scant coverage they ever give to pug malfeasance consists of one of two mentions of the scandal de jour, followed by a quick deep sixing.

how many examples of this would you care for me to present?

tell you what: for every example you present of the media going after a republican, I'll give you one of them ignoring an equally important story, or giving it short shrift

let's see who runs out first

[bryant69]

11. Nah - you win.

I apologize for ever daring to offer an opinion that contracted DUs collective wisdom. I've seen the light. We are all screwed. We will never get an even break from the Media and it wouldn't matter if we did because all the voting machines are lined up against us as well.

Congratulations; you've convinced me it's all futile.

Bryant

[deaniac21]

12. Not to worry. He's just stovepiping.

[Gabi Hayes]

14. don't forget the cherrypicking!

[Gabi Hayes]

13. thanks!

so....you've offered your opinion, I mine, and you seem to be making fun of mine

it appears to me that you can't support your argument, offered the chance

that's OK, though

I thought you'd give a response like that: all bluster and no substance, along with mischaracterizing what I side, while putting words in my mouth! oh, wait, I guess I used invisible ink WRT those voting machines. sorry for not being more clear when I didn't mentionn the voting machines.

great job.

if people like Eric Alterman, Eric Boehler, Joe Conason, Mark Hertzgaard, and too many others to mention are making my point, and have written BOOKS about this, I'll take their researched word on it, rather than your unsupported assertions

point is, if we don't do something about the media, who keep dems from getting their message to the voters, we have very little chance of stopping our headlong rush into fascism.

let's just ignore the cancer on the body politique. it'll go away

here's some more support for your unsupportable claim:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1632572

[bryant69]

15. I've read most of thos books as well - I just disagree with your

interpretation of them. But at a certain point, why bother? Are we really going to convince each other?

Is it really worth my time fighting for the proposition that saying the media is flawed is different from saying the media is in the tank for President Bush and the Republicans? What good would it do?

Frankly I think the main theme that comes from those book is that the Media is compliant because the Right Wing knows how to play them.

I'm also leary of the concept of "do something about the media." Not sure exactly what that entails.

Bryant

[Gabi Hayes]

16. I'm leery about it, too, and it's very troubling. it goes to the CORE

of what democracy depends upon: a free exchange of ideas, transmitted by an unencumbered fourth estate, which is pretty close to becoming extinct

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one of the worst things that's ever happened to our democracy, in that it institutionalized the worst features of a fascist society:

control of media into a very few hands, all of whom are profit-centered, and have absolutely no regard for news as a means of communication, only as a profit center.

that power and concentration is why I'm leery of the possibility of anything being done about it, but our dem "reps" have the responsibility to try to do something about it, and they're the only ones with a realistic opportunity

the RW has made the control of media one of their absolute, MAJOR goals, ever since Nixon was justifiably sent from office for his criminal acts, as Reagan and BOTH Bushes should have been

unfortunately, they've had the resources..bilions and billions of RW foundation money (foundations that were begun PRECISELY to bring about a RW media), a legion of true believers, and thirty years' worth of propaganda to fashion a mindset of, at the very least, of a neutral media, not to say "liberal" one.

I wish I could be more sanguine about it, but the dems seem to have no stomach for this sort of battle, because the Clintons, the Gores, the Deans, the Kerrys, you name one, they've been reamed, can tell you what happens when you try to fight big media

on that cheery note...I gotta go.

sorry if I got steamed, but this is the big one, for me. with the media behaving the way it does, we're in an unimaginably deep well

but that's just me.

I could be crazy

[samdogmom]

3. Unabashed conservatives.

You only have to look back to the Clinton years to see how very difficult the media made his life. I can't imagine a big change if Democrats regain Congress in 2006. We need to change media ownership laws to truly change America.

[saltpoint]

5. The mainstream media are only as liberal as the far-right moguls who

own them and run them.

And in some cases we're talkin' WAY far-right.

They'll tolerate and play along with "tame" Democrats, but they are frightened no end by Kucinich/Wellstone Democrats, and properly so. I'm still mad at Ted Koppel's dismissive treatment of Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley-Braun in 2004 during the primary season.

So the majority in the 3 branches of government is only somewhat related to media treatment of issues and individuals. At least that's my take on it.

And that's why I value highly the work of individual writers and reporters who break thru the haze. Christiane Amanpour. Bill Moyers. Katha Pollitt. Seymour Hersh. Bob Herbert. Frank Rich. Molly Ivins. Etc.

[Sinti]

6. The MSM is "Big Corp," hence they are neo-fascist conservative

They will always favor the conservative (though that's not an appropriate term for the current ideology) because they are them. The individual pundits and reporters may be either way, but their editors and owners certainly have more to gain by being far to the right. In the case of GE, the same people who own TV channels also make bombs... no more need be said.

[CK_John]

8. Who signs their pay stubs? (n/t)

[deutsey]

17. They are owned by large media conglomerates

They are biased toward protecting and promoting the interests of these conglomerates.

[zbdent]

18. A little reminder from history:

In 1993/1994, Dems controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.

In 1993/1994, the "liberal media" focused on a huge "Check-bouncing" scandal in the House ... along with the "Contract With America" ... which they didn't actually have set until a few weeks before the November elections (conveniently pointing out to potential voters that fill-in-the-blank issue was on the "Contract" ... few voters actually decided to read the "Contract", taking it on faith that the Republicans included their pet "issue" ...)

January 1995, Newt Gingrich is ushered in as Speaker of the House with a Repuke ovation usually reserved for the likes of SuperBowl champions returning home from the big victory ...