Media Bias--Your Theories Wanted...

[Robert Murphy]

'Llo All,

Question: why is the media--even its more respectable entities, like the NYTms or WaPost--prone to contemptful reporting on Democrats (look what they did to Gore) and favorable, or at least weak-kneed criticism-coverage of Bush?

Theories I have seen:

* Pressure From Above While this certainly is the case (indeed, central) to Fox News' bias, I don't think it is quite the factor on other networks. Yet I do think this may be the primary factor in what TV journalists choose not cover. E.g., I doubt will ever see the G.E.-owned NBC do an in-depth story on corruption among defense contractors.

*Familiarity Breeds Contempt Possibly--the media seemed to initially embrace Clinton, ('he's just like us!',) but this honeymoon ended (big time) as soon as Clinton took office.

*Fear of Appearing 'Liberal' As Eric Alterman says, this 'working the refs' strategy seems to have payed big dividends over the years. I can't recall the media ever seeming to be concerned with Right-wing bias in their stories.

Anyway, here is a theory of my own:

*The Heathers That Compose the TV Media Don't Like to be Upstaged by a Smart President I often wonder if the reason the media are such apologists for W.'s stupid mis-statements and lack of intellect, for the simple reason that they want it this way. I.e., Kerry (or Gore), a telegenic, Ivy-league educated candidate, inflames their jealousy. He is who they perhaps want to be. They want to be the wealthy, 'perceptive,' 'intellectuals' in the spotlight. Hence they seem to have an almost paternal soft spot for the 'likable and dimwitted', simple George Bush, while feeling 'threatened' by the likes of Gore or Kerry.

Comments anyone?

Robert

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Then what's up with CBS which is owned by Viacom which....

is owned and headed by Liberal Democrat Sumner Redstone?

They are decent but they still have Leslie Stahl??? :wtf: Is she even a journalist.

I like CBS but they seem to moderate and I wish that they would move further to our side.

[Hoping4Change]

2. Thanks for this post. Personally I don't have a clue but look

forward to reading what other DUers conclude.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. All the major media outlets

are owned by mega-corporations whose owners believe that their own agendas are best served by Repukes, rather then Dems. Ownership is now so consolidated that there is no real competition, or diversity in political views by different outlets.

There has also been a concerted project on the part of the extreme RW to dominate the media, and the overall discourse in this country. They use giant, subsidized think tanks, and there own influential publications. They have been extremely successful. This phenomenon is described very well in David Brocks book The Republican Noise Machine.

They also suffer from the fear of being labeled "liberal", and end up overcompensating, bending over backward to not appear liberal, and end up being far more critical of Dems then Repukes.

That's about all I can think of right now.

[jus_the_facts]

4. They're OWNED'n'OPERATED by the RIGHT.....

.....it's just that simple...no theory needed.

[cprise]

5. Those four theories are rather naive

...and mostly wrong.

Media networks today are owned by vast conglomerates that are themselves more wealthy than most nations on earth. Their corporate charters compel them to use all their influence to control markets and politicians for their own continued existence and growth. With no more barriers to their size or what types of businesses can own media outlets, they have become powerful enough to largely control the political process itself. They are so rich and powerful, that their sole motivation has come to protecting the interests of the wealthy.

To do this they must constantly lull and mislead the have-nots into (a) not caring, (b) identifying with and caring about the wealthy, and (c) hating anyone with the potential to place the prosperity of average people (85% of the population) ahead of theirs. And they will lie to get their dumb errand-boy into the Oval Office (and then lie to make it possible for him to grab control of energy in the Middle East).

These networks prefer to use personalities that identify as "liberal" but actually aren't (in their deeds). The more they accuse each other of being liberal, the freer these companies are to pursue a hard-Right agenda. In other words it is just camoflage; a complete red herring.

America has a commercial media and little else, which is mainly why we ended up this way. PBS doesn't count because (a) it is directly dependant on corporations, bought-off politicians, and individuals with the most spare income for donations; and (b) it is small and weak mostly because of 'a'. As a society we need something besides commercial media to bring balance to our news culture.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. But Viacom has a left wing tilt to it and is....

owned by a Democrat.

Viacom owns CBS.

[cprise]

7. Left-wing tilt??

They advocate public enterprise, portray privatization in a negative light, and lobby for greater regulation in media and other markets?

They pointed out the Bush admin. attack on Venezuela's president? Or their role in reinstalling genocidal maniacs in Haiti?

Do they persistently label Right-wing rulers as such, while ignoring labels for Leftists? Do they call Democrats "Senator" and Republicans "conservative Republican in Congress"?

Did they point out the Florida voter purges in 2000 and portray it as an attack on liberals and minorities?



No, they do the opposite.

I'll remind you that CBS News viewership did very poorly when polled whether they believed the Bush lies about Iraq/Al Queda. They were a close second to Fox.

Viacom is owned by shareholders, not "a Democrat".