The ‘Nigggerzation’ Of Obama

[DC Tom]

Okay, cool. But hasn't the advencement of social media, the ever-quickening speed of communication, the proliferation of the Drudges/TMZs of the world, not to mention the rise in stature of talk radio pundits (Limbaughs, O'Reily's, Hannity's, Ingrams) increased the availability of information expodentially? Does anyone under the age of 70 make the nightly news appointment viewing? Do Limbaugh's listeners really tune in nightly to Brian Williams and subscribe to the NY Times?

 

I'm asking honestly because it seems to me that people are too busy to wait for news today. Instead we seek out our own sources. The majority of people I interact with don't get their news from the networks anymore, frankly I can't believe the traditional nightly news still exist. In fact, I'm willing to be that it won't exist 25 years from now. I realize that I'm speaking from a very subjective persepective, but it seems to me that the concept of the mainstream media being the majority's source of information is an old ghost.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the bias isn't there in the mainstream media -- it is. I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with some folks on PPP with regards to how much bias there is, but there is bias. I just don't get why it matters as much today as it did 5 years ago. Or, why it will matter 5 years from now... News in the mainstream meadia as you define it has become entertainment, it's a race to grab eyeballs rather than inform. And I think most people, in all political camps, would admit that. Wouldn't they?

 

1) I'd include pundits like Limbaugh.

2) While your "social media" observation is generally correct, I'd argue the impact of such...certainly, the large media outlets still set the context, which in large part controls the info you see. Yeah, you see eight blogs, two dozen Facebook "dislikes", and ten billion tweets criticizing the price of beets in Maine...but only if 60 Minutes or some such runs a ten minute spot on it first.

3) Five years ago? Maybe not. Twenty? I just found the original "The Wimp Factor" story online about George Bush. The bias is far less noticeable, largely for being FAR less shrill.

 

And you haven't been in these parts that long...I've been referring to the news as entertainment forever. Anyone who's watched FoxSnooze's noon programming (where I used to work, we used to watch for what we called the "Fox News Trifecta": the missing white woman, the high-speed car chase, and the construction accident, all in a single hour) could hardly think otherwise.

[CosmicBills]

The problem with your theory is that most people aren't news junkies, & to the casual observer the overwhelming majority of outlets are unabashedly left wing.

 

Sure, you can turn on "Faux" News, talk radio, Drudge, Town Hall, etc. if you're so inclined. If not ABC, NBC, CBS, MSDNC, CNN, NYT, Wahington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc, are all left. And although it's not "news" Comedy Central, late night talk shows, HBO, etc. are all left as well.

 

I think you have to either be extremely biased to the left, or try very hard, not to see it. It couldn't be more obvious. Sarah Palin comes off as flakey & the pop culture media labels her a dunce. Joe Biden is DC's village idiot & that's just Joe being Joe.

 

When Obama ran for office he was relatively unknown & had serious allegations brought against him. Mitt Romney's dog & tax returns have gotten more attention from the media than Tony Resco, Bill Ayers, & Reverend Wright combined. Hell we heard all kinds of concern over Palin's lack of foreign policy experience as a candidate for VP but there was no such concern over Obama's equally empty resume in that category - and he was running for President, not the President's back up.

 

When Bush was President, despite having been the Governor of TX, there was a media outcry to see his college transcripts. Despite no meaningful experience & his academic credentials being one of his main selling points, the media is curiously silent on the topic.

 

When Bush was in office every goddamn day we were reminded of what a sad sorrowful shape the economy was in, how bad unemployment was, how expensive gas was, and the dangers of the "massive budget deficits. With Obama in office we are worse off in all those categories, but we don't really dwell on it. He'll, man; we had the media cheerleaders dutifully reporting the "summer of recovery" narrative before we ever saw recovery.

 

Most of the bias is in the subtleties; the way information is reported. When under Bush jobs figures came in under expectation we were gloomily told how many jobs were lost. Under Obama, when unemployment goes up we're told how many jobs were created. And how many smiling happy faced pictures of the Obama family grace the pictures of magazines?

 

It's gotten so bad & so obvious that I have trouble believing anyone paying attention can even question it.

My response to DC got interrupted by work so I didn't read this until after I posted. I see what you are saying and don't dispute that it exists at all. But I guess I don't see it as being as slanted as you see it (at least on the entertainment side -- though that's a different conversation). If you think about who actually owns the mainstream networks -- ABC (Disney), Fox (NewsCorp), CBS (Viacom), NBC (Comcast) -- they're all funded and controlled by right leaning corporate entities. If there was a mandate to slant to the left, why would the big bosses -- the ones who control who is given airtime and who isn't -- allow that to continue if it ran counter to their own political interests?

 

They may not apply but the reinforce the stereotypes. All these poli-dramas - West wing, News Room, Political Animals, that god awful show with Gena Davis as President, and so on - all cast Democrats in a positive light. When was the last time you saw a major studio production or TV show that cast Republicans in a positive light?

24 did it a bunch.

[meazza]

My response to DC got interrupted by work so I didn't read this until after I posted. I see what you are saying and don't dispute that it exists at all. But I guess I don't see it as being as slanted as you see it (at least on the entertainment side -- though that's a different conversation). If you think about who actually owns the mainstream networks -- ABC (Disney), Fox (NewsCorp), CBS (Viacom), NBC (Comcast) -- they're all funded and controlled by right leaning corporate entities. If there was a mandate to slant to the left, why would the big bosses -- the ones who control who is given airtime and who isn't -- allow that to continue if it ran counter to their own political interests?

 

Because conservative ideas aren't sexy.

[CosmicBills]

1) I'd include pundits like Limbaugh.

2) While your "social media" observation is generally correct, I'd argue the impact of such...certainly, the large media outlets still set the context, which in large part controls the info you see. Yeah, you see eight blogs, two dozen Facebook "dislikes", and ten billion tweets criticizing the price of beets in Maine...but only if 60 Minutes or some such runs a ten minute spot on it first.

3) Five years ago? Maybe not. Twenty? I just found the original "The Wimp Factor" story online about George Bush. The bias is far less noticeable, largely for being FAR less shrill.

 

And you haven't been in these parts that long...I've been referring to the news as entertainment forever. Anyone who's watched FoxSnooze's noon programming (where I used to work, we used to watch for what we called the "Fox News Trifecta": the missing white woman, the high-speed car chase, and the construction accident, all in a single hour) could hardly think otherwise.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about framing the context. But I can see how that could be used to change the whole nature of the national conversation.

 

That's also interesting about the GW article you found. I think that supports the theory that the mainstream media is spiraling down the drain because they're competing for a shortened national attention span. Bigger stakes makes for better ad sales. Maybe it's the biased becoming more virulent, but it could also be just the death knell of the industry.

[Nanker]

Okay, cool. But hasn't the advencement of social media, the ever-quickening speed of communication, the proliferation of the Drudges/TMZs of the world, not to mention the rise in stature of talk radio pundits (Limbaughs, O'Reily's, Hannity's, Ingrams) increased the availability of information expodentially? Does anyone under the age of 70 make the nightly news appointment viewing? Do Limbaugh's listeners really tune in nightly to Brian Williams and subscribe to the NY Times?

 

I'm asking honestly because it seems to me that people are too busy to wait for news today. Instead we seek out our own sources. The majority of people I interact with don't get their news from the networks anymore, frankly I can't believe the traditional nightly news still exist. In fact, I'm willing to be that it won't exist 25 years from now. I realize that I'm speaking from a very subjective persepective, but it seems to me that the concept of the mainstream media being the majority's source of information is an old ghost.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the bias isn't there in the mainstream media -- it is. I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with some folks on PPP with regards to how much bias there is, but there is bias. I just don't get why it matters as much today as it did 5 years ago. Or, why it will matter 5 years from now... News in the mainstream meadia as you define it has become entertainment, it's a race to grab eyeballs rather than inform. And I think most people, in all political camps, would admit that. Wouldn't they?

It matters because much of the damage is already done, yet gone unrecognized. They've peed in the pool of American culture so much and so long that people don't notice that the lenses of their goggles are yellow with liberal taint.

[meazza]

Interesting. I hadn't thought about framing the context. But I can see how that could be used to change the whole nature of the national conversation.

 

That's also interesting about the GW article you found. I think that supports the theory that the mainstream media is spiraling down the drain because they're competing for a shortened national attention span. Bigger stakes makes for better ad sales. Maybe it's the biased becoming more virulent, but it could also be just the death knell of the industry.

 

With regards to social media, how often is a topic pushed on the MSM that now becomes the new topic of conversation? All you need to do is check the comments from one article to see that social media does !@#$ all but reinforce what the media is selling with the occasional counter-point being regurgitated as well.

[CosmicBills]

Because conservative ideas aren't sexy.

I get that. And you're probably right. But isn't it counter productive? Fueling the oposition's fire with your corporate account while writing checks to the GOP from your personal one?

[meazza]

I get that. And you're probably right. But isn't it counter productive? Fueling the oposition's fire with your corporate account while writing checks to the GOP from your personal one?

 

The Uber-wealthy make money no matter who is in power.

[DC Tom]

With regards to social media, how often is a topic pushed on the MSM that now becomes the new topic of conversation? All you need to do is check the comments from one article to see that social media does !@#$ all but reinforce what the media is selling with the occasional counter-point being regurgitated as well.

 

And in general, social media's more stratified than "mainstream media", since people use it more for validation than information, and thus tend to seek out that which validates them more.

[meazza]

And in general, social media's more stratified than "mainstream media", since people use it more for validation than information, and thus tend to seek out that which validates them more.

 

Exactly. Just look at this forum. How often is the same misinformed point presented and then debunked over and over and over?

[CosmicBills]

It matters because much of the damage is already done, yet gone unrecognized. They've peed in the pool of American culture so much and so long that people don't notice that the lenses of their goggles are yellow with liberal taint.

Has it gone unrecognized? As long as I've been alive on this planet I've heard about the liberal bias in the press. I mean, no one tunes into Rachel Madow thinking they're getting unbiased reporting. They tune in to get their own beliefs reinforced.

 

The Uber-wealthy make money no matter who is in power.

Doesn't that give them motive and opportunity to perpetuate a cycle designed to get everyone fighting with one another, yelling at imaginary boogey-men, rather than asking more substantive questions about where the power in this country really resides?

[WorldTraveller]

<p>

 

 

Doesn't that give them motive and opportunity to perpetuate a cycle designed to get everyone fighting with one another, yelling at imaginary boogey-men, rather than asking more substantive questions about where the power in this country really resides?

Such as?

[TakeYouToTasker]

The situation is alot more fluid than you guys either understand or are willing to allow yourselves to believe. There was a fantastic book on the concepts being discussed in this thread written in 1962 by Daniel J. Boorstin, called: The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Everyone participating in this discussion should pick up a copy.

[DC Tom]

Doesn't that give them motive and opportunity to perpetuate a cycle designed to get everyone fighting with one another, yelling at imaginary boogey-men, rather than asking more substantive questions about where the power in this country really resides?

 

"Remember The Maine!"

[TakeYouToTasker]

Doesn't that give them motive and opportunity to perpetuate a cycle designed to get everyone fighting with one another, yelling at imaginary boogey-men, rather than asking more substantive questions about where the power in this country really resides?

Why, yes. Yes it does. Welcome to my argument.

[Rob's House]

My response to DC got interrupted by work so I didn't read this until after I posted. I see what you are saying and don't dispute that it exists at all. But I guess I don't see it as being as slanted as you see it (at least on the entertainment side -- though that's a different conversation). If you think about who actually owns the mainstream networks -- ABC (Disney), Fox (NewsCorp), CBS (Viacom), NBC (Comcast) -- they're all funded and controlled by right leaning corporate entities. If there was a mandate to slant to the left, why would the big bosses -- the ones who control who is given airtime and who isn't -- allow that to continue if it ran counter to their own political interests?

I don't know about the political leanings of all media moguls, but the myth that CEOs of major corporations are predominately conservative is false. I know the heads of CBS and NBC are left-wingers and many Hollywood directors as well, but I beyond that I can't speak to the politics of the CEOs of major movie studios.

 

24 did it a bunch.

No way, dude. David Palmer was a Democrat

[Rob's House]

And you haven't been in these parts that long...I've been referring to the news as entertainment forever. Anyone who's watched FoxSnooze's noon programming (where I used to work, we used to watch for what we called the "Fox News Trifecta": the missing white woman, the high-speed car chase, and the construction accident, all in a single hour) could hardly think otherwise.

When I was in college I got cable with Fox news. I was excited to finally get to watch the news and get informed about world news and politics.

 

I learned a lot about Gary Condit and Chandra Levy

 

It matters because much of the damage is already done, yet gone unrecognized. They've peed in the pool of American culture so much and so long that people don't notice that the lenses of their goggles are yellow with liberal taint.

Dude, why are you talking about liberals' taints?

 

Has it gone unrecognized? As long as I've been alive on this planet I've heard about the liberal bias in the press. I mean, no one tunes into Rachel Madow thinking they're getting unbiased reporting. They tune in to get their own beliefs reinforced.

Those aren't the ones that are the problem. I have no problem with Rachel Madow or even Keith Olbermann (even though he's a huge dick) because they're honest about who they are. It's the "objective" ones that are the problem.

[CosmicBills]

I missed these responses until today somehow... still getting used to the new site.

 

<p>

Such as?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. But if you step back and look at the big picture one could make a strong argument that the true power in this country doesn't reside with the people. If the populace is fractured to the point of stagnation (which, based on the past 12 years I'd say is apt), how can it?

 

In context of this discussion, if (and I'm not stating this as fact) the mainstream media is really following marching orders from liberals paid by conservatives -- then it would seem the plan was to perpetuate the constant bickering between the masses. The question is why? I can think of plenty of reasons... all of them crazy. Which is why I mainly work in fiction.

 

The situation is alot more fluid than you guys either understand or are willing to allow yourselves to believe. There was a fantastic book on the concepts being discussed in this thread written in 1962 by Daniel J. Boorstin, called: The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Everyone participating in this discussion should pick up a copy.

 

Gracias. I'll check it out.

 

"Remember The Maine!"

Exactly! This isn't a new phenomenon. It's existed since before the media existed.

 

In my opinion of course.

 

Why, yes. Yes it does. Welcome to my argument.

I'd like to hear more.

 

I don't know about the political leanings of all media moguls, but the myth that CEOs of major corporations are predominately conservative is false. I know the heads of CBS and NBC are left-wingers and many Hollywood directors as well, but I beyond that I can't speak to the politics of the CEOs of major movie studios.

 

No way, dude. David Palmer was a Democrat

I've worked for CBS, it is not a liberal bastion by any stretch. It's Hollywood so there are certainly left-wingers in their employ, but in terms of the marching orders from the top down (creatively) -- it's just not liberal. They are the only network that caters to the older side of the coveted 18-45 demographic. A lot of this comes from Redstone's influence, a man who I've had the pleasure of meeting a couple of times -- a sharp man, definitely right-leaning and until a few years ago, ran Viacom from soup to nuts. The new CEO, I have never met. He might be left-leaning, but I'd doubt it based on the fact he was hand picked to succeed by Sumner.

 

NBC I know nothing about in terms of personal experience. Zucker came up as a reporter, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn he leans left. But he answers to Comcast -- a conservative leaning corporation that doesn't shy away from the family brand. Which again is another interesting contradiction. NBC marches to Comcast's orders -- regardless of who's the CEO of NBC. Just like CBS marches to Viacom's and ABC marches to Disney. The networks are less defined by their political leanings than they are to their specific demographics: ABC = women, CBS = 50 and up, Fox = female teens, NBC = people who leave the TV on all day just to feel like there is someone else there with them.

 

And good call on Palmer! Totally a Dem. But there were two other Republican presidents. One went crazy and killed people (if I remember right?) and the other one avenged Palmer's assassination and saved the day. That show rocked in it's cra-cra.

[meazza]

And good call on Palmer! Totally a Dem. But there were two other Republican presidents. One went crazy and killed people (if I remember right?) and the other one avenged Palmer's assassination and saved the day. That show rocked in it's cra-cra.

 

Back in the day when it was easier to get a presidential pardon than it was a welfare check.

[CosmicBills]

Back in the day when it was easier to get a presidential pardon than it was a welfare check.

That's the plot of the 24 movie. Jack goes on welfare.