Hi, I am a liberal looking for a network that
expresses my point of view. Wait, they shouldn't express my point of view. They should just report the fucking news.

Help.

Originally posted by Donkey
Hi, I am a liberal looking for a network that
expresses my point of view. Wait, they shouldn't express my point of view. They should just report the fucking news.

Help.

C-Span

Originally posted by Donkey
Hi, I am a liberal looking for a network that
expresses my point of view.

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC.

Any of those should work well for ya.

You're welcome.

I've asked three times how the media leans to the left and is liberal.

For three times, it's been unanswered.

to be honest, i dont even really know which way it leans. i cant really decide. i think they just take the worst from both worlds. the aggravatingly hysterical pc bullshit from the left, and ignorant, tunnel-visioned chest-thumping/flag waving from the right. id rather it take some of the utilitarianism of the right and the humanity of the left

it's to the left because of how they get taught to think.

Liberalism has changed since L.B.J. allowed people to avoid the military by entering college.

Yes, the mind-set does exist inside the walls of our capitalistic reality, but within the sub-culture of education, the view of how Government should operate is decidely paternalistic.

It should be nothing of the sort, unless your the kind of parent that believes in 'tough love', imo.

The very notion of Universal Health Care is Utopian folly, but conseratives have essentially lost the battle of persuading the public from making the same mistakes many socialist countries have made and lower the standards of health care by accepting Marxian rules for their society.


///

ANYWAY...Bush wins if he rolls out a flat-tax initiative and abolishes the I.R.S. as we know it.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern

ANYWAY...Bush wins if he rolls out a flat-tax initiative and abolishes the I.R.S. as we know it.


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">That's never going to happen. G.W. is about as conservative as Kerry is liberal.

And as far as "reporting the news" goes, the act of observing any event changes it. If people stopped acting like the fucking news could possibly be reported objectively and started patronizing networks they know to be slanted to begin with then everyone would shut up about this liberal media crap. I also don't understand why any forward thinking liberal would want the news to pander to him. I like watching Fox News because it makes me angry and reading the Economist because it makes me think.</font>

Originally posted by sleeper
to be honest, i dont even really know which way it leans. i cant really decide. i think they just take the worst from both worlds. the aggravatingly hysterical pc bullshit from the left, and ignorant, tunnel-visioned chest-thumping/flag waving from the right. id rather it take some of the utilitarianism of the right and the humanity of the left


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Bingo. The news media has, and will continue to be, lowest-common denominator sensationalists. They are killing this country slowly every day.</font>

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
it's to the left because of how they get taught to think.


HAHAHAHAHAHA

Idiot.

I'm still waiting, by the way.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Bingo. The news media has, and will continue to be, lowest-common denominator sensationalists. They are killing this country slowly every day.</font>

There are very good reporters--and entire publications--anywhere in the free world. I don't have time right now to post a (limited) defense of journalism and journalists, but maybe when I get back later tonight, I will.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


There are very good reporters--and entire publications--anywhere in the free world. I don't have time right now to post a (limited) defense of journalism and journalists, but maybe when I get back later tonight, I will.


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">You don't have to, actually, I'm not ignorant. I've worked on newspapers, I know what the ethics are. The news media is well meaning but extremely naive. Besides, I was talking about broadcast journalism where the soundbyte is king.

Most of the publications I respect are slanted to begin with.</font>

Euronews

Originally posted by DeviousJ
Euronews

Is that like the Naked News?

Listen to NPR

Originally posted by Mayfuck


Is that like the Naked News?

No, it kicks ass. They can't even afford decent channel bandwidth, so the sound is like a 64k mp3 and the picture breaks up a bit if there's too much action on screen. They don't have anchors though, so there's no bullshit editorial from some 'news personality'. Unless you count the time there was a report on some exchange scheme between Ireland and Lithuania I think it was, and the Lithuanian kids were with the Irish kids on a beach in Ireland, and some Irish girl was talking about all the things the Lituanians were getting to experience which they didn't have in their country, like beaches. Then the voiceover guy goes 'next year the Lithuania will play host to the Irish children, where that girl will discover they do in fact have beaches'

sppunk,

L.B.J. wrote into law (I used to know the number of it) that anyone who went to college was exempt from the draft.

That created a sea-change in the social mores of this country that still has its effects that are profound (to this day Liberals dont want to face the consequence of their hedonism...but thats another issue).


Here: Base Line Budgeting.

Each year the Government factors in increases in spending (pick a cause, lets call it Aids funding).

so, in 2000, as an example, lets say a Million dollars was spent on Aids funding.

Government, in their 'wisdom', deems there needs to be a 10% hike in spending (here is how centralized governments implode, no business sense).

Democrats feel entitled to the 10% rate hike. Republicans say it should be 5% hike for the next year.

Democrats jump up and down, say the Republicans are homophobes by cutting Aids funding (when its still more than the previous years), and the Media run with the Democrats and keep saying its a 'cut' and certainly play up the homophobe innuendo.

That's why the newspapers and the networks are liberal. They've been doing this on this issue and others for 30 years now.

fool.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
sppunk,

L.B.J. wrote into law (I used to know the number of it) that anyone who went to college was exempt from the draft.

That created a sea-change in the social mores of this country that still has its effects that are profound (to this day Liberals dont want to face the consequence of their hedonism...but thats another issue).


Here: Base Line Budgeting.

Each year the Government factors in increases in spending (pick a cause, lets call it Aids funding).

so, in 2000, as an example, lets say a Million dollars was spent on Aids funding.

Government, in their 'wisdom', deems there needs to be a 10% hike in spending (here is how centralized governments implode, no business sense).

Democrats feel entitled to the 10% rate hike. Republicans say it should be 5% hike for the next year.

Democrats jump up and down, say the Republicans are homophobes by cutting Aids funding (when its still more than the previous years), and the Media run with the Democrats and keep saying its a 'cut' and certainly play up the homophobe innuendo.

That's why the newspapers and the networks are liberal. They've been doing this on this issue and others for 30 years now.

fool.

Do you know that there is no draft, and more than half of all journalists today are under 40 ... and were never eligible for the draft?

Listen, the media isn't liberal dude. You might have an opinion writer who is - just like you have many who are very conservative. The media comes off as liberal to the right and conservative to the left. Like I've said four times without being given examples, that means it's right where we need to be: down the middle.

I've worked at the second-most "liberal" paper in America (the Boston Globe) and they endorsed more Republicans than Democrats. That's not a very "liberal" thing to be doing.

now you're proving my point about not thinking well.

Those journalist went to journalism schools and were taught by people the rigors of journalism. (Ergo: the bias I speak to ensues:

Like:

Since when does being a Republican make one a conservative?

It doesnt, and you should understand this and not take an endorsment from a newspaper for a Republican as something that is not a liberal biased view.

Endorsing a Republican could be a very liberal thing to do provided that candidate needs a Liberal platform (to some degree) to get votes in his election (and in Mass., that should go without saying).

I dont know if that is the case in the example you stated. But its something you need to consider to get rid of the very bias you exposed of your thought process for the purpose of pursuing objectivity.

And all of those newspaper people need to wake up to the notion their profession is going the way of silent movies.

Its the radio and internet these days having the profound influence in the body politic. Newspaper endorsments have long been irrelevant in actual voting influence.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
now you're proving my point about not thinking well.

Those journalist went to journalism schools and were taught by people the rigors of journalism. (Ergo: the bias I speak to ensues:

Like:

Since when does being a Republican make one a conservative?

It doesnt, and you should understand this and not take an endorsment from a newspaper for a Republican as something that is not a liberal biased view.

Endorsing a Republican could be a very liberal thing to do provided that candidate needs a Liberal platform (to some degree) to get votes in his election (and in Mass., that should go without saying).

I dont know if that is the case in the example you stated. But its something you need to consider to get rid of the very bias you exposed of your thought process for the purpose of pursuing objectivity.

And all of those newspaper people need to wake up to the notion their profession is going the way of silent movies.

Its the radio and internet these days having the profound influence in the body politic. Newspaper endorsments have long been irrelevant in actual voting influence.

There are hardly any real Republicans any more ... everything is defied by agendas, whether it be conservative or liberal.

Oh, and to say that newspapers are going away is really quite absurd - circulation has jumped 18 percent in a year, and since 1998 (when Internet news really took off), circulation numbers have blossomed more than 30 percent. Those numbers aren't telling us we're going away. Instead, they tell us people trust newspapers much more than Internet news (thank God) and cable news networks.

There has been, and always will be, a role of newspapers: We actually tell an in-depth story. Whereas TV puts out what is visually pleasing (and for no more than 25 seconds usually), a newspaper can dedicate 26 inches easily to a story, giving much, much more details for the reader and digging deeper into the story.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros



<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">That's never going to happen. G.W. is about as conservative as Kerry is liberal.

</font> Kerry is far more of a liberal than Bush is a conservative.

BECOME THE FUCKING MEDIA!

www.indymedia.org

FIND THE NEAREST IMC TO WHERE YOU LIVE, JOIN IT, AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION INSTEAD OF YAMMERING ABOUT RIGHT AND LEFT!

GET ORGANIZED!

GET WRITING!

GET OUT THERE!

(If one isn't near you start one with the help of others. Collectives of independent citizen journalists are what we need. Not more high paid, well dressed lumps who tell you what Coke and Kraft want you to believe.) (I should note that Coke and Kraft were off the top of my head, but that's all major corporations.)

I'd like to posit a Chomsky-esque reason for why the media is, in fact, inherently conservative. Not conservative in the way a Republican might be, but conservative in the way a businessman might be. The media is controlled by very few, very wealthy businessmen. Take Rupert Murdoch. He owns Fox; he owns 130 english-speaking newspapers (Including the London Times) he owns TV Guide, HarperCollins, 24 magazines. That's a lot of power in the hands of an avowed Republican, a huge fan of Reagan's, a wealthy, powerful, unscrupulous* businessman. NBC? It's owned by General Electric. I could go on and on, but it's sufficent to say that these guys have a real stake in the kind of media they're putting out. It's in there interest to promote a conservative, deregulatory agenda.

Not necessarily the case, but a plausible explanation, I'd say.

*The man was once quoted throwing his support behind the totalitarian Chinese regime in order to get broadcasting rights in the country.

Originally posted by Marginalia
I'd like to posit a Chomsky-esque reason for why the media is, in fact, inherently conservative. Not conservative in the way a Republican might be, but conservative in the way a businessman might be. The media is controlled by very few, very wealthy businessmen. Take Rupert Murdoch. He owns Fox; he owns 130 english-speaking newspapers (Including the London Times) he owns TV Guide, HarperCollins, 24 magazines. That's a lot of power in the hands of an avowed Republican, a huge fan of Reagan's, a wealthy, powerful, unscrupulous* businessman. NBC? It's owned by General Electric. I could go on and on, but it's sufficent to say that these guys have a real stake in the kind of media they're putting out. It's in there interest to promote a conservative, deregulatory agenda.

Not necessarily the case, but a plausible explanation, I'd say.

*The man was once quoted throwing his support behind the totalitarian Chinese regime in order to get broadcasting rights in the country.

Exactly. When something goes wrong at GE will NBC rush to report it? Most likely not. The child is not going to talk badly about the parent that feeds it. If I am not mistaken 8 corporations own over 50% of the mainstream media in the United States. Thats a huge amount of power for a small number of companies that own a very large slice of the American economic pie.

I recently began watching Free Speech TV. My god. I feel like the wool has been pulled back from my eyes revealing the truth of the world. I'm suddently becoming informed about all the stories and topics that the major news companies never talk about: Corporate Globalism, Biopiracy, the truth about the WTO and agri-business, etc.

I'm suddenly learning about very influential people such as Dr. Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky, etc.

I'm also becoming more informed about websites, groups, and publications I never knew about such as: The Nation, Democracy Now!, Pacifica, Turn Left, Project Censored, Media-Alliance, Harpers, etc.

I feel like I'm finally waking up from a long political slumber where I was just truly nieve of the world I live in partly due to my fault of not seeking more truth and partly the fault of the major media news organizations for not talking about the more serious issues of the world.

Originally posted by Knight0440
BECOME THE FUCKING MEDIA!

www.indymedia.org

FIND THE NEAREST IMC TO WHERE YOU LIVE, JOIN IT, AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION INSTEAD OF YAMMERING ABOUT RIGHT AND LEFT!

GET ORGANIZED!

GET WRITING!

GET OUT THERE!

(If one isn't near you start one with the help of others. Collectives of independent citizen journalists are what we need. Not more high paid, well dressed lumps who tell you what Coke and Kraft want you to believe.) (I should note that Coke and Kraft were off the top of my head, but that's all major corporations.)

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Shut up.</font>

Originally posted by spa ced
I feel like I'm finally waking up from a long political slumber where I was just truly nieve of the world I live in partly due to my fault of not seeking more truth and partly the fault of the major media news organizations for not talking about the more serious issues of the world.

There are a lot of things wrong with the media, as Brendan alluded to, but this is just a load of shit.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


There are a lot of things wrong with the media, as Brendan alluded to, but this is just a load of shit.

It's not a load of bullshit you pompous wanker. The mainstream media never mentions other programs that are available or reports stories coming from these other media programs.

Originally posted by Donkey
Hi, I am a liberal looking for a network that
expresses my point of view. Wait, they shouldn't express my point of view. They should just report the fucking news.

Help.

Don't you understand that there is a bias to the way anything and everything is reported? Are you that willing to believe everything that's being told to you?