Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think all media tends to lean left, not because they don't like republicans, but because protection of the first amendment is a more liberal ideal. If you want the truth in news, you want lack of censorship, and that is a democratic ideal. As a result, news orgainizations lean that way. I don't mind it too much, as long as they are straight forward about it.
Well, they're not straighforward about it all. And it's kinda ironic how supportive the media were of McCain-Feingold, which was a HUGE assault on the First Amendment. It was sickening how supportive they were of that and they did so because it gave them a near monopoly on the flow of information, while making it more difficult for candidates and parties to get their message past the media filter. That gave rise to 527's. McCain has reaped what he has sewn. Campaigns surely haven't gotten any cheaper to run, yet limits on donations to federal candidates were not indexed for inflation from around 1975 until McCain-Feingold was signed into law by Bush around 2002. Try to figure out the ad buy equivalency of, say, the NYT devoting a few pages per day of positive coverage for Obama and negative coverage for McCain. No candidate could ever afford that, becaus of limits on donations and spending for those who accept federal matching funds. Yet newspapers can do it all they want for free.
To the OP:
Objective journalism has never existed. What America needs is skeptical and inquisitive journalism. Those tend to be traits of journalists with a "liberal" political bias. This is news to you?
Before journalism was defined as TV, it was newspapers. Almost every paper in the land was notoriously slanted in its editirial viewpoint. But every city of decent size had at least two papers (which hated each other) so there was a decent chance that the news got slanted both ways, and then (as now) people subscribed to the media source that they agreed with.
So nothing happened to objective media. There never was any, and there never will be.
Thank God that the Fox News Channel exists, because if it didn't than liberals would have had complete 100% total ownership of the media. Basically liberals would have had a total monopoly in the media, and that is a scary thought. I would not want to live in a country where there is zero political diversity in the media. That's the type of thing you find in socialist/communist countries where is no room for different politicial ideologies to co-exist with each other. Monopolies are never a good thing.
Thank God that the Fox News Channel exists, because if it didn't than liberals would have had complete 100% total ownership of the media. Basically liberals would have had a total monopoly in the media, and that is a scary thought. I would not want to live in a country where there is zero political diversity in the media. That's the type of thing you find in socialist/communist countries where is no room for different politicial ideologies to co-exist with each other. Monopolies are never a good thing.
We all got a good picture of how 100% liberal the media was, when the news networks went month after month after month without letting a single pundit get on the air to object to Bush's war on terror or the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq, except James Carville. Please don't insult us by mentioning Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's straight man.
Every pundit who might have objected is now seen to have been 100% right, but the "liberal" media would not let them into the studio, preferring to let the pro-Bush apologists dominate the discussion uncontested. Even on MSNBC. If you had been there watching for them and hoping and waiting that one would slip through the crakcs and ask a serious question,, you'd know how how ho0plessly the media was stacked pro-Bush---and don't you dare call that "liberal". And there, sir, is your proof of the only correct statment you made---monopolies are never a good thing.
I still think the media is what keeps us free more than anything. Who else keeps tabs on the government, business, everybody? I think it has slipped into being partisan but both the left and the right have their watchdogs keeping an eye on each other.
The internet has probably been the greatest boon to the voters and the common citizen since print was invented. Don't ever let them try to take it away, or fascism will surely follow.
With the exception of the Fox News Channel, the media for the most part has never been pro-Bush and sure as hell not MSNBC, so put the crack pipe or the kool-aid down jtur88. Now if you would have said political talk radio is mostly pro-Bush than I would have agreed because conservatives vastly outnumber liberals in that field. Most of the media have always been cheerleaders for the Democratic party. Most of the media was clearly behind Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. The media's love affair with liberals didn't all of a sudden start with the "messiah".
Last edited by Jeff Jarrett; 10-23-2008 at 05:43 PM..
I don't think we have ever had objective journalism. We just are seeing that more as they are fighting for the top. The olod journalist were tied to the hand that feed them. They have to have information and those sources are political insiders with a agenda.
Things actually were different in many ways in the years after WWII. As TV grew up, particularly CBS News carried over high standards from its radio operations, and after that lead, the major network news departments tended to be off-budget entities. The news wasn't really expected to earn a profit. News departments were supposed to be professionals, to serve the public interest, and to guard jealously the network's hard-won reputation for honesty, integrity, and independence. They also confronted the Fairness Doctrine every single day. They could not tilt their coverage toward one side or the other on any issue without inviting a demand for free air-time from opposing viewpoints. A large number of highly respected names came into TV out of radio during WWII. Edward R. Murrow set a certain standard, but there were others. Eric Sevareid, Douglas Edwards, Howard K. Smith, many others. Eventually, Walter Cronkite really did become the most trusted man in America, but Huntley & Brinkley weren't very far behind him. It all lasted into the 1980's. Then along came cable, deregulation, corporate takeovers, the end of the Fairness Doctrine, and the retirement of all those WWII-vintage reporters. Costs were cut, foreign bureaus were closed, and the sort of journalistic standards that had been set by William Paley at CBS were replaced by standards that came out of the accounting departments, all of them intent on making the news pay its own way. We certainly have more news now than we did back then. But there might be a question whether any of it is better...or even anywhere near as good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
