Why the Lefties lost

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 9 2004, 09:34 PM
Doesn't this support Lanny's premise that the right wing has moved what used to be the center, to the right. It would then make what used to be center (fair and balanced) appear to be left.

The bigger question is, has the electorate genuinely moved to the right? Is it just a temporary reaction to 9/11? Or has the right wing media managed to dominate (change the focus) to the point where it appears the media has moved left?

Lanny's point about Canadian media is equally valid. Can you think of the media personalities in Canada that have a following like their counterparts in the states? Rutherford has strong political views but I don't think his opinions hold any more water than anyone else. If you hang around the American discussion boards, you get guys rolling out Limbaugh opinions like they were fact (or truth in their eyes).

The thing I find most disconcerting, is that there is now no longer a moderate or unbiased voice. Even if a journalist is moderate, his views are discounted because he works for liberal or conservative paper. They even go so far as to check out who the shareholders are of the paper before they can attach any validity to the report.

I don't know where it ends. Perhaps we should ask the grocery store to mark their displays with liberal or conservative so we don't buy the "wrong" oranges.

An amusing link: How to Identify left wing media bias.

http://www.mrc.org/books/identifybias.asp

Secondly, an excellent essay on the subject of concentration of media ownership in the USA.

http://reason.com/0401/fe.bc.domination.shtml

I've posted both links before.

The bigger question is, has the electorate genuinely moved to the right?

A percentage has. There was a time when Brian Mulroney had two consecutive overwhelming majority governments in Canada, destroying the Liberals in the process. Was the media right wing and helping it along or were Canadians just tired of socialists and listening to Reagan?

CBC attracts certain viewers. FOX attracts certain viewers. The trend in media lately has been people gravitating towards commentators they are already pre-disposed to agree with.

It's like Farenheit 9/11 - polls showed the film had virtually ZERO influence on the presidential election because Michael Moore was preaching to the choir. The audience was sold before they even knew it was in theatres. He merely confirmed in their heads what they already wanted to think. People watch FOX because its a warm blanket. Ditto CBC. But neither feed is likely to attract the audience of the other.

Both sides have their advocates and there is no shortage of champions on either side as you can see from one guy arguing the right is in control and another arguing the left has the advantage.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 9 2004, 08:47 PM
When did I say right wing media doesn't count?

I said commentators aren't hard news, they are opinion spreaders. Both sides have these guys in great supply, but any assessment of media bias shouldn't include either unless they invent fact to base their opinions.

Sorry amigo, just because I don't agree with you on media bias doesn't make you informed and me in the dark. A line like You may not understand this because it is not this way in Canada is very condescending. Don't you think a guy that can create a web site may in fact have the ability to operate the net and find out the same information that has made you a true seer on on global media events?

FoxNews, CNN and the NBC channels have erroded network news reach, that fact I agree on 100%. But the cable news channels still own the majority of television news ratings, and because of that the news on TV generally sways more left than right.

But ... it's moving towards the right, no doubt about it.

Print media? Still not even close. The big three networks still use the New York Times as their episode guide, and until that changes, the media elite is still clearly to the left of center.

So what you are saying is that the "major" media outlets should be held to a different standard than the others do? You're saying that ABC, CBS and NBC as television outlets, and the New York Times and the Washington Post as print outlets, get held to a much different measuring stick than everyone else? FoxNews, The Wall Street Journal, etc. get a free pass for some reason?

I find it funny that you hold te New York Times as the standard, yet call them left wing media. If they are the standard or the bench mark are they not the centerist position media source? Is not ABC the centerist TV media? Where is that magic benchmark that you can measure everything to?

You may also want to change your tune on the print media. The Times and the Post are still consider the benchmark for journalism, but they hardly have that huge impact they once did. USA Today reaches more readers. The NY Post and Washington Times have pulled neck and neck with their "left wing" competitors in readership and have the more popular Op-Ed writers, many of which get exposure on other media outlets as well. More people are reading other sources for information these days than the Times and the Post, so I am not sure why they are special and considered supermen in their market.

Another area that you need to understand is the impact of the RW radio (hate radio) on the people. This is a very powerful form of media that bombards the listener with negative information and disinformation on a regular basis. It's ALL opinion and is extremely slanted. There are stations in every single major market in the country and they carry syndicated talkers that spread the same message into every market. This is interesting because you no longer have the editor of the local paper having his run at the information and softening or spinning it. This is 100% opinion news from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, etc. These guys reach more people in more markets in one day than the biggest and best newspapers will reach in a week.

You also must look toward the internet. With the advent of this powerful new media you have seen the popularity of products like Drudge, Townhall, WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, etc. you have multiple web sites pumping out the same information provided from the the think tank network, both financed and backed by the same people/organizations. In this day and age of information access these products that can provide an instant voice to an idea/opinion become extremely valuable and very strong. When you see these products being referenced by the networks for stories you know they have arrived and have become a strong voice.

The problem I see with the whole media argument is that people are enamoured with the arm waiving going on by the right and ignore the impressive multi-media edge they have over the so called "liberal media elite". The line has quietly shifted left, in leaps and bounds, leaving the old establishment in the wake wondering how they went from the center to the left. This is what people fail to acknowledge. The whole industry changed in such a manner that those that were centerist were left in the dust, and while bing left there became a very easy target for those with a smear agenda to attack.

...the other guy arguing the media is hopelessly controlled by the right.


Actually Cow I have not really argued that in this thread, but thanks for putting that in my mouth. I will be happy to outline exactly how the new right wing media is subject to manipulation, where the money comes from and who the major players are if you care to do that for the case against the "liberal media elite"? I would prefer to identify where the "center" is before waging into the other portion of the topic though.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 9 2004, 03:17 PM

Both sides have their advocates and there is no shortage of champions on either side as you can see from one guy arguing the right is in control and another arguing the left has the advantage.

I can agree with that. I suspect that the consumer is still going through a transition. It used to be that you would turn to Walter Cronkite because he would give you a balance to the news - it was his job. If the news becomes a consumer product, complete with bias and slant, then the consumer has to become more aware. I would find it almost dangerous to get your news from only one source. You then get only that slant.

If you get to a point where you only tune in to what you want to hear for the news, I think it puts the democracy in danger. It also puts an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the "spinners". I think that if you want to be a journalist, you should aspire to balance and fairness. The media should not be towing any party line.

Caveat emptor might be fine when buying a pair of shoes, but I think the media should be held to a higher standard. They have always held the role of government critic. To aschew that in favour of ratings is, IMO, the wrong direction to go.

[Bingo]

So what you are saying is that the "major" media outlets should be held to a different standard than the others do? You're saying that ABC, CBS and NBC as television outlets, and the New York Times and the Washington Post as print outlets, get held to a much different measuring stick than everyone else? FoxNews, The Wall Street Journal, etc. get a free pass for some reason?

When did I say that?

I don't hold Andy Rooney to any more severe of a standard then I do O'Reilly or any other commentator. I do hold CBS Evening News, and 60 Minutes to a higher standard than a commentator because they are reporting the news. If you want a comparable, I hold CNN and FOX accountable for their news desks as well. If Fox ran a news story showing Kerry's military record leaked from the Pentagon in June but held until 4 days before the election I'd be equally as wary.

I find it funny that you hold te New York Times as the standard, yet call them left wing media. If they are the standard or the bench mark are they not the centerist position media source? Is not ABC the centerist TV media? Where is that magic benchmark that you can measure everything to?

I don't hold them as MY standard, I said they are THE standard for network news largely based in New York. Benchmark? I'm not sure where it is ... if I was forced to pick one on television it would be MSNBC though. Tim Russert for example, is likely the most fair guy out there if you watch him day in day out.

You may also want to change your tune on the print media. The Times and the Post are still consider the benchmark for journalism, but they hardly have that huge impact they once did. USA Today reaches more readers. The NY Post and Washington Times have pulled neck and neck with their "left wing" competitors in readership and have the more popular Op-Ed writers, many of which get exposure on other media outlets as well. More people are reading other sources for information these days than the Times and the Post, so I am not sure why they are special and considered supermen in their market.

I'm not talking readership, I'm talking influence on what stories tend to end up on the nightly news of the big three networks. The Times acts as a menu for the big news companies to order off of for their 1 hour slots each night.

That's impact.

From there you name three right wing radio guys, and a few right wing sites on the net as having influence, but ignore the similar sources from the other side, not to mention an active Hollywood presence that campaigns only in one direction.

None of that is news ... does it have an impact? For some, for others not so much.

The problem I see with the whole media argument is that people are enamoured with the arm waiving going on by the right and ignore the impressive multi-media edge they have over the so called "liberal media elite". The line has quietly shifted left, in leaps and bounds, leaving the old establishment in the wake wondering how they went from the center to the left. This is what people fail to acknowledge. The whole industry changed in such a manner that those that were centerist were left in the dust, and while bing left there became a very easy target for those with a smear agenda to attack.

I agree that stations like Fox have had an impact, but I don't see that impact as moving them from central to left, I see it as moving them from far left to not so far left, but still left. They've made them more honest. A healthy thing for everybody.

I don't think you have a right to say people have failed to acknowledge something that you believe is true. They may feel to acknowledge it because they simply don't agree with the basis of your point.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 9 2004, 04:42 PM
I would find it almost dangerous to get your news from only one source. You then get only that slant.

I couldn't agree more.

And you have to be consistently wary both ways. Cow and I tend to flip links back and forth from time to time. One thing I started doing is "watch the source, but this is interesting ..." to open an email with a link to a site that is known to lean one way or the other (most often right).

I may lean right politically, but I don't just open up and say "ahhhh" when I read right slanted news, and have found that the truth in many matters usually surfaces if you do read three sources. This one leaves out this, but adds that, the next adds this and drops that, the third has both, etc.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I do hold CBS Evening News, and 60 Minutes to a higher standard than a commentator because they are reporting the news.

WTF? When has 60 Minutes ever been news? It has never been balanced reporting and has always had an agenda behind their reporting. Its always been about ambush reporting to make a point in the "story" they are portraying. I see no difference between what CBS does with 60 Minutes and what any other network does with their "news" shows. IMO CBS could have learned a lot in how to do investigative journalism from watching W5 and the Fifth Estate.

"If Fox ran a news story showing Kerry's military record leaked from the Pentagon in June but held until 4 days before the election I'd be equally as wary."

I'm not sure what this is directed at? If you're trying to say that Fox follows a higher business practice and wouldn't do anything that would be considered questionable or unbiased, well you have got to be kidding me. Fox and FoxNews get fed talking points from management who get them fed to them from the RW think tanks and the RNC. The memos have been published and Fox has not denied it. And then when you add in the other media sources it gets completely out of control. Its amazing to watch and listen as you have the exact same content across multiple media sources and they all key in on the same script. But this is not the doing of anyone in general, this is just some strange coincidence.

"if I was forced to pick one on television it would be MSNBC though. Tim Russert for example, is likely the most fair guy out there if you watch him day in day out."

Fair enough. That proves you lean right and that's not a surprise. Russert is a moderate conservative, but a conservative all the same. I have no problem with that and like a lot of his views. The only thing I will condem Russert for was his characterization of Clinton. I didn't like Clinton much, but he did great things for the US and the world. Russert jumped on board and joined in on the RNC sponsored smear campaign against the president. I was disappointed that Russert did not question the facts of the case and defend the president more, but he was a conservative and allowed his true alliances to show.

"I'm not talking readership, I'm talking influence on what stories tend to end up on the nightly news of the big three networks. The Times acts as a menu for the big news companies to order off of for their 1 hour slots each night.

That's impact."

Impact? If you want to talk about impact lets talk about The Heritage Foundation, The Brookings Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, The Family Research Council, The Hudson Institute, The Cato Institute, The Manhattan Institute, etc. These are the folks that have impact because these are the bodies that give the news to the media. These are the guys that lend support to the information that is published. Without these "sources" the idea behind a story just doesn't fly. These are the most important facet of the new media that most people don't even know exist. These are the guys that back up the stories and are recognized as being experts in the fields, even though they are manned and managed by the same people and are funded by the same half a dozen uber-rich conservatives.

From there you name three right wing radio guys, and a few right wing sites on the net as having influence, but ignore the similar sources from the other side, not to mention an active Hollywood presence that campaigns only in one direction.

Care to trot out those on the other side? I'll play that game. I think I'll be able to bury you under a list of names. Those on the right have built up a more substantial list of TV and radio personalities and Op-Ed writers than the left has. They also have a substantial market advantage through the corporations that own these products that it isn't even funny. Can you name a LW organization that is willing to purchase thousands of books at a time (and sell them for a buck to members of their liberal web sites) just so the authors become "best sellers" on the NY Times Best Seller list?

I really think the Hollywood angle is overblown. No one gives a rats ass about what Hollywood has to say, not even the most staunch liberal. Michael Moore proved just how much pull Hollywood has in politics. None. But if you want to talk about Hollywood lets talk about Mel Gibson, John Travolta, Jane Russell, etc. For every LW actor willing to speak out there is someone on the other side of the fence that people are willing to ignore just as much.

"I agree that stations like Fox have had an impact, but I don't see that impact as moving them from central to left, I see it as moving them from far left to not so far left, but still left. They've made them more honest. A healthy thing for everybody."

Fox has made a major impact. The truth no longer matters. Spin does. Fox's approach to "telling" the news has changed the way a large percentage of the public consumes news and how their perceptions are formed. There is reason why Fox viewers have such a skewed (incorrectly skewed) view of reality, its because they are not given the news but given Fox's view of the news. And yes, it has changed the way the other stations are covering events. They have to get down into the gutter and do the exact same thing if they wish to remain competitive. Its all a ratings game and the other networks are scrambling to find a formula that works for them as well as Fox's has worked for Fox.

Explain to me how the media was "far left"? That's a load of garbage. It was impossible for the media to be far left because of the fair play doctrine. What
indicators do you have that point to the media being "far left"?

And sorry, I almost wet my pants laughing at the "They've made them more honest" comment. Oh my god, that is rich. If lying, fabricating stories, stacking panels and belittling guests is what you consider "honest", then I hope we go back to some good old dishonest journalism like the networks used to do before deregulation. Fox is the most biased and dishonest bunch of gangsters around. Cow hates this word but I don't care. FoxNews is propaganda and does not offer any glimpse into the reality that the rest of the world sees. FoxNews is the worst thing to hit journalism since Joe Goebbels.

[Bingo]

I mean no disrespect to the book you just wrote, but I'll reply in generalizations as this could go on all month.

I guess this brings us back to where we started doesn't it?

You think one way and you have millions that see things that exact same way. I think another way and I have millions that think my way too.

The only difference between us is that I don't speak in fact, I speak in what I think and I leave it at that.

you had one line in your reply to me ... That proves you lean right and that's not a surprise. Russert is a moderate conservative, but a conservative all the same.

This is the biggest issue between you and me. I differ from you but don't call you wrong or think that I've "proved" anything.

Lanny, you haven't. You haven't proven a damn thing. And that was my point from the beginning. There are plenty of sources to back up the liberal media myth, and plenty of sources to back up a left leaning balance. Where is the truth? I don't know, but then (and this might come as a shock), either do you.

I'm well aware that a book like Bias from Goldberg probably has examples that back up his liberal bias notion, but he has excluded examples that would prove the opposite. The same would be true of your sources too.

But I do know any time a poll has been issued to media in Washington or New York the results come back in the high 70's and above for Democratic voting record. That doesn't mean they let their bias or political leanings enter their daily work, but they'd have to be pretty super human not to let their belief system get in the way.

As I said earlier ... I don't think a debate like this will ever land at a conclusion.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 10 2004, 09:28 PM
I mean no disrespect to the book you just wrote, but I'll reply in generalizations as this could go on all month.

I guess this brings us back to where we started doesn't it?

You think one way and you have millions that see things that exact same way. I think another way and I have millions that think my way too.

The only difference between us is that I don't speak in fact, I speak in what I think and I leave it at that.

you had one line in your reply to me ... That proves you lean right and that's not a surprise. Russert is a moderate conservative, but a conservative all the same.

This is the biggest issue between you and me. I differ from you but don't call you wrong or think that I've "proved" anything.

Lanny, you haven't. You haven't proven a damn thing. And that was my point from the beginning. There are plenty of sources to back up the liberal media myth, and plenty of sources to back up a left leaning balance. Where is the truth? I don't know, but then (and this might come as a shock), either do you.

I'm well aware that a book like Bias from Goldberg probably has examples that back up his liberal bias notion, but he has excluded examples that would prove the opposite. The same would be true of your sources too.

But I do know any time a poll has been issued to media in Washington or New York the results come back in the high 70's and above for Democratic voting record. That doesn't mean they let their bias or political leanings enter their daily work, but they'd have to be pretty super human not to let their belief system get in the way.

As I said earlier ... I don't think a debate like this will ever land at a conclusion.

Well, that's too bad. I was really looking for some specifics to define who these LWers are that hold the power in the media. Like I say, I can list 30-40 RW Op-Ed writers that have major distribution. I can name 20-30 on air personalities that have major syndication deals. I can name the bodies where the news is developed, the experts that are used to support those stories, where the money comes from and how the whole system was developed. I was hoping to see the same from the other side of the fence to try and balance things out and prove that there is a huge liberal lean to the media and not just a bunch of noise to cover the manipulations of the right. The generalities just don't cut it, which says that the claim of the "liberal media elite" just doesn't hold the weight its supposed to.

See Bingo, that's what I don't like about this argument at all (from either side on any issue). I've grown cynical in my old age and I have found that if you can't produce a paper trail your story isn't worth beans. You can't get a warrant without probable cause. The right has not produced a very convincing story other than repeating the story over and over and over. Where's the paper trail? Where's the support mechanisms for this bias? You don't hold the power like you suggest without a support mechanism and it just isn't there to be found. When you consider that the media is being swallowed up by corporate America and that those corporations are all RW in bias it does not make sense for them to maintain a liberal spin internally. Corporate Culture dictates that.

You're right, this debate will never end in a conclusion. All I was hoping for was a someone to pull out some information to support the claim, and that hasn't happened. Call me disappointed, especially after you seemed so sure that you had a case to support the claim.

[Bingo]

There are plenty of examples both ways. I haven't denied the fact that you can likely find 100 such from your side, but don't doubt that I can do the same.

Recent events have named quite a few.

1. CBS 60 Minutes mess with Bush and his memos ... clearly a news team including the president of the CBS news taking a side in the election and going for the throat. Sounds like a left lean to me. They didn't even address the Swift Boat thing which had substantially more reason behind it then the cooked up memos.

2. NY Times and CBS sitting on the explosives story for over a year and then the Times going ahead with it with only partial facts five days before the US election.

3. ABC News memo leaked to the press in October telling his news team to essentially drop objectivity. "The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Their news chief Halperin claimed ABC news will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable".
That's a clear left lean.

4. Tom Brokaw carried a story during the 2000 election when Gore representatives complained that the Bush campaign was using subliminal messanges by running a TV spot with a picture of Gore and Lieberman standing in front of the word BUREAUCRAT. They blocked out the BUREAUC part leaving only RAT. Silly? Sure, but Brokaw didn't run the story this time around when Kerry's group ran a TV spot where Bush was standing in front of a word blocking out all but the word LIED. Both are silly, but NBC was up in arms one way, and ignored it the other.

5. Lets return to CBS and Rather again ...

His comment the day after Bush was sworn into office

1/22/01 - "This was President Bush's first day in office and he did something to quickly please the right flank of his party: He reinstituted an antiabortion policy that had been in place during his father's term adn the Reagan presidency but lifted during the Clinton years"

His comments eight years earlier?

1/22/93 - "Today with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise to cancel several antiabortion regulations of the Regan-Bush years".

See the issue there?

Bush is pleasing his right flank, and Clinton is fulfilling a campaign promise. Showing his colours there ... I would guess the Republicans had run on an antiabortion stance therefore Bush was also fullfilling a campaign promise. Just as I'm sure Clinton was pleasing the left flank of his party. Not very consistent Dan.

6. Peter Jennings on ABC News covering the impeachment vote for Bill Clinton. During the live coverage he introduced by voice over every member of the house as they came up to vote. All Democratic members were introduced as "Bill Smith" from the great state of "Alaska", while each Republican was introduced as "the conservative" or "republican" "Bill Smith" from the "great state of Alaska". He felt it necessary to label each conservative house member, but just name the name and state for the Democrats.

7. LA Times editor John Carroll wrote the following memo to his news staff basically admitting they have a left bent to their news coverage LA Times Memo

8. Similarly here's the New York Times admitting the same thing .New York Times

So there ... ABC, NBC, CBS, both Times, all caught at one point or the other.

Will that matter to you? Probably not, and that's fine, but don't assume there isn't anything to back up the bias contention just because I didn't want to go to the hassle of reproducing it.

[Lurch]

3. ABC News memo leaked to the press in October telling his news team to essentially drop objectivity. "The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Their news chief Halperin claimed ABC news will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable".
That's a clear left lean.

Minor point, but one could just as easily interpret this as ABC being responsible. If one side is legitimately distorting more than the other side, should it not be reported as such?? Obviously it is debatable, but it is only bias if you can show Kerry distorted statements and facts as much as Bush. I think you are misinterpreting the intent of the memo, IIRC the actual content.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lurch@Nov 10 2004, 05:35 PM

Minor point, but one could just as easily interpret this as ABC being responsible. If one side is legitimately distorting more than the other side, should it not be reported as such?? Obviously it is debatable, but it is only bias if you can show Kerry distorted statements and facts as much as Bush. I think you are misinterpreting the intent of the memo, IIRC the actual content.

I don't know ...

If they were "equally accountable" to both sides, but one side was more abusive on distorition than the other, than they'd report more distortion for one side.

To suggest they shouldn't be equally accountable is a very dangerous line as he's basically asking his crew to apply different standards because he perceives one side to be more dubious than the other.

Yikes ... if he's partisan at all with that belief system than he's just compromised his news room.