CNN is not Conservative - they are a business

[Taverner]

And that is hammered in constantly.

They cover the teabag nutters because it will make (1) Angry Conservatives and (2) Angry Liberals tune in. Win win - they don't support the teabaggers any more than they support Kanye West. Their job is to get people to tune in, not report the news.

But they are not driven by ideology - but merely ratings and greed

[thunder rising]

1. So, this attack on Fox is a market share tactic. Get the independents to swing away from Fox.

OK, but they have to remember their part in selling the war in Iraq, and Patriot Act and ...

What you're seeing is a sea-change. They have sensed the shift in the wind and changed sides just like the tribes in Afghanistan.

[Taverner]

3. Of COURSE they supported the war - gore is big business!

Don't look at CNN from the reporter's view - it makes no sense

Look at it from the perspective of a stockholder

That's how they see everything

[lpbk2713]

2. Controversy sells.

If there aren't any big controversies in the public consciousness, the MSM will certainly invent some. Count on it.

The rethuglican party was all but dead back in November. Damned if the MSM didn't get together and revive them.

[Taverner]

4. Exactly!

[FrenchieCat]

5. They are corporate and therefore driven by low taxes and less regulation as possible.....

unfortunately for us, that is the same as the Republican ideology.....
which is why, they at CNN, spout the conservative talking points,
and treat Democrats like shit.

So you are incorrect, because they are indeed conservatives,
and this shows up in their coverage.

[Taverner]

6. Oh they don't treat all Democrats like shit

Only the ones who want to change things

[FrenchieCat]

11. True.....

And it is odd to me that when the Corporate whores are interviewing those Democrats who do their bidding, you can literally feel them trembling in their boots as they agree with the Presstitute's leading questions full of GOP talking points.

[Ron Green]

7. Ratings and ideology are intertwined in some ways.

It's in the interest of the Corporatocracy for people to watch lots of TV and remain addicted to shopping, junk food, fear, emotionalism, and all the other things the Free Market offers. It's NOT in their interest for consumers to become citizens. Therefore they will continue to support a right-wing political arrangement that demonizes "government" rather than explores the ways government ought to work for all, and glorifies the Free Market.

[retread]

8. Time-Warner is not Conservative?? n/t

[SpartanDem]

9. I agree just look at how they report the "news"

it's nothing more than regurgitated he said, she said under the guised of balance. With no effort to discover what is factual, because you might have tell viewers something they don't want to hear and offended viewers don't tune in.

[Taverner]

10. That is, of course, if they can't find a guy saying "It was me who fucked that chicken!"

Once they do that, their ratings go up

[grahamhgreen]

12. Then why haven't they hired a leftie/liberal like Olbermann or Maddow - who are winning in ratings?

[Taverner]

13. They thought they were doing that with Begala and Carville

But they were wrong...

Of course no one can blame other news stations for not having the genius that MSNBC did by hiring Maddow and giving Olbermann Journalistic Freedom.

[Turborama]

19. Christiane Amanpour

As I mentioned recently in another thread, Christiane Amanpour is starting a http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/amanpour/">new show tomorrow. It'll be broadcast daily on CNN International and, unfortunately for those in the US, only weekly on CNN. I'll add any good stuff she has on there to the videos forum during the week, though.

Also, from what I've seen recently on the videos forum Rick Sanchez has been doing some good work, and Anderson Cooper's http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/planet.in.peril/">Planet In Peril series has been excellent.

[Deja Q]

14. Who isn't?

[Deja Q]

15. Who isn't?

[sam sarrha]

16. do you actually watch CNN.....

[Taverner]

17. Yes I do

Look, I'm not saying they're Liberal, Center-Left or even Center-Right

They are essentially apolitical - but the bottom line trumps all

So when a story is reported, the editors don't ask "Does this have a Liberal/Conservative bias?" or even "Is this true?" but "How will this affect TWX stock?" and "Does it have legs? (meaning, can we run this over and over, and still keep viewers?)

[Analyticalist]

18. But it is clear they fear the right

more than the left.

Just look at the coverage of the anti-war protests prior to the Iraqi invasion. While it may be accurate to say that they 'covered' the story, what little airtime that was devoted to it was used to minimize its significance. Why didn't they want the right angry and 'tuned in' to see the coverage?

Maybe its because when faced with a debate, the right is more likely to shut it down while the left always tries to win with logic and ideas, at least that seems to be conventional wisdom on the subject.

IMHO, if George Soros were really interested in furthering democracy, he would buy up a US media outlet and point it like a howitzer squarely in the face of corporate America, and the politicians in their pockets. Unfortunately for us, there is no left-wing voice in the media. If there was, single payer would have at least had a chance.

[samsingh]

20. they're getting slightly better

[Taverner]

21. Better at what?

Making money - so far they are one of the few TWX subsidiaries that actually makes money

Reporting the news - well they do a fine job as long as you wear the right "lenses"

Understand their corporate bias, but factor it into their reports

[samsingh]

25. sanchez appears to be reasonable and after facts

[Odin2005]

22. The MSM's real "customers" are advertisers, not us.

It's all about $$$.

[Taverner]

23. Yep - other countries it is readership that funds the media source

In the US, its advertising

[UTUSN]

24. K&R #7 n/t