An undeniable case of liberal media bias.

[DC Tom]

Sure, but I've yet to meet a hard left activist content creator that puts political messages (or social ones) above the commercial viability of their world/story. There's a lot of vapid folk out here in Hollyweird, but most of the people who get shows and movies made are quite sharp. Sharp enough to know that in this new frontier of social media outrage, playing politics is the surest way to lose money.

 

The actual activist writers and creators are almost always operating outside the mainstream system.

 

Oh, come on. Everyone knows Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a conscious attempt by Joss Whedon to promote the Communist Manifesto.

[Deranged Rhino]

Oh, come on. Everyone knows Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a conscious attempt by Joss Whedon to promote the Communist Manifesto.

The movie or his do-over show? No one delivers Marxist undertones like Dylan McKay!

 

[Rob's House]

you mean it wasn't hollywood insiders that produced those most excellent atlas shrugged films?

 

Difference is everyone knows what they're getting there. It's not like Law & Order where you're watching a crime drama with no political pretense, then they throw in a one sided political discussion where the token conservative is a stooge who is left speechless by some mind-numbingly simplistic point the writer thought was deep.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Rob's House

[birdog1960]

Difference is everyone knows what they're getting there. It's not like Law & Order where you're watching a crime drama with no political pretense, then they throw in a one sided political discussion where the token conservative is a stooge who is left speechless by some mind-numbingly simplistic point the writer thought was deep.

fair enough. i watch almost no network shows except sports but i've seen a few of those pieces. they seem to sell which goes to greg's point. the "moral" is always pretty obvious and usually clumsily delivered. these aren't allegories or subliminal artworks.

 

even more obvious are the liberal leaning hbo shows. if you're watching newsroom you expect a liberal viewpoint. it's no secret.

Edited December 4, 2014 by birdog1960

[....lybob]

After we get the Lib/Con balanced fixed in the media can we get it fixed in Law enforcement, Military, and intelligence agencies - that would be great

[Azalin]

and that's the point. do you think this msm moniker is accidental? it implies that the listeners and competitor sources are victims. and that conservative sources are unconventional and revolutionary. nothing could be further from the truth. this is purposeful disinformation setting up the unfortunate reality that people believe only their chosen partisan news sources. it makes for an uninformed and easily misled public.

 

No, I don't believe use of the term 'MSM' is accidental in any way. To the contrary, it appears obvious to me that it's quite intentional - FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc use the term to position themselves as an alternative. When they all began, the three major broadcast networks were solidly mainstream, as were the NYT and WP. That's changed. People like you, me, and most others here all discriminate more than 'average' people in where we get our information from. There is still a large segment of the population that get their news from traditional sources like the networks, whose content still tends to slant to the left. Don't think that all the afforementioned right-leaning sources sprung into being to compete with NPR.

 

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that use of the term 'Main Stream Media' implies that anyone is a victim, though. 'Partially informed' maybe, but 'victims'? No.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Azalin

[DC Tom]

No, I don't believe use of the term 'MSM' is accidental in any way. To the contrary, it appears obvious to me that it's quite intentional - FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc use the term to position themselves as an alternative. When they all began, the three major broadcast networks were solidly mainstream, as were the NYT and WP. That's changed. People like you, me, and most others here all discriminate more than 'average' people in where we get our information from. There is still a large segment of the population that get their news from traditional sources like the networks, whose content still tends to slant to the left. Don't think that all the afforementioned right-leaning sources sprung into being to compete with NPR.

 

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that use of the term 'Main Stream Media' implies that anyone is a victim, though. 'Partially informed' maybe, but 'victims'? No.

 

I recall the use of "mainstream media" long before Fox was created. Probably around when Limbaugh went on the air...but he has always consciously promoted a conservative victim mentality to promote himself.

[birdog1960]

No, I don't believe use of the term 'MSM' is accidental in any way. To the contrary, it appears obvious to me that it's quite intentional - FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc use the term to position themselves as an alternative. When they all began, the three major broadcast networks were solidly mainstream, as were the NYT and WP. That's changed. People like you, me, and most others here all discriminate more than 'average' people in where we get our information from. There is still a large segment of the population that get their news from traditional sources like the networks, whose content still tends to slant to the left. Don't think that all the afforementioned right-leaning sources sprung into being to compete with NPR.

 

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that use of the term 'Main Stream Media' implies that anyone is a victim, though. 'Partially informed' maybe, but 'victims'? No.

the implication is that helpless, regular folks are victims of an organized propaganda campaign engineered by liberal elites to somehow advance their self serving goals. the role of the right wing propaganda machine in this very scenario often goes unquestioned by the same people that complain about the msm and is likely closer to the truth.

[Rob's House]

the implication is that helpless, regular folks are victims of an organized propaganda campaign engineered by liberal elites to somehow advance their self serving goals. the role of the right wing propaganda machine in this very scenario often goes unquestioned by the same people that complain about the msm and is likely closer to the truth.

 

It's not that It's an organized campaign, nor is there an implication that the people watching it are victims. It's an acknowledgement that most major media outlets are overwhelmingly liberal, their bias influences their reporting, and as a result many people are misinformed.

 

I have yet to hear anyone offer an alternative explanation as to why this story got so much press.

[FireChan]

Will we hear this story?

 

http://www.wral.com/sc-cop-charged-with-murder-in-unarmed-man-shooting/14244433/

[Rob's House]

Will we hear this story?

 

http://www.wral.com/sc-cop-charged-with-murder-in-unarmed-man-shooting/14244433/

 

We've go more important matters. Apparently a Republican PTA member in rural Kentucky was overheard telling a parent that she didn't want her child to wear the same outfit Obama's daughter wore to an event. We need to find out who this ©unt is and what skeletons are in her closet.

[Tiberius]

 

 

CNBC is a financial network...they were told by GE to stop criticizing the president's economic policies.

 

NBC is the news network that's biased for Obama.

 

How can you even participate in a discussion about the media when you can't tell the difference between media outlets?

This is so stupid, so the media is biased, except when it isn't. So one that was owned by GE was attacking the president and the other owned by same company is accused by your ignorant ass of being basically Pravda. Ok, got it. This is a worthwhile discussion...

 

I guEss the NFL has a liberal bias, too? All that pink and everything?

[Wacka]

gatorman, I thought Comcast bought NBC or did they just buy the sports part?

[Azalin]

I recall the use of "mainstream media" long before Fox was created. Probably around when Limbaugh went on the air...but he has always consciously promoted a conservative victim mentality to promote himself.

 

Limbaugh is probably where I first heard the term being used, and yes, the term has been around long before FOX came along.

 

the implication is that helpless, regular folks are victims of an organized propaganda campaign engineered by liberal elites to somehow advance their self serving goals. the role of the right wing propaganda machine in this very scenario often goes unquestioned by the same people that complain about the msm and is likely closer to the truth.

 

Rob says it as well as anyone:

 

It's not that It's an organized campaign, nor is there an implication that the people watching it are victims. It's an acknowledgement that most major media outlets are overwhelmingly liberal, their bias influences their reporting, and as a result many people are misinformed.

 

I have yet to hear anyone offer an alternative explanation as to why this story got so much press.

[birdog1960]

It's not that It's an organized campaign, nor is there an implication that the people watching it are victims. It's an acknowledgement that most major media outlets are overwhelmingly liberal, their bias influences their reporting, and as a result many people are misinformed.

 

that's an important distinction between the right and left media presence. for the most part, the left is not organized or calculated as you describe and apparently agree with.. i agree that many journalists lean left. i think it's often an idealistic thing. some are channeling the hemingway stories they read in an earnest sort of way. alternatively, much of the right wing media seems very calculated and organized. some for viewers and profit, some to promote an agenda but little, as i see it, for the journalistic ideal of shedding light on the truth, whatever that happens to be. i'm sure there are those at fox motivated in such a manner but i can't think of any off hand. i can imagine several at npr or pbs that are so motivated.

[DC Tom]

that's an important distinction between the right and left media presence. for the most part, the left is not organized or calculated as you describe and apparently agree with.. i agree that many journalists lean left. i think it's often an idealistic thing. some are channeling the hemingway stories they read in an earnest sort of way. alternatively, much of the right wing media seems very calculated and organized. some for viewers and profit, some to promote an agenda but little, as i see it, for the journalistic ideal of shedding light on the truth, whatever that happens to be. i'm sure there are those at fox motivated in such a manner but i can't think of any off hand. i can imagine several at npr or pbs that are so motivated.

 

The problem comes in where, whatever the motivation of the people, there is such an overwhelming majority of liberal-leaning people that they exist in an environment that only enforces their point of view, and creates and reinforces an "us vs. them" mentality. (I.e. "Everyone I know agrees with me. But 'they' don't agree with 'us.'") Even the most honest of motivations can't overcome that sort of unconscious, environmental bias, and too many reporters are incapable of stepping out of it. And that overwhelming majority of liberal-leaning people isn't some great conspiracy. It's simply that far more liberals than conservatives are attracted to reporting because they possess the "counter-establishment" mindset whereby they're motivated by challenging the system. (It's the same reason public defender's offices are so overwhelmingly left-leaning.) The clearest evidence of that is the continuing coverage of "Hands up, don't shoot!" at the expense of any real reporting of the grand jury decision - the media reports that because the reporters relate more to the counter-establishment message, and believe their job is to serve as a check on the police.

 

If there's any conspiracy to promote a mindset, it's from the right. Murdoch has never been shy about admitting he created Fox News to promote a conservative viewpoint (I'll never forget Fox interrupting coverage of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 so Neil Cavuto could interview Murdoch about the launch of a new "conservative" communications satellite. What the !@#$ is a "conservative satellite?" ) And even then, I have my doubts that Murdoch was all that ideologically driven - just as likely that he identified a market and filled it.

 

But a liberal media conspiracy? Hardly (outside of MSNBC, at least). Bias, yes...but that's just because of the nature of the people the industry attracts. The REAL problem is that the media can't recognize and account for it.

[birdog1960]

The problem comes in where, whatever the motivation of the people, there is such an overwhelming majority of liberal-leaning people that they exist in an environment that only enforces their point of view, and creates and reinforces an "us vs. them" mentality. (I.e. "Everyone I know agrees with me. But 'they' don't agree with 'us.'") Even the most honest of motivations can't overcome that sort of unconscious, environmental bias, and too many reporters are incapable of stepping out of it. And that overwhelming majority of liberal-leaning people isn't some great conspiracy. It's simply that far more liberals than conservatives are attracted to reporting because they possess the "counter-establishment" mindset whereby they're motivated by challenging the system. (It's the same reason public defender's offices are so overwhelmingly left-leaning.) The clearest evidence of that is the continuing coverage of "Hands up, don't shoot!" at the expense of any real reporting of the grand jury decision - the media reports that because the reporters relate more to the counter-establishment message, and believe their job is to serve as a check on the police.

 

If there's any conspiracy to promote a mindset, it's from the right. Murdoch has never been shy about admitting he created Fox News to promote a conservative viewpoint (I'll never forget Fox interrupting coverage of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 so Neil Cavuto could interview Murdoch about the launch of a new "conservative" communications satellite. What the !@#$ is a "conservative satellite?" ) And even then, I have my doubts that Murdoch was all that ideologically driven - just as likely that he identified a market and filled it.

 

But a liberal media conspiracy? Hardly (outside of MSNBC, at least). Bias, yes...but that's just because of the nature of the people the industry attracts. The REAL problem is that the media can't recognize and account for it.

i actually agree with everything said here x for the counter establishment part. i wouldn't characterize budding journalists as being predominantly that. i'd stick with "idealistic"..

 

my tendency is to listen more frequently to those motivated to enter the news field for more selfless reasons than to those with overt ulterior motives. if you start with good intentions, your chances of obtaining good results are better. one certainly needs to keep in mind that this, by virtue of the mechanisms you describe, will lead to some bias and therefore some balance must be sought by listening/watching to less "purely" motivated sources from time to time.

[DC Tom]

i actually agree with everything said here x for the counter establishment part. i wouldn't characterize budding journalists as being predominantly that. i'd stick with "idealistic"..

 

I'd stick with "counter-establishment" based on personal experience and conversation. A surprising number of reporters hold to the whole "Fourth Estate" idea.

 

Though I do have to admit that "counter-establishment" is probably an overstatement. It's really the idea that they serve a valuable public purpose in taking the adversarial role in an adverserial system - which is idealistic, I'll admit, but something more as well. "Idealism" is an accurate but incomplete description of that belief. "Counter-establishment" is just the best breif phrase I could come up with.

 

Ironically, that would make Fox "counter-establishment" with respect to mainstream media (presuming Murdoch had any sort of idealistic motivation behind it).

[Gary M]

Though I do have to admit that "counter-establishment" is probably an overstatement. It's really the idea that they serve a valuable public purpose in taking the adversarial role in an adverserial system - which is idealistic, I'll admit, but something more as well. "Idealism" is an accurate but incomplete description of that belief. "Counter-establishment" is just the best breif phrase I could come up with.

 

 

When they simply parrot the WH talking points? How does that make them "counter-establishment"

[Philly McButterpants]

Sure, but I've yet to meet a hard left activist content creator that puts political messages (or social ones) above the commercial viability of their world/story. There's a lot of vapid folk out here in Hollyweird, but most of the people who get shows and movies made are quite sharp. Sharp enough to know that in this new frontier of social media outrage, playing politics is the surest way to lose money.

 

The actual activist writers and creators are almost always operating outside the mainstream system.

I take it that you haven't met Aaron Sorkin yet?

 

Read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. In his opinion (and I agree with it), it is a conscious and systematic effort by those in charge at leading liberal media outlets (the so-called Main Stream Media) to consistently paint Democrats and liberal ideals as positive. Simultaneously, Republicans are painted as evil and/or stupid; and conservative principals are positioned in a negative light.