Why the Lefties lost

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Nov 7 2004, 04:14 PM
its a comedy show not a news outlet, he makes fun of both parties, whatever gets laughs.

Exactly, if it were a Democrat in power they would be made fun of more. Its always easier to make fun of the guys in charge. And right now that is the Republicans.

[Flame On]

Turns out there must be many normal, every day, intelligent, mindful people that voted for Bush or the man wouldn't have won. How do you suppose that the number of voters proves anyone or group is intelligent or mindful? What BS.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 7 2004, 06:35 PM
Turns out there must be many normal, every day, intelligent, mindful people that voted for Bush or the man wouldn't have won. How do you suppose that the number of voters proves anyone or group is intelligent or mindful? What BS.

Are you saying that 51.5% of voters in the United States, or 100% of those that voted for Bush are unintelligent?

If so you're calling my my comment BS?

I'm saying that with almost 60 million people you just can't them all fall into one of religious nutbar or idiot. Many thoughtful, intelligent people like Republican policies better than Democrats. Hard to believe, but statistically almost certainly true.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 7 2004, 07:57 PM
I'm saying that with almost 60 million people you just can't them all fall into one of religious nutbar or idiot. Many thoughtful, intelligent people like Republican policies better than Democrats. Hard to believe, but statistically almost certainly true.

I would agree with that. I would say that the general population in the states is more conservative and prefers policies that favor the individual. Just look how nuts some of them go when you even suggest gov involvement in healthcare.

I would however, say that the number one issue in this election was terrorism. I think a good portion of the population is still scared and felt that Bush would do a better job of defending them (might makes right).

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Nov 7 2004, 05:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Nov 7 2004, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Nov 7 2004, 04:14 PM
its a comedy show not a news outlet, he makes fun of both parties, whatever gets laughs.

Exactly, if it were a Democrat in power they would be made fun of more. Its always easier to make fun of the guys in charge. And right now that is the Republicans. [/b][/quote]
So you are saying that John Stewart would make fun of the Democrats more than the Republicans if the Dem's were in power. I can't believe that, and if you do i think you need to watch the show more. Of course he takes jabs at the Dem's. Stewart is nothing like Leno or Letterman when it comes to making fun of Republicans, Stewart makes fun of the actual social policy.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Nov 8 2004, 10:45 PM

So you are saying that John Stewart would make fun of the Democrats more than the Republicans if the Dem's were in power. I can't believe that, and if you do i think you need to watch the show more.

Pretty much yup, its a comedy show, you are reading way to much into it.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Nov 9 2004, 04:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Nov 9 2004, 04:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowboy@Nov 8 2004, 10:45 PM

So you are saying that John Stewart would make fun of the Democrats more than the Republicans if the Dem's were in power. I can't believe that, and if you do i think you need to watch the show more.

Pretty much yup, its a comedy show, you are reading way to much into it. [/b][/quote]
Agree with this.

[Flame On]

The other night William Kristol was on the show (staunch republican commentator) and mentioned that the Republicans had been good to John Stewart over the last four years. Even he acknowledges that there was lots for John to sink his teeth into. He did it with humor and humility so take that for what it's worth. I think if John Stewart was provided ammo from the Democrats in the same scale he'd be all over them too.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 8 2004, 02:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 8 2004, 02:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 7 2004, 06:35 PM
Turns out there must be many normal, every day, intelligent, mindful people that voted for Bush or the man wouldn't have won. How do you suppose that the number of voters proves anyone or group is intelligent or mindful? What BS.

Are you saying that 51.5% of voters in the United States, or 100% of those that voted for Bush are unintelligent?

If so you're calling my my comment BS?

I'm saying that with almost 60 million people you just can't them all fall into one of religious nutbar or idiot. Many thoughtful, intelligent people like Republican policies better than Democrats. Hard to believe, but statistically almost certainly true. [/b][/quote]
For amusement, right wing commentator Joe Scarborough says the left wing elitist media in the USA is going on a rampage to paint Republicans as knucke-dragging religious zealots.

He provides examples of left wing crazies for his case that right wing crazies aren't crazy as the left wing crazies are claiming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368832/#041108a

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 9 2004, 04:29 PM
For amusement, right wing commentator Joe Scarborough says the left wing elitist media in the USA is going on a rampage to paint Republicans as knucke-dragging religious zealots.

He provides examples of left wing crazies for his case that right wing crazies aren't crazy as the left wing crazies are claiming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368832/#041108a

Cowperson

I laugh every time I hear one of the RWers throw out the old "elitist media" claim and try to substantiate it. Seriously, WHO is the "left wing elitist media" in America? Would someone like to toss some names out there? I'd like to know who the "elite" is, and if they are so "elite" why are they not out on the banquet circuit raking in the dollars like those on the right? I think there are many more "elite" on the right than they care to admit.

It is a falacy that the media is controlled by the left or is slanted to the left. Maybe if the right wing media weren't so extreme in their views it would not appear as such. When CNN was launched it was a conservative network run by a conservative owner. Only through the advent of the RW web media block, the RW Hate Radio Network and the rollout of RW FoxNews has CNN stopped being the conservative voice and become more centerist. The introduction of more and more RW voices has dragged "the line" to the right and has not changed the established media. The fact that there is not a strong LW noise machine like that of the right makes the mainstream media a very easy target to villify and paint as the liberal voice. I suspect that if the left developed the similar type of programming (they were on their way when the assassination of Alan Berg ended it all) the mainstream media would be painted as the RW media elite. The mainstream media has stayed stagnant as the line used to define their position in the political spectrum has been moved further and further right.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 9 2004, 12:24 PM
I laugh every time I hear one of the RWers throw out the old "elitist media" claim and try to substantiate it. Seriously, WHO is the "left wing elitist media" in America? Would someone like to toss some names out there? I'd like to know who the "elite" is, and if they are so "elite" why are they not out on the banquet circuit raking in the dollars like those on the right? I think there are many more "elite" on the right than they care to admit.

It is a falacy that the media is controlled by the left or is slanted to the left. Maybe if the right wing media weren't so extreme in their views it would not appear as such. When CNN was launched it was a conservative network run by a conservative owner. Only through the advent of the RW web media block, the RW Hate Radio Network and the rollout of RW FoxNews has CNN stopped being the conservative voice and become more centerist. The introduction of more and more RW voices has dragged "the line" to the right and has not changed the established media. The fact that there is not a strong LW noise machine like that of the right makes the mainstream media a very easy target to villify and paint as the liberal voice. I suspect that if the left developed the similar type of programming (they were on their way when the assassination of Alan Berg ended it all) the mainstream media would be painted as the RW media elite. The mainstream media has stayed stagnant as the line used to define their position in the political spectrum has been moved further and further right.

I think the real problem with media bias, is that everyone thinks anything reported against their own personal views is biased, but if they're 100% with their personal views they are fair.

The elite media by definition is the big three network news channels (CBS,NBC,CBS), plus the major syndicated newspapers ... specifically the NY Times and the LA Times.

Elite media is not columnists by any colour. You can't include any of them in a bias argument because they are paid to have an opinion. So really, the banquet statement can be tossed aside.

The LA and NY Times are left leaning by anyone's estimation. Brokaw and Jennings are tough to nail down, and Mr. Rather made his feelings pretty clear with his exemplary journaslism this year.

So yes Lanny ... I do think that stance is pretty easy to defend.

The real issue is places like CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX.

Fox we can all agree leans right, many think CNN leans left though they are pointed at by enough people that they may land pretty close to the center (if everyone hates you you must be doing something right). MSNBC and CNBC are more like CNN in my mind.

With that all said ... the big three networks still hold over 50% of the American news viewership so you can argue that people are getting more of a left bent in their news watching than right.

At least according to some findings.

[Cowperson]

I laugh every time I hear one of the RWers throw out the old "elitist media" claim and try to substantiate it. Seriously, WHO is the "left wing elitist media" in America? Would someone like to toss some names out there?

Uh, Scarborough did throw out specific examples of prominent media names and links to specific columns to forward his case.

In that light, as one example, Scarborough highlights the Times as an elite liberal media source and the famed Maureen Dowd as the prime culprit.

The Public Editor of the Times recently answered the "liberal" charge with the classic "OF COURSE WE ARE!!" noting that only two of seven op-ed columnists currently on staff could be considered conservative.

Hard to deny it when they admit it.

Cowperson

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 9 2004, 09:29 AM
For amusement, right wing commentator Joe Scarborough says the left wing elitist media in the USA is going on a rampage to paint Republicans as knucke-dragging religious zealots.

Those are his words and I think shows more of the divide in the US. I think there is a legitimate concern when the president invokes God and uses terms like "crusade" in his every day dealings. Going to the extreme step of a constitutional ammendment to redefine marriage seems like a bit much as well. Are these things done by moderate religious people? I would say that more of America believes in the separation of church and state than believes in the need for an ammendment.

Even in the staes that had the gay marriage issue on the ballot, I would hope that reasonable people would see that there were enough people that voted in the minority to realize that a constitutional amendment is not the way to go.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 9 2004, 11:35 AM
Elite media is not columnists by any colour. You can't include any of them in a bias argument because they are paid to have an opinion. So really, the banquet statement can be tossed aside.

Then how can you use the composition of the opinion writers in "defining" a media outlet? Throw them out and you have everyone in the middle.

The problem, IMO, is the standards of journalism have changed. There is no way that you can remove bias. Every person has a bias that they bring to the story. Even if you report the facts, your bias affects the way you report them. The thing you strive for in the media is balance. That used to mean providing both sides of the story. Now it just means having a representative from both sides wothout consideration of who tells the better story.

So you end up with something like "Crossfire". Two people represent their "version" of the facts and when all's been said and done, you wonder what really happened.

What we need are mopre fair and balanced journalists. You can never remove bias. The fact that these journalists were all educated for the job and end up being liberal is more systemic (the liberals become journalists and the conservatives become CEO's). That's not a bad thing. They just need to be responsible for achieving a balance - not presenting their bias.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 9 2004, 01:12 PM

Then how can you use the composition of the opinion writers in "defining" a media outlet? Throw them out and you have everyone in the middle.

The New York Times and LA Times have opinion writers, and as you say, they should be excluded just like the TV guys. They have opinions.

You can't make an opinion fact, but an opinion can stand.

The way both papers cover the news, however, has been under attack as left leaning. The recent timing of the explosives story from Iraq was a classic example. They sat on it until a week before the election, and then ran it as fact when it turned out they knew very little.

That's news coverage with an angle, a far cry from freedom of commentary.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 9 2004, 07:29 PM
The New York Times and LA Times have opinion writers, and as you say, they should be excluded just like the TV guys. They have opinions.

You can't make an opinion fact, but an opinion can stand.

The way both papers cover the news, however, has been under attack as left leaning. The recent timing of the explosives story from Iraq was a classic example. They sat on it until a week before the election, and then ran it as fact when it turned out they knew very little.

That's news coverage with an angle, a far cry from freedom of commentary.

Okay, I get it. The RW media doesn't really count because they are passing opinions. Gotcha. And we know that in America opinions mean nothing, which completely explains FoxNews and guys like Limbaugh doing so well on the airwaves. You may not understand this because it is not this way in Canada, but Op-Eds and the confrontation style have taken over the news. Those that write Op-Eds have a very large impact on the way people think. These folks are quickly becoming the media elite. People don't care what Dan Rather or Peter Jennings has to say any more. They just read the news. But people care what Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, etc. have to say. These are the guys that people talk about around the water cooler. The spin these guys put on the news is what matters. Welcome to the new media, created and financed by the elite right.

The greatest trick the devil ever played on humanity was getting people to believe he didn't exist. The greatest trick the media right ever played on society was getting people to believe that it didn't exist. The media right steers the direction people think in America and has been for a good long time. The more they wave their hands in the air and whine about the "media elite liberals" the more room they have to ply their trade undetected. Its nice to see that it still works.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 9 2004, 02:22 PM
Okay, I get it. The RW media doesn't really count because they are passing opinions. Gotcha. And we know that in America opinions mean nothing, which completely explains FoxNews and guys like Limbaugh doing so well on the airwaves. You may not understand this because it is not this way in Canada, but Op-Eds and the confrontation style have taken over the news. Those that write Op-Eds have a very large impact on the way people think. These folks are quickly becoming the media elite. People don't care what Dan Rather or Peter Jennings has to say any more. They just read the news. But people care what Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, etc. have to say. These are the guys that people talk about around the water cooler. The spin these guys put on the news is what matters. Welcome to the new media, created and financed by the elite right.

The greatest trick the devil ever played on humanity was getting people to believe he didn't exist. The greatest trick the media right ever played on society was getting people to believe that it didn't exist. The media right steers the direction people think in America and has been for a good long time. The more they wave their hands in the air and whine about the "media elite liberals" the more room they have to ply their trade undetected. Its nice to see that it still works.

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.

[Cowperson]

Naturally, I am delighted to see one guy arguing the media is slanted to the left and the other guy arguing the media is hopelessly controlled by the right.

Classic.

Cowperson

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 9 2004, 01:47 PM
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.

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. It's like the temporary lanes on the Deerfoot construction projects.

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.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 9 2004, 03:34 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. It's like the temporary lanes on the Deerfoot construction projects.

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.

I would never say the right wing has moved what used to be the center to the right ... and I think my comments about network news indicate that.

They are the majority now, not a strong majority, which clearly says that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc have eaten up their share no doubt about that.

But that still leaves two issues ...

1. There used to be a very strong left angle when they had a greater majority
2. Their replacements aren't all right wing - Fox is, sure, but CNN seems to be pretty centeral.

I'd be guessing at numbers but for arguments sake lets say the networks had 70% of the news ratings 15 years ago, and CNN had the rest.

Now with Fox and CNBC and MSNBC the networks have 53%, and Fox is the big guy over CNN taking 20%, leaving 27% to share within the rest. If CNN etc is somewhat neutral, then you have a move from 70% left and 30% neutral to 53% left 20% right and 27% neutral, at least for example purposes.

Issue Two: Has the US moved to the right? Hard to say. You ask has right wing media managed to move things right? Good question. Another one to ask is the opposite. Has the left lean of some sources turned people off to the point where they voted to spite them? I saw a poll result where people that voted for Bush did so because of the anti-Bush media, it was the second most common answer behind terrorism.

Either way, interesting discussion. Refreshing to throw it around with someone that doesn't find the need to get personal if we disagree.