The Media Will Turn (or Is Turning) -- Here's Why I Think So

[GiovanniC]

Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed that there is such a thing as the "liberal media". Network news, NPR, CNN, newspapers, et cetera. All liberal. It's hard (he claimed) for Republicans/conservatives to get their message out.

Of course, we know that's bullshit, and it's made ironic because Rush is a perfect example of HOW we know it's bullshit. There are a lot of outlets for the right wing to get their message out. Rush, Hannity, Fox News at large, Noonan, Coulter, Novak, and many more.

One of the things that I always found "interesting" was the fact that some of the outlets were attacked by the right for being "liberal" while at the same time being attacked by the left for being "right-wing". The New York ("Whore" -- and there it is again) Times is a good example of that. The right-wing constantly slimes the NYT for being liberal. But it's attacked just as much by the left-wing for being "right-wing". So which is it?

Both.

I believe that because -- and I don't think I'm the only one with this opinion -- the press for the most part doesn't care about (R) or (D). They care about ($). Often, that means shilling for (R). That's especially true when the "president" is (R) and he's enjoying a job approval in the clouds.

Now that Bush appears to be sinking in a quicksand that -- let's face it -- was a long time coming, the press will begin to or has begun to turn on him. The majority of Americans (52%) in the latest Newsweek poll DISAPPROVES of the overall job Bush is doing.

As more and more Americans turn away from Bush, the media recognizes that the money is made when you can provide Americans with content they tend to AGREE with. That's why Fox News did so well. A channel that was only thinly disguised as anything but a very partisan, very right-wing channel, which for the most part preached to the choir but made a lot of money doing so.

Now, as more and more Americans begin to oppose the war, you'll hear more stories about how the war isn't going well, about the torture scandal, et cetera. As more and more Americans begin to oppose Bush, you'll hear more stories casting Bush in a negative light as well. There will still be some outlets that will shill for the Republicans no matter what, but the tide is turning and I think if Bush's numbers stay around where they are or (dare we hope?) drop further, I think you'll notice a major change in the tone of the media.

[robbedvoter]

1. The media cares very much about R or D - it's R that gets the mergers

The only part of the media that is only profit oriented is the entertainment part. Thge news part is all propaganda - all RNC - all the time.
Karl is a little busy fixing leaks in the WH basement at the moment, but he'll get to it!

[progdonkey]

4. profit

You're mistaken, robbedvoter. Both the news and entertainment divisions are profit-oriented--since the late 80s, I believe. That's why you get so much of that "entertainment" news during the evening news; the "real" news division has to compete with the other divisions. News producers are beholden to the advertisers and to the prejudice of viewers: they dumb down the content to bring in the most viewers, and censor their broadcasts to bring in the most advertisers.

[unblock]

2. the smell of an (r) defeat trumps their preference for an (r) victory

there's no way you can compare media treatment of shrub versus media treatment of gore or clinton or now even kerry without concluding that they have a bias for republicans.

however, yes, they do like a story, and a big story can trump their preference for a republican victory.

also, they always want to curry favor with the folks in power, the better to get more stories. so they are hedging their bets in case kerry wins. this also can trump their preference for a republican victory.

but c'mon, it's obvious that they prefer the republican side of things.

[ithacan]

3. you are leaving out the bullying factor...

apart from what's already been mentioned, the right wingers have been using the tactic of mounting massive email, telephone and other kinds of messaging against any media outlet that reports the facts on what Bush and company have actually done.

Any report that they thing makes Bush look bad, even a purely factual report, results in the unleashing of the right wingers' foot soldiers against the reporter, editor, etc.

This means all media are very very careful and self-censor, they try to appear "balanced" by including views that are just outright lies, as a "balance" to the facts that make Chimpy look bad...

So the question is, are the current events so extremely outrageous that the mainstream media no longer feels vulnerable to that?

Also, as robbed voter points out, the owners really matter, bottom line.

Are enough establishment/corporate people finally convinced that a continuation of the Bush regime would be a disaster for them over the longer term, and they're willing to dump him?

It's not just about public opinion, it's about what's best for the corps that own the media.

And here it's a tough call for them...

[GiovanniC]

5. But Those Bullies

Now only represent 4 out of 10 people, not 6 out of 10 or even 9 out of 10 as previously.

It's easier to stand up to bullies when you know that the majority is on your side.