One example of why some people think the media is liberal.

[raccoon]

Tuesday night on NBC news, Brian Williams interviewed the president of Iran. I didn’t see it, but when I saw the news last night (Wednesday), he talked about the large volume of emails he received about it. Some were saying he shouldn’t have interviewed the guy in the first place, and so on.

I can see how incidents like this would make some people think the media is liberal.

These same people choose not to see—or maybe they just don’t see—how the (so-called) MSM was so easygoing on the pResident and his cronies leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

They don’t see—none of us do—discussion of issues such as the need for a national health plan, the need to raise the minimum wage, etc.

[Kerrytravelers]

1. So, interviewing major players in the world- including someone who we are

saber rattling with right now is now "liberal"?

People are just bat shit crazy.

But, having curiosity about the world and the people in it is just some looney liberal idea, I suppose. :eyes:

[ClassWarrior]

2. Yeah, the whole truth does tend to have a liberal bias, doesn't it?

(Apologies to Colbert.)

NGU.

[bryant69]

3. I think it's simple

let's imagine a line from Radical conservative to radical Liberal. The media is somewhere on the conservative side but shallowly. Well if you are a radical conservative or even a strong conservative, the media is clearly to the left of you - they must be liberal.

Alternatively if you are on the left, the media looks conservative - the further left you go the more conservative they look.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Toots]

5. If only it were so..

The media was Liberal in the sixties but has shifted and keeps shifting further right. I have not done so and in fact am probaly less liberal as I grow older but I knew at the time the media was on my side and thought it was right. I know that is no longer true, but there are a few magazines left out there with a liberal tilt. Mother Jones for instance but they are few and far between compared to Conservative rags.

[bryant69]

7. I certainly agree that it is more conservative now than it was in the 60s

The high water mark for conservativism was probably 2000 - 2003 or so - since then they've been moving back to the middle, but very slowly, and they are still pretty conservatoid.

The question is how conservative are they? Are they way out on the fringes? Or are they just a bit right of the middle? Is it measured in inches? Feet? Miles?

Bryant

[MuseRider]

4. Why that is as bad as

reading a book! Hearing what someone else thinks? Horrible. Yes, information gathering and thinking are both liberal traits. Despicable!

No need to challenge what we think of ourselves when living in a vacuum. We can just knee jerk our way through this life.

I can't believe it has come to this but I did hear it last night and the letters he received about it. The saddest commentary on our country is the lack of curiosity and ability to take in information, even information you might not agree with.

[ComerPerro]

9. that's why I read me three Shakespeares

[MuseRider]

11. LOL!

I miss you and Gilmore!

Hope you are both well.

[ComerPerro]

13. yeah, we haven't seen you since our engagement.

[exlrrp]

6. Interviewing Ahminedajab (sp?) was very important

For starters, who in the world believes ANYTHING BUsh says any more outside of his own party (and less of them), especially when describing another country's nucular (snicker) ambitions? I mean everybody saw what happened when he swore up down and sideways Saddam was working on a bomb.
So the American people better start getting used to getting second opinions on our President's statements. He's a liar and the world knows it.
Whats important is not how Ahminedajab looks to US, its how he looks to the MIddle East and Bushco is making him into being a BIG regional, if not worldwide, leader.
When Bushco took office, Iran was isolated and definitely not the major player in external (to them) politics that Bush's inept handling has made them into being. Now they have major influence in the region and its not a pro US influence.
What set this up was Bush's invading Iraq. Then all of a sudden, the Iranians looked real good to Middle Easterners because they were resisting the US where as before they looked like a bunch of religious nuts. Couple that with the fact that they have enormous oil revenues to back them up and spread around to Hamas and Hezbollah and others.
I thought Ahmniedajab looked pretty good, atleast rational, laid back, not all "fiend-in-human-shape-y" and "foamy-at-the mouthy" the way Bushco portrays him. Ahminedajab comes across looking accomodating and reasonable whereas Bush comes across hardline. But you can see Bush backing off hardline, its getting him nowhere.
Ahminedajab is capitalizing on Bush's mistakes, they make Bush look bad and the other side reasonable--especially so to the rest of the world, who's media isn't as tightly buggered as ours is.
They know, for instance, that they can say their nucular program is entirely peaceful--who's going to believe BUsh's word on it? or the CIA's? Nobody in the MIddle East for sure.
I think Bush is up against another slick fucker who may be a whole lot slicker than he is and may even be better at manipulating the mediaI think thats why the mullahs made this guy President. Thats why Bush won't debate him, he won't show at a non-set-up event. What a chickensht--any other president would have, even Nixon.

[MuseRider]

12. Oh yes.

Their nuts are at least more eloquent than our nut.

I actually enjoyed hearing what he had to say. He said it all well. How much is the truth? Who knows, we will never get anymore than propaganda from our guys and propaganda from their guys but at least their propaganda was eloquent (as compared to ours).

[EarthNeedsHope]

8. Those who think the media is liberal are often near-fascist

They are the ones who think that the media should just toe the US government line, and any slight technical criticism (which is mostly what happens -- when was the last time the media called for a complete change in government from the people up?) is treason.

[ComerPerro]

10. They think the media is liberal because they NEED it to be

in order to fit their psychotic world view.

They have a majority in the House and Senate, and they control the White House.

But still they aren't getting jack shit done.

And, to fuel the "backlash", counter-culture mentality that they all embrace, the kind that stirs up a sort of populist angst, they need to feel oppressed and put upon.

So they invent an enemy in the media, because its the perfect enemy for them. They can convince themselves that they are right, that they are an overwhelming majority, but that they are still under attack because the media, a small group, has all the power and hates them so.


One example would be the way conservatives complain about our "deteriorating values" which are on display in Hollywood movies, MTV, E!, and just about every network to some degree.

Of course, what they seem to forget is that our media culture is created and driven by conservative people and groups who choose programming not based on what's right or ethical, but by what is profitable. And, really, that's what Conservatism is all about.


The myth of a liberal media is their boogieman, it keeps them feeling under attack (they have a strange need to feel persecuted) and keeps the vigilant. Most importantly, it highlights the importance to them of supporting Conservative candidates, even though these same conservatives aren't doing anything to help them.