liberal/conservative media

[photosynthesis]

i'm applying to sinclair broadcasting.... let's see if they like me!

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 21 2005, 12:32 AM']i'm applying to sinclair broadcasting....  let's see if they like me!
[right][snapback]832431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh wow - good luck with that!

[Antonius]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 20 2005, 06:34 PM']FOX is the only politically "neo-conservative" Republican-leaning TV news outlet.
All the others are politically liberal.

People in national news media (both newpapers and TV) tend to be overwhelmingly politically liberal and Democrat. 
That is not just a right wing conspiracy theory, but is repeatedly confirmed by surveys and polls of media personel's personal political views.

But the liberal stranglehold on the media is no longer as monolithic as it once was.

It's amusing how liberals were all about "free press" when they had a near-total monopoly on the media, but then began to scream and howl, first about Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio, and then about FOX news.

It seems that liberals like "free speech" only as long as they are the ones talking.

(And NPR tends to be politically VERY liberal, btw).
[right][snapback]832202[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Let me clarify...

When I am talking about the media, I have in mind the corporate oligopoly dominated by our wonderful merged and conglomerated friends such as News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and TCI. These supergiants of the mass media not only control the major news outlets but also have telvision networks, cable channels, and retail stores. "Time Warner, for example, owns music recording studios, film and television production studios, several cable television channels, cable broadcasting systems, amusement parks, the WB television network, book publishing houses, magazine publishing interests, retail stores, motion picture theaters, and other things" (McChesney, [i]Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy[/i]). Without delving further into how much has been divided and conquered to be controlled among so few, I'm talking about Big Business and that the mass media as an industry, not merely whether they say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."

Big Business naturally has allied with itself Big Government, so that together they might control us, the average man (and woman). It seems that the present Repulican and Democratic parties are both politically "liberal," with one party keeping the religious people distracted and theo the other side keeping the communistas distracted. The media, by being owned and controlled by mega corporate conglomerates is pro-business, because it ignores stories relating to communications reform and corporate reform, or even reform in general. An anti-corporate candidate could not run for president, because, I think, the media stations would ignore him.

Part of my political ignorance is precisely because the media have depoliticized the news, because the media exist to sell themselves. In order to sell themselves, they will give the people what they will buy. They have depoliticized the news by paying pundits to argue back and forth with each other, in effect becoming clowns who wear bow ties and call candidates "flip floppers" or, to be cool with MTV, join the Bush Bashing club.

I agree with you that many stations pander to "left-wing" politics, but it's only a sham. I also agree that it seems that the vast majority of the messages we receive seek to promote a liberal state. That is because Big Business and Big Government [i]are [/i]liberal, even if the President says his prayers, takes the war to the terrorists, and nominates pro-life judges.

I think greater concern, as sojourner pointed out earlier, should be for media reform, so that there is a free and open discourse of policy for all Americans. Who [i]will[/i] guard the guards? With the 1980s deregulation of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the finishing move of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the media can say and do what they want with very little governemental control, which is part of the reason Big Pornography is allowed to flourish.

Another point of concern... Have we noticed how every major media outlet has engaged in scare tactics since 11 Sept 2001? Playing on the fear we all have of the next disaster and nurturing it? I think that Michael Moore's politics are wrong and he's personally a glutton for attention, but, I cannot but cheer him on for what he does best, lamblasting Big Business. After watching Bowling for Columbine, I cannot look at any news show in the same way ever again. I also enjoyed his Big Business critiques in [i]The Big One[/i] and[i] Roger and Me[/i]. I didn't see [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i].

No, I'm not a Jesuit social justice liberation theology freak. I try to stay away from politics. If anything, I'm very sympathetic to Distributism.

I just don't want to be controlled or enslaved to sin or to the worldly powers that be.

What do you think? (Yeah, I'm hoping that NPR gets real government funding someday and can be a fair and balanced news source just as the BBC.)

[photosynthesis]

i have nightmares about michael moore.

i met him at the republican national convention once. he smelled.

[Antonius]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 20 2005, 11:26 PM']i have nightmares about michael moore.

i met him at the republican national convention once.  he smelled.
[right][snapback]832486[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Haha! I can just imagine! He really is a fat slob, the poor guy... He made some interesting documentaries, even if he nastily twists people's words and makes them look like idiots.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Antonius

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Dec 21 2005, 01:30 AM']Haha!  I can just imagine!  He really is a fat slob, the poor guy...  He made some interesting documentaries, even if he nastily twists people's words and makes them look like idiots.
[right][snapback]832488[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
... and misrepresents facts and lies to properly package his agenda

[lifescanticle]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Dec 21 2005, 12:38 AM']... and misrepresents facts and lies to properly package his agenda
[right][snapback]832495[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sadly I believe that most members of the media are liberal. Their own polling (on how they voted) shows that a large majority vote democratic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Dec 20 2005, 11:13 PM']Let me clarify... 

When I am talking about the media, I have in mind the corporate oligopoly dominated by our wonderful merged and conglomerated friends such as News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and TCI.  These supergiants of the mass media not only control the major news outlets but also have telvision networks, cable channels, and retail stores.  "Time Warner, for example, owns music recording studios, film and television production studios, several cable television channels, cable broadcasting systems, amusement parks, the WB television network, book publishing houses, magazine publishing interests, retail stores, motion picture theaters, and other things" (McChesney, [i]Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy[/i]).  Without delving further into how much has been divided and conquered to be controlled among so few, I'm talking about Big Business and that the mass media as an industry, not merely whether they say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."

Big Business naturally has allied with itself Big Government, so that together they might control us, the average man (and woman).  It seems that the present Repulican and Democratic parties are both politically "liberal," with one party keeping the religious people distracted and theo the other side keeping the communistas distracted.  The media, by being owned and controlled by mega corporate conglomerates is pro-business, because it ignores stories relating to communications reform and corporate reform, or even reform in general.  An anti-corporate candidate could not run for president, because, I think, the media stations would ignore him.

Part of my political ignorance is precisely because the media have depoliticized the news, because the media exist to sell themselves.  In order to sell themselves, they will give the people what they will buy.  They have depoliticized the news by paying pundits to argue back and forth with each other, in effect becoming clowns who wear bow ties and call candidates "flip floppers" or, to be cool with MTV, join the Bush Bashing club.

I agree with you that many stations pander to "left-wing" politics, but it's only a sham.  I also agree that it seems that the vast majority of the messages we receive seek to promote a liberal state.  That is because Big Business and Big Government [i]are [/i]liberal, even if the President says his prayers, takes the war to the terrorists, and nominates pro-life judges.
[right][snapback]832473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
While you make some legitimate points here, I must disagree with some of your premises and conclusions in this post .

It is an eroneous equation that:
"Big business" = "Conservative" and "Liberal" = "Anti-big business."

This simplistic view is what liberals would have us believe, but the truth is more complex. Conservatism is for limited government and against undue government meddling in private busines, but this does not mean conservatism is always necessarily equated with "big business" interests.

In fact, most of the media "corporate oligopoly" you mentioned are very liberal and support the Democratic Party.

While liberals often use rhetoric against "big business" and "Corporate America," (especially if the businesses in question happen to be politically incorrect, such as gun manufacturers) they tend to have little problem with the big business of the media and "entertainment" industry or any corporations that favor "progressive" social causes.
They turn an even blinder eye to the big-money abortion and porn businesses.

[quote]I think greater concern, as sojourner pointed out earlier, should be for media reform, so that there is a free and open discourse of policy for all Americans.  Who [i]will[/i] guard the guards?  With the 1980s deregulation of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the finishing move of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the media can say and  do what they want with very little governemental control, which is part of the reason Big Pornography is allowed to flourish.[/quote]
Here I must strongly disagree with you!

Do you really think the answer to problems in the media is to have government beaurocrats determining how and what news should be reported, and determine what constitutes "fair and balanced" reporting???

What makes you think government officials will magically become unbiased, disinterested, and uncorruptable?

Is Big Government really intrinsically more honest and noble than BIg business?

The news media would become just another arm of the government, as in Communist totalitarian regimes, and this would essentially flush freedom of the press and the 1st Ammendment down the toilet!

(And this is totally unrelated to the issue of pornography. Only in the late 20th century did liberal judges decide that porn was "speech." True freedom of the press does not mean gving a green light to porn and obscenity. Regulating how news is reported is quite another matter!)

[quote]Another point of concern...  Have we noticed how every major media outlet has engaged in scare tactics since 11 Sept 2001?  Playing on the fear we all have of the next disaster and nurturing it?  I think that Michael Moore's politics are wrong and he's personally a glutton for attention, but, I cannot but cheer him on for what he does best, lamblasting Big Business.  After watching Bowling for Columbine, I cannot look at any news show in the same way ever again.  I also enjoyed his Big Business critiques in [i]The Big One[/i] and[i] Roger and Me[/i].  I didn't see [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i].[/quote]

The media has played on "scare tactics" long before 9/11. (Global warming, the ozone hole, etc., and before that nuclear holocaust.) I am not sure what this has to do with the topic of government control, etc.

As for Michael Moore, I could not cheer him on in his lying and distortions of the truth just because he attacks "big business."
You attack the "mainstream media" for being untruthful, but then condone lies and dishonesty when you happen to dislike the target???!

[quote]No, I'm not a Jesuit social justice liberation theology freak.  I try to stay away from politics.  If anything, I'm very sympathetic to Distributism.

I just don't want to be controlled or enslaved to sin or to the worldly powers that be.

What do you think?  (Yeah, I'm hoping that NPR gets real government funding someday and can be a fair and balanced news source just as the BBC.)
[right][snapback]832473[/snapback][/right][/quote]
The government-funded NPR has become nothing but a mouthpiece for the extreme Left, and you think giving it more government money will somehow make it become fair and unbiased??!!

I can only hope you're joking here!

This sounds sadly like typical liberal "thinking" - that more government funding and meddling is the solution to all life's problems!

[Antonius]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 21 2005, 07:29 PM']It is an  eroneous equation that:
"Big business" = "Conservative" and "Liberal" = "Anti-big business."

This simplistic view is what liberals would have us believe, but the truth is more complex.  Conservatism is for limited government and against undue government meddling in private busines, but this does not mean conservatism is always necessarily equated with "big business" interests.

In fact, most of the media "corporate oligopoly" you mentioned are very liberal and support the Democratic Party.
[right][snapback]833204[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Where did I say that? Actually, I am trying to say something else. Republicans and Democrats are both liberal in my eyes, and that is not good, because I have more sympathy for old-time conservatism. Therefore, saying that the media support the Democrat party says nothing to me, since it wouldn't matter which party they favor. [b]Big Business dominates both parties in the government as well as dominating the communications system, which is an industry. News is a commodity.[/b]

The media can't favor Ralph Nader because he's against them. They will favor liberals. Dove or hawk, pro-life or pro-death -- it doesn't matter. What I'm trying to say is that Big Government and Big Business are in bed with each other. They aren't against each other, they're holding each other in power.

The differences between the parties are much smaller than the similarities. That's why there are only two parties! That's why there is only "left" and "right." There is no third way, only compromise... [i]That's[/i] the lie.

[quote]While liberals often use rhetoric against "big business" and "Corporate America," (especially if the businesses in question happen to be politically incorrect, such as gun manufacturers) they tend to have little problem with the big business of the media and "entertainment" industry or any corporations that favor "progressive" social causes.
They turn an even blinder eye to the big-money abortion and porn businesses.[/quote]
Umm... I agree with you on these points. Did I say something contrary to these things?

[quote]Do you really think the answer to problems in the media is to have government beaurocrats determining how and what news should be reported, and determine what constitutes "fair and balanced" reporting???

What makes you think government officials will magically become unbiased, disinterested, and uncorruptable?

Is Big Government really intrinsically more honest and noble than BIg business?

The news media would become just another arm of the government, as in Communist totalitarian regimes, and this would essentially flush freedom of the press and the 1st Ammendment down the toilet!
[/quote]
No, and I will elaborate on what the Telecommunications Act of 1934 codified.

The following is from [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership"]Wikipedia[/url][/i].
[quote]United States

Little mass media regulation existed in the United States prior to the creation of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927. The Telecommunications Act of 1934, which was a fundamental decision on how mass media would function from then on. At the time, radio technology had become widespread among the masses, and the electromagnetic spectrum was regarded as public property. The Act reappropriated the spectrum to itself, and claimed the right to assign spectrum ranges to private parties as long as they broadcasted in the public interest. This act created the Federal Communications Commission to replace the Federal Radio Commission. Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC, successfully petitioned to attach a cost to the license required to broadcast, and were thus able to "price out" many amateur broadcasters that had previously existed. Such was the precedent for much of the following regulatory decisions, which have mostly focused on the percentage of a market deemed allowable to a single company.

The largely unpublicized Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 set the modern tone of "deregulation," a relaxing of percentage constrictions that solidified the previous history of privatizing the utility and commodifying the spectrum. The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition, actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a trend which still continues.

The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one forum was needed. [1] [2] On June 2, 2003, The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a 3-2 vote, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area.The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period. Two commissioners requested this public comment period (the same two who voted against the changes) and their requests were denied without justification.The news coverage of this event in the mainstream press was very low-key.

A few of the points included:

    * Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1996) of that market.

    * Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.

    * All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and internet services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.

        (Thus it is now possible for two companies to own all of a city's 2 newspapers, 3 local TV stations, 2 national TV networks, and 8 local radio stations, (up to 45% of the media each) so long as there are other companies owning the shopping channel, the discovery channel, and at least 10% of other non-news outlets.)

    * Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest" considerations.

More information on the new consolidation rules is available from the FCC website. In particular, there are press releases from the commissioners who voted for the changes, and from those who voted against them.[/quote]
Deregulation seems to me to be the cause of the problems with the media.

[quote]The media has played on "scare tactics" long before 9/11. (Global warming, the ozone hole, etc., and before that nuclear holocaust.) I am not sure what this has to do with the topic of government control, etc.

As for Michael Moore, I could not cheer him on in his lying and distortions of the truth just because he attacks "big business."
You attack the "mainstream media" for being untruthful, but then condone lies and dishonesty when you happen to dislike the target???![/quote]

Yes, the media has played scare tactics. I loved [i]Bowling for Columbine [/i]principally because part of the film covered this fact.

In [i]Roger and Me[/i], Michael Moore documented the town of Flint, Michigan after GM closed down their plant and laid off virtually all their workers. What lies were involved? That was a real event.

In [i]The Big One[/i], Mr. Moore documented the corporate downsizing of the 90s. What lies were in that film?

I repeat, I didn't see [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]. From what I can tell, Mr. Moore was lying and/or making fantastical claims.

[quote]The government-funded NPR has become nothing but a mouthpiece for the extreme Left, and you think giving it more government money will somehow make it become fair and unbiased??!! shock.gif

I can only hope you're joking here!

This sounds sadly like typical liberal "thinking" - that more government funding and meddling is the solution to all life's problems! ohno.gif[/quote]
Here I made a mistake. In the communications policy debates about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS), there was supposed to be a tax on newly bought TVs and radios which would go directly to the CPB, thereby providing it with steady income that would give it some real money for autonomy and good editorial boards. Where I said "government funding" I had in mind this tax that was defeated. After the tax was defeated, the US had a CPB which was severely handicapped and has, as you say, become a liberal news source, albeit less polemic than the rest of the media.

I apologize for not articulating myself very clearly, as it seems you think we disagree on points I think we do agree. Thank you for cooperating with my great weakness.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:36 AM']Where did I say that?  Actually, I am trying to say something else.  Republicans and Democrats are both liberal in my eyes, and that is not good, because I have more sympathy for old-time conservatism.  Therefore, saying that the media support the Democrat party says nothing to me, since it wouldn't matter which party they favor.  [b]Big Business dominates both parties in the government as well as dominating the communications system, which is an industry.  News is a commodity.[/b]

The media can't favor Ralph Nader because he's against them.  They will favor liberals.  Dove or hawk, pro-life or pro-death -- it doesn't matter.  What I'm trying to say is that Big Government and Big Business are in bed with each other.  They aren't against each other, they're holding each other in power.

The differences between the parties are much smaller than the similarities.  That's why there are only two parties!  That's why there is only "left" and "right."  There is no third way, only compromise...  [i]That's[/i] the lie.
Umm... I agree with you on these points.  Did I say something contrary to these things?
[/quote]
I didn't mean to imply that I disagree with you on everything. The first part of my post was more about clarifying my own position on these issues. I am saying that people can still have Left-wing politics and be supported by big corporations. And I don't see more punitive state regulations on "big business" and the economy as being the answer to any problems. (There's a lot more that I could say on this, but I'll try to keep this on topic - I just received a book I ordered in the mail which so far seems very good, [i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i], by Thomas E. Woods Jr. I'd highly recommend it if you're interested in this topic.)

[quote]No, and I will elaborate on what the Telecommunications Act of 1934 codified.

The following is from [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership"]Wikipedia[/url][/i].

Deregulation seems to me to be the cause of the problems with the media.[/quote]
I would say government regulation of the media is dangerous, statist, and unconstitutional. This was part of the explosion of socialistic big government regulations that took place under FDR. I'd say it was right for the media to be deregulated. No such government regulations on the press existed prior to the '30s.

[quote]Yes, the media has played scare tactics.  I loved [i]Bowling for Columbine [/i]principally because part of the film covered this fact.

In [i]Roger and Me[/i], Michael Moore documented the town of Flint, Michigan after GM closed down their plant and laid off virtually all their workers.  What lies were involved?  That was a real event.

In [i]The Big One[/i], Mr. Moore documented the corporate downsizing of the 90s.  What lies were in that film?

I repeat, I didn't see [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i].  From what I can tell, Mr. Moore was lying and/or making fantastical claims.[/quote]
I'll admit I haven't seen these movies, but I've read some detailed critiques of them back before Moore was so (in)famous, and they chronicled a serious of lies and distortions of truth similar to those in [i]Farenheit 911[/i]. I have no respect for Michael Moore. He's a sneaky lying slob who deserves to be despised. I've seen bits of[i] Bowling for Columbine[/i], and was not much impressed (nor were those who watched the whole thing.)

[quote]Here I made a mistake.  In the communications policy debates about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS), there was supposed to be a tax on newly bought TVs and radios which would go directly to the CPB, thereby providing it with steady income that would give it some real money for autonomy and good editorial boards.  Where I said "government funding" I had in mind this tax that was defeated.  After the tax was defeated, the US had a CPB which was severely handicapped and has, as you say, become a liberal news source, albeit less polemic than the rest of the media.

I apologize for not articulating myself very clearly, as it seems you think we disagree on points I think we do agree.  Thank you for cooperating with my great weakness.
[right][snapback]833471[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not regard NPR as being "less polemic than the rest of the media." This is a sham. The political slant of NPR is blatantly Leftist, and I see no way in which throwing more tax money at it would "cure" it of its Left-wing bias. Blaming its leftism on lack of federal funds, and saying that if it would receive more tax dollars, it would somehow become more balanced or less liberal is a bizarre argument to say the least.

I'd say (along with many conservatives and liberals alike) that the ongoing break-up of the "mainstream" Network monopolies on the news, and the rise of "alternative" news sources and media (such as the internet) is overall a good thing.

And the truth is, that while the media as a whole remains dominated by liberalism, the number of conservative publication and news sources continues to increase. There are far more conservative publications available now than there were in, say, the '50s.

I'd say the biggest problem with your arguments, is that, despite your apparent opposition to liberalism, you seem very influenced by the old-school liberal line of thought that regards more government tax-and-spend programs and regulations as the answer to everything.
This is a part of that very Big Government you claim to oppose.