>Hey moon, I'm still waiting on a response to >post #26. Here, I'll post it again: > >You want facts, yet you say something like >Rupert Murdoch is not a liberal? Why would he >hold a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton? That >took a mere 5 minutes to find. > >[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml[/url]
Is that the best you can do? Come on - even the article you cite has as its tagline:
"Conservative Media Mogul to Host Fundraiser for Liberal NY Senator" and begins, "Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal..."
Holding a fundraiser for a democratic candidate doesn't make one liberal. Even *voting* for a democratic candidate doesn't make one liberal. I would like to think that, conservative or liberal, one should examine all candidates and make a choice based on more than a person's party affiliation. Recognizing the possibility that your party's candidate (or choice of candidates) may not be the best choice doesn't suddenly make you a flaming liberal (or on the other side, an extreme right wing conservative, for those democrats who support a republican). Not to mention there are lots of reasons a person might hold a fundraiser for someone - for all we know, Murdoch owes the Clintons a favor (which would not be at all surprising). I'll also note that calling Murdoch a liberal for supporting Clinton is particularly ridiculous unless you're prepared to call Clinton a conservative because she's allied herself with Murdoch and shown support for him by attending the Fox News Anniversary celebration.
Also, media treatment of Al Gore and Howard Dean should be enough to discredit these cries of "liberal media." How many times during the 2000 election did we hear about and see footage of Al Gore's sighing, etc. during the debates? I mean, granted, it was pretty rude, but if the media had this extreme liberal bias that everyone claims, they would have downplayed it rather than showing it over and over, clip after clip, commenting on how inconsiderate Al Gore was while Bush spoke, and likely having a very real effect on the outcome of the election.
When Howard Dean gave his "Iowa yell", the media played the clip over and over, painting Dean as some raving lunatic.
The following is a good article regarding the notion of the "liberal media," and it includes quotes such as:
Rich Bond, chair of the Republican Party in 1992, referring to bashing the media as 'liberal': "There is some strategy to it ... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Pat Buchanan: "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that."
Bill Kristol, prominent neoconservative: "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Good post, missk. There's no empirical support for the "liberal media" theory, at least not that I'm aware of. Credible content and linguistic analysis just don't bear it out.
Thanks for a "fair and balanced" -- not to mention intelligent -- contribution to this discussion.
"I mean, come on. I'm not even a liberal, and I can see that this liberal media nonsense is a bunch of bunk." Talk radio and network news broadcasts, conservative to some, left wing to others, serve a specific purpose. People that listen or watch a particular host or network like hearing what they hear. I enjoy Rush, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc. because I agree more than disagree with their viewpoints. I've tried to watch Katie Couric but her slant is just too liberal for my beliefs. I feel the same about Hillary, but the questionable dealings of her past, as well as her husband's, prompt more of a negative response than to Katie. It is truly a concern if this family is elected to the Presidency. So we chose up sides based on who feeds us the best: left or right, democracy or socialism, free market or price/profit controls. And we become further entrenched in our positions the more we listen/watch. Welcome to America and God Blessed us all by putting us here!!
Today, this thread is starting to annoy me. It's the same thing over and over again.
I really wish someone would simply say, "I acknowledge that your views are different than mine. I disagree with your views, but I respect that we're both entitled to them and neither one of us can prove we're right." There is nothing more frustrating that talking politics when the sides insist on proving why they are correct and the other side is wrong. That's the reason politics is so intriguing - BOTH sides are right - it just depends on what your values and priorities are.
I acknowledge the value of political debate, but this thread is WAYYYY to electrically charged for me at 11am. xI-)
>I really wish someone would simply say, "I >acknowledge that your views are different than >mine. I disagree with your views, but I respect >that we're both entitled to them and neither one >of us can prove we're right." There is nothing >more frustrating that talking politics when the >sides insist on proving why they are correct and >the other side is wrong. That's the reason >politics is so intriguing - BOTH sides are right >- it just depends on what your values and >priorities are.
The thing is, it's simply not true that just because something concerns a political issue there can never be a right or wrong statement. A lot of this isn't a matter of opinion - people are making factual assertions about the bias of the media or certain individuals. These are things that can be verified or refuted based on actual evidence. And when there's actual evidence in support of something, that should outweigh a person's gut opinion. Again, it's all about maintaining intellectual honesty - making sure that the opinions a person is espousing remain proportional to valid evidence that exists regarding those opinions. So if someone claims, "a majority of news reporters have a liberal bias," that's not mere opinion. That's an assertion of fact. And if, for example, that same person finds out that 70% of reporters voted republican in the last four presidential elections, that person should start reevaluating their "opinion" about the liberal media.
The great thing about the forum? And threads that you find annoying? Is that you can choose not to read them.
You're right. I don't have the time to do the necessary research jump into these bullshit conversations and make them worthwhile. I very rarely do. I'll remind myself to shut up in the future and respond to HR posts.
Everyone is too uptight. Its fine to disagree, argue, and even get upset. People have strong feelings about these issues.
I totally disagree that there is no such thing as the "liberal media". You can't have it both ways. You can't say that talk radio is "conservative" and then ignore the liberal bias that is generally found in tv and print news reporting.
Is Murdoch conservative or liberal? I dont know. I think he is a capitalist and was very smart to recognize a market niche (news reporting from a conservative standpoint) and fill it.
Personally, I doubt he has any real allegiances beyond his own success. If the market for a liberal tv news network had been there, he would have created one. But Ted Turner beat him to it so he went and created Fox News.
Paul, I agree on two points: One, it's fine to disagree and argue. I think this has been an interesting thread and I've learned from it, plus the disagreement has been respectful; not a "bullsh*t conversation" at all in my book.
I also agree that Murdoch is first and foremost a capitalist. As such, he'll swing both ways -- so to speak -- to advance his financial interests.
But I still disagree that there's a liberal media. Yes, TV is more liberal than radio on a relative scale, but I think of it as simply more balanced. Potato-potahto. As Steaks so aptly stated earlier, we all listen to or watch what we like and agree with. Which is kinda why it's good to have these discussions -- if left to our devices, we usually continue to only expose ourselves to stuff we already agree with.
I'm just sorry Ray's not here to riff on me saying "expose ourselves."
Geez I thought I was throwing an olive branch (with no dove attached) out there to calm the tightened threadians. I relish the ability and opportunity to disagree and discuss, but usually there is no endpoint when discussing politics. It is interesting to read the varying view points and so let's keep stoking the embers for a while. Ray may get frustrated and feel the need to break his silence!!!!
>Everyone is too uptight. Its fine to disagree, >argue, and even get upset. People have strong >feelings about these issues.
Yeah, I don't get what the problem is about conversations being "emotionally charged." Though - and I don't know whether the comment was in relation to my post - I'll point out that I don't feel very emotional about this topic at all; it's more the claims that people were making without factual basis that spurred me to respond - and in particular, the odd suggestion that Murdoch is suddenly a liberal because of his support of Hillary Clinton. Murdoch has long been a supporter of the republican party and is well-known for his conservative leanings.
In other words, my participation in this thread was motivated by what I saw as the opportunity for intellectual discourse. And my humble pursuit of intellectual honesty.
>I totally disagree that there is no such thing >as the "liberal media". You can't have it both >ways. You can't say that talk radio is >"conservative" and then ignore the liberal bias >that is generally found in tv and print news >reporting.
Well I'll note here, that I'm not looking to have it both ways, in that I've never claimed that talk radio is conservative (though my understanding is that the evidence supports that claim). First, I think that there is a mix - some media outlets tend to be more conservative (Rush Limbaugh, Fox News), and others tend to be more liberal (Jon Stewart, New York Times? (allegedly)). But the evidence from studies done on this topic indicates that, overall, there is not a liberal bias in the media. There may be some newspapers or reporters that are liberal-leaning, just as there are some newspapers or reporters that are conservative-leaning, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that, on the whole, "The Media" reports things in a way that favors liberals. For every example of allegedly liberal bias you can cite, there's going to be some counterexample to support a conservative bias. The thing is that the "liberal media" mantra has been repeated so many times that a lot of people don't stop to think about whether it's actually true. And for anyone, anytime someone hears something reported in a way that doesn't comport with their views, they tend to label it as a "bias". But people are always going to take special note of reporting that they disagree with rather than with reporting they have no problem with. So a person could have no problem with 90% of the the news as reported, which they're not going to notice so much. But when there's 10% that seems outrageous, then you take note. It's interesting that many liberals actually believe the media has a conservative bias.
>Is Murdoch conservative or liberal? I dont >know. I think he is a capitalist and was very >smart to recognize a market niche (news >reporting from a conservative standpoint) and >fill it. > >Personally, I doubt he has any real allegiances >beyond his own success. If the market for a >liberal tv news network had been there, he would >have created one. But Ted Turner beat him to it >so he went and created Fox News.
Sorry, but it's hard for me to consider CNN the paradigm of liberal bias in the media when it features a prime time show hosted by Glenn Beck.
Excellent post. Your posts are appreciated because they are not just opinionated rehetoric but rather logical conclusions based on facts. You are "point on" regarding the constant repeating of simplistic things like "liberal media" or "liberal democrats" until uninformed people accept them as fact. Probably most of the posters on this thread are too young to remember Hitler's propaganda minister, George Gobels; however, I hope you may have read about it. I am old enough to remember and the stock-in-trade of the Propaganda Ministry was repetition of lies. This was particularly true in the case of Jews and blacks.
America needs to wake up and ask what is the agenda of the present administration. I used to pride myself on being conservative but I cannot identify with the present administration who profess to be conservatives. I wish that all of you who profess to be conservatives would find the 10-28-06 posting on YAHOO Finance (several pages) that states the position of our GAO Chief David M. Walker otherwise known as the Controller General of the USA. Mr. Walker vividly portrays what has happened during the past 6 now almost 7 years that has put this country on the road to financial ruin. Again, all of this was accomplished by an administration that claims to be "conservative".
I can only believe that greed has gone wild during this administration. The final work of Jack Abramof remains to be played out. Although I could name many just take a look at this one example. The Medicare Part "D" coverage that was passed and became effective 1-01-06o was pushed through our Congress in the middle of the night (Do you think is because it could not stand the light of day?), for instance the bill prohibits Medicare from negoitating prices with Drug companies. The Veterans administration who can negoitate have prices for the same drugs from 30 to 80% cheaper. The former congressman who pushed this bill through, Billy Tauzin from Louisiana is now employed by PHARMA the drug co. assoc. lobby for 2 MILLION per year. Your don't have to be a rocket scientist to comprehend this. I might also add that a number of congressmen and staffers who helped Rep. Tauzin push this bill through also went to work either for Pharma or directly for the drug companies.
My conversation is "emotionally charged" but it is that way because of facts, not because of some blowhards diatribes that constantly repeat fictions but throw in just enough truth to suck people into the abyss. As someone put it if you don't want to hear emotionally charged disagreements then go to another thread and while you are gone look up some facts not a bunch of BS.
I would be the first to agree that the current administration has been a disappointment, as has the current Congress and the previous Republican controlled Congress. Financial responsibility, i.e., smaller less intrusive government, is supposed to be a conservative mainstay, but they (conservatives) and their moderate and social reform collegues have not lived up to their responsibility. Republicans have been too willing to compromise their principles, and Democrats have been too anti- administration to accomplish anything meaningful. So who's fault is it? We elected them and we can replace them. Our country faces serious crises and we need leadershp and direction that will navigate the landmines. Question is, can anyone go to Washington and not become tainted, either by special interests, lobbyists or party radicals, or simply money? Can any of our Presidential candidates rise above the pack with a meaningful plan going forward? One of the downsides to "Liberal Media Bias", "Conservative Talk Radio", is the division it causes within our population; just as this thread has identified, we are choosing up sides, left or right, then defending and justifying our positions, myself as guilty as anyone. But how do we take the politics out of politicians? How do we (or they) learn to work to a workable gameplan without fear of compromising their "party's" mantra? I agree with Moon and it is an aged quotation, that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. Not correctly quoted but meaning is there. I attempt to not become "emotionally charged" because I've witnessed too much irrational behavior from people being in that condition. Let's call my feelings "emotionally engaged and very concerned". Back to Chet (anyone remember that? Showing my age).
Comments
>post #26. Here, I'll post it again:
>
>You want facts, yet you say something like
>Rupert Murdoch is not a liberal? Why would he
>hold a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton? That
>took a mere 5 minutes to find.
>
>[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml[/url]
Is that the best you can do? Come on - even the article you cite has as its tagline:
"Conservative Media Mogul to Host Fundraiser for Liberal NY Senator" and begins, "Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal..."
Holding a fundraiser for a democratic candidate doesn't make one liberal. Even *voting* for a democratic candidate doesn't make one liberal. I would like to think that, conservative or liberal, one should examine all candidates and make a choice based on more than a person's party affiliation. Recognizing the possibility that your party's candidate (or choice of candidates) may not be the best choice doesn't suddenly make you a flaming liberal (or on the other side, an extreme right wing conservative, for those democrats who support a republican). Not to mention there are lots of reasons a person might hold a fundraiser for someone - for all we know, Murdoch owes the Clintons a favor (which would not be at all surprising). I'll also note that calling Murdoch a liberal for supporting Clinton is particularly ridiculous unless you're prepared to call Clinton a conservative because she's allied herself with Murdoch and shown support for him by attending the Fox News Anniversary celebration.
Also, media treatment of Al Gore and Howard Dean should be enough to discredit these cries of "liberal media." How many times during the 2000 election did we hear about and see footage of Al Gore's sighing, etc. during the debates? I mean, granted, it was pretty rude, but if the media had this extreme liberal bias that everyone claims, they would have downplayed it rather than showing it over and over, clip after clip, commenting on how inconsiderate Al Gore was while Bush spoke, and likely having a very real effect on the outcome of the election.
When Howard Dean gave his "Iowa yell", the media played the clip over and over, painting Dean as some raving lunatic.
The following is a good article regarding the notion of the "liberal media," and it includes quotes such as:
Rich Bond, chair of the Republican Party in 1992, referring to bashing the media as 'liberal': "There is some strategy to it ... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Pat Buchanan: "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that."
Bill Kristol, prominent neoconservative: "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
[url]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2[/url]
I mean, come on. I'm not even a liberal, and I can see that this liberal media nonsense is a bunch of bunk.
Thanks for a "fair and balanced" -- not to mention intelligent -- contribution to this discussion.
Ww.
Talk radio and network news broadcasts, conservative to some, left wing to others, serve a specific purpose. People that listen or watch a particular host or network like hearing what they hear. I enjoy Rush, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc. because I agree more than disagree with their viewpoints. I've tried to watch Katie Couric but her slant is just too liberal for my beliefs. I feel the same about Hillary, but the questionable dealings of her past, as well as her husband's, prompt more of a negative response than to Katie. It is truly a concern if this family is elected to the Presidency.
So we chose up sides based on who feeds us the best: left or right, democracy or socialism, free market or price/profit controls. And we become further entrenched in our positions the more we listen/watch.
Welcome to America and God Blessed us all by putting us here!!
I really wish someone would simply say, "I acknowledge that your views are different than mine. I disagree with your views, but I respect that we're both entitled to them and neither one of us can prove we're right." There is nothing more frustrating that talking politics when the sides insist on proving why they are correct and the other side is wrong. That's the reason politics is so intriguing - BOTH sides are right - it just depends on what your values and priorities are.
I acknowledge the value of political debate, but this thread is WAYYYY to electrically charged for me at 11am. xI-)
>acknowledge that your views are different than
>mine. I disagree with your views, but I respect
>that we're both entitled to them and neither one
>of us can prove we're right." There is nothing
>more frustrating that talking politics when the
>sides insist on proving why they are correct and
>the other side is wrong. That's the reason
>politics is so intriguing - BOTH sides are right
>- it just depends on what your values and
>priorities are.
The thing is, it's simply not true that just because something concerns a political issue there can never be a right or wrong statement. A lot of this isn't a matter of opinion - people are making factual assertions about the bias of the media or certain individuals. These are things that can be verified or refuted based on actual evidence. And when there's actual evidence in support of something, that should outweigh a person's gut opinion. Again, it's all about maintaining intellectual honesty - making sure that the opinions a person is espousing remain proportional to valid evidence that exists regarding those opinions. So if someone claims, "a majority of news reporters have a liberal bias," that's not mere opinion. That's an assertion of fact. And if, for example, that same person finds out that 70% of reporters voted republican in the last four presidential elections, that person should start reevaluating their "opinion" about the liberal media.
The great thing about the forum? And threads that you find annoying? Is that you can choose not to read them.
I totally disagree that there is no such thing as the "liberal media". You can't have it both ways. You can't say that talk radio is "conservative" and then ignore the liberal bias that is generally found in tv and print news reporting.
Is Murdoch conservative or liberal? I dont know. I think he is a capitalist and was very smart to recognize a market niche (news reporting from a conservative standpoint) and fill it.
Personally, I doubt he has any real allegiances beyond his own success. If the market for a liberal tv news network had been there, he would have created one. But Ted Turner beat him to it so he went and created Fox News.
I also agree that Murdoch is first and foremost a capitalist. As such, he'll swing both ways -- so to speak -- to advance his financial interests.
But I still disagree that there's a liberal media. Yes, TV is more liberal than radio on a relative scale, but I think of it as simply more balanced. Potato-potahto. As Steaks so aptly stated earlier, we all listen to or watch what we like and agree with. Which is kinda why it's good to have these discussions -- if left to our devices, we usually continue to only expose ourselves to stuff we already agree with.
I'm just sorry Ray's not here to riff on me saying "expose ourselves."
Ray may get frustrated and feel the need to break his silence!!!!
>argue, and even get upset. People have strong
>feelings about these issues.
Yeah, I don't get what the problem is about conversations being "emotionally charged." Though - and I don't know whether the comment was in relation to my post - I'll point out that I don't feel very emotional about this topic at all; it's more the claims that people were making without factual basis that spurred me to respond - and in particular, the odd suggestion that Murdoch is suddenly a liberal because of his support of Hillary Clinton. Murdoch has long been a supporter of the republican party and is well-known for his conservative leanings.
In other words, my participation in this thread was motivated by what I saw as the opportunity for intellectual discourse. And my humble pursuit of intellectual honesty.
>I totally disagree that there is no such thing
>as the "liberal media". You can't have it both
>ways. You can't say that talk radio is
>"conservative" and then ignore the liberal bias
>that is generally found in tv and print news
>reporting.
Well I'll note here, that I'm not looking to have it both ways, in that I've never claimed that talk radio is conservative (though my understanding is that the evidence supports that claim). First, I think that there is a mix - some media outlets tend to be more conservative (Rush Limbaugh, Fox News), and others tend to be more liberal (Jon Stewart, New York Times? (allegedly)). But the evidence from studies done on this topic indicates that, overall, there is not a liberal bias in the media. There may be some newspapers or reporters that are liberal-leaning, just as there are some newspapers or reporters that are conservative-leaning, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that, on the whole, "The Media" reports things in a way that favors liberals. For every example of allegedly liberal bias you can cite, there's going to be some counterexample to support a conservative bias. The thing is that the "liberal media" mantra has been repeated so many times that a lot of people don't stop to think about whether it's actually true. And for anyone, anytime someone hears something reported in a way that doesn't comport with their views, they tend to label it as a "bias". But people are always going to take special note of reporting that they disagree with rather than with reporting they have no problem with. So a person could have no problem with 90% of the the news as reported, which they're not going to notice so much. But when there's 10% that seems outrageous, then you take note. It's interesting that many liberals actually believe the media has a conservative bias.
>Is Murdoch conservative or liberal? I dont
>know. I think he is a capitalist and was very
>smart to recognize a market niche (news
>reporting from a conservative standpoint) and
>fill it.
>
>Personally, I doubt he has any real allegiances
>beyond his own success. If the market for a
>liberal tv news network had been there, he would
>have created one. But Ted Turner beat him to it
>so he went and created Fox News.
Sorry, but it's hard for me to consider CNN the paradigm of liberal bias in the media when it features a prime time show hosted by Glenn Beck.
They needed a conservative voice so they found one, albeit a very funny alcoholic mormon.
And before any of you get upset by that last comment, that is what Glenn is and will freely admit.
missk:
Excellent post. Your posts are appreciated because they are not just opinionated rehetoric but rather logical conclusions based on facts. You are "point on" regarding the constant repeating of simplistic things like "liberal media" or "liberal democrats" until uninformed people accept them as fact. Probably most of the posters on this thread are too young to remember Hitler's propaganda minister, George Gobels; however, I hope you may have read about it. I am old enough to remember and the stock-in-trade of the Propaganda Ministry was repetition of lies. This was particularly true in the case of Jews and blacks.
America needs to wake up and ask what is the agenda of the present administration. I used to pride myself on being conservative but I cannot identify with the present administration who profess to be conservatives. I wish that all of you who profess to be conservatives would find the 10-28-06 posting on YAHOO Finance (several pages) that states the position of our GAO Chief David M. Walker otherwise known as the Controller General of the USA. Mr. Walker vividly portrays what has happened during the past 6 now almost 7 years that has put this country on the road to financial ruin. Again, all of this was accomplished by an administration that claims to be "conservative".
I can only believe that greed has gone wild during this administration. The final work of Jack Abramof remains to be played out. Although I could name many just take a look at this one example. The Medicare Part "D" coverage that was passed and became effective 1-01-06o was pushed through our Congress in the middle of the night (Do you think is because it could not stand the light of day?), for instance the bill prohibits Medicare from negoitating prices with Drug companies. The Veterans administration who can negoitate have prices for the same drugs from 30 to 80% cheaper. The former congressman who pushed this bill through, Billy Tauzin from Louisiana is now employed by PHARMA the drug co. assoc. lobby for 2 MILLION per year. Your don't have to be a rocket scientist to comprehend this. I might also add that a number of congressmen and staffers who helped Rep. Tauzin push this bill through also went to work either for Pharma or directly for the drug companies.
My conversation is "emotionally charged" but it is that way because of facts, not because of some blowhards diatribes that constantly repeat fictions but throw in just enough truth to suck people into the abyss. As someone put it if you don't want to hear emotionally charged disagreements then go to another thread and while you are gone look up some facts not a bunch of BS.
Moon
So who's fault is it? We elected them and we can replace them. Our country faces serious crises and we need leadershp and direction that will navigate the landmines. Question is, can anyone go to Washington and not become tainted, either by special interests, lobbyists or party radicals, or simply money? Can any of our Presidential candidates rise above the pack with a meaningful plan going forward?
One of the downsides to "Liberal Media Bias", "Conservative Talk Radio", is the division it causes within our population; just as this thread has identified, we are choosing up sides, left or right, then defending and justifying our positions, myself as guilty as anyone. But how do we take the politics out of politicians? How do we (or they) learn to work to a workable gameplan without fear of compromising their "party's" mantra?
I agree with Moon and it is an aged quotation, that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. Not correctly quoted but meaning is there. I attempt to not become "emotionally charged" because I've witnessed too much irrational behavior from people being in that condition. Let's call my feelings "emotionally engaged and very concerned".
Back to Chet (anyone remember that? Showing my age).