On the media "conspiracy."

[nadinbrzezinski]

You know, there is this thinking on both RIGHT WING blogs and LEFT WING blogs, that the media is behind candidate A or B. This got me going, (and yes there is bias, but...) If media is so much behind Obama AND Romeny, depends on the blog you read, and it is both Liberal and Conservative... heresy here... at that point I gotta think that perhaps the media is MOSTLY doing it's job. And yes, it is MOSTLY reporting the news.

It cannot be in the bag for both Romney and Obama at the same time. It just can't.

Now the editorial pages, have at it, why they are called EDITORIAL.

And you know what is even funnier. the polls. They were trending Obama, of course it was a polling conspiracy to elect Obama, just read FR. Now that some polls show Romney doing well (too late imo, voting already underway and many folks already voted), well Pollsters can't do polls and are in the tank for Romney.

These are two directly opposing set of "facts." So if there is a media conspiracy, or a polling one, it is the worst kept and done conspiracy ever.

Then again, if Media already knows, another common allegation, who will win... my, does that mean I can go home at 8;01 after the polls close? Hey, that will be a short day... WHOOHOO!!!! I know, going to bed early and not having to worry about the registrar, we already know who won! (Which for the POTUS may very well be the case when my polls close, for the record)

Just putting it out there, because we live in a strange age to be honest. When it goes our way, woohoo, when it does not, obviously they are (whoever they are) in the tank for the other side, and drunk the punch. For the record, media people do not have the luxury of such thinking.

[dipsydoodle]

1. The overall problem here

is that some only want the news they like.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I know, and the polls they like

And the bubble is not just right or left wing.

[BW561]

129. Breaking Story This Morning Tying Romney & Big Coal to Voter Registration Fraud Ops

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2012/10/the-dirty-tricks-of-nathan-sproul-clean-coal-and-republican-operatives/

Fact intensive article with documentation and photos. Let's see how this is twisted into a "conspiracy theory."

[Uncle Joe]

3. As an institution they have an inherent conflict of interest placing them in

sympathy with the Republican Party.

Thanks for the thread, nadinbrzezinski.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. But that is not what the conspiracy tells me

the liberal media cannot be behind or with Romney at the same time, or the Republican party, Yes, there is an editorial bias, labor news? You kid me... but they just cannot be with both Democrats and be liberal and with Republicans and be with Romney at the same time. It just cannot be.

[Uncle Joe]

14. They're not with both, they prefer a Republican corporate supremacist dominated government.

Their primary clients are the mega-corporations and plutocrats, money buys power and influence, the American People are customers to be sold a product, candidate, down the river or all of the above.

Editorial bias rules the "news" in regards to influencing the American People and the corporate media play both sides to some degree but there is no doubt who today's "fourth estate" view as their "daddy."

With the corporate media, "Citizens United rocks" and they know which party is supports that decision and which is opposed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Not quite correct,

but the bias at times is our own damn fault, and not new. It did not start in the last twenty years. Labor USED to have GOOD papers, that covered their own issues. The AFL CIO really does not, I cannot get my local central labor council to do so, because they claim no content. I call bullshit, they are generating enough content for at least a weekly on the website.

And the media, EDITORIAL PAGES, except for FOX was critical of Citizens United overall. For the record, still is.

I know, I know, come November 6th, we all can go home early. WHOOHOO!!!!

[Uncle Joe]

23. How many of them have covered Citizens United as of late in regards to

this election's impact on correcting that near century's worth of precedent destroying SC "legislation?"

How many have as of late pushed Romney to disclose his tax returns?

How many corporate media fact checkers covered Romney's Iran needs Syria to reach the sea comment during the debate?

Do you honestly believe they would've given Obama a free pass on that had he said it?

One thing I have learned in sales, you can be critical about your product and still sell it, timing is everything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. My local paper did

no, not the tribune, before you ask.

We ran a few stories on this six months ago iirc. It had to do with local PACS involved in local elections...

We are just behind the trib in circulation btw

For the record, papers are running these stories as to how it affects their own local area.

[Uncle Joe]

38. That's great but for the masses of American People; television

is their primary source of information.

I don't believe it to be a coincidence that television is also the most expensive form of advertising.

Citizens United is a gold mine for the televised corporate media.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Ok, Rachel Maddow ran those stories

Granted, she is in the editorial section.

CBS ran stories on CU as well. So did the other two.

Local TV stations will rarely do that because we have local stories, like the missing kid on Tuesday, that also matter. (Especially if this had been a kidnapping like believed at first) But if it makes you happy, most people do not watch any of these people, local, national or editorial. Com'on Snooki is on, and I got a right to my own set of facts.

[Uncle Joe]

46. That's what I meant when I said "timing is everything"

more people do watch them and the debates as the election draws near, now is the time to strike while the iron is hot, not 3-6 months ago.

I simply haven't seen any kind of drumbeat by the televised corporate media regarding Citizens United as of late.

I also don't believe it was a coincidence that no environmental questions were asked during any of the debates, perhaps that was because the fossil fuel industry is a heavy purchaser of commercials.

I mean come one, we had a record breaking year of heat and drought topping off a decade of extreme weather and they couldn't bring themselves to ask a single question regarding this issue!?

The corporate media as an institution is simply pre-disposed to the privatization of everything over the public good not because it's better for the people but because it's more profitable to the corporate media.

The corporate media's "prime directive" is selling commercials and informing the American People is a secondary concern if not farther down the totem pole to that priority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. No, it is not coincidence it is called the NEWS CYCLE

these stories were run when they happened to exist... now they have receded. It is not a great conspiracy. It is just the way it is.

If CU was decided this week, then it would be news this week.

Now we could run all the editorials you care us to run, but then we would have to stop covering the actual, happening now, like at this moment, like I just came home from a presser, stories.

[Uncle Joe]

72. How could Citizens United not be considered "contemporary news?" This is the first

Presidential election to be run under the new rules and its' impact is clearly being felt.

President Obama publicly chastised the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech for that expanded near century's worth of a precedent destroying decision.

What if women were granted the right to vote back when Citizens United was decided, would that be considered part of the "NEWS CYCLE" or would that be yesterday's news?

If the corporate media has given editorial overkill to anything, it's the Obama Administration's reaction to the Bengazi tragedy.

Perhaps this is because the corporate media is loathe to make a story or current controversy about their gold mine but are more than eager to nit pick words against the President publicly opposed to said gold mine?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. That is why you have stories of it every so often

like when a PAC does something.

But here is what you are asking me to do, write another story on CU, or one on voter suppression...

By the way we are local media... independent local media.

If we got a million bucks then we could do far more than what we do.

[Uncle Joe]

88. "If we got a million bucks then we could do far more than what we do."

Can you imagine what you could do with a hundred million dollars?

Now imagine what you could/would do if one party threatened your hundred million dollars and another said there is no limit or accountability to where the money came from and that you could have even more?

Would you be tempted to slant or alter your views and coverage?

Might you be give a littler warmer, fuzzier coverage to the party or candidate that protects your gold mine?

Perhaps not but whoever does the hiring at such media organizations would probably prefer that you do.

To say that a financial conflict of interest can't exist is to deny reality.

I'm not suggesting there aren't good journalists or people in the news business, what I am suggesting is that the system is corrupted and to deny this will only enable it to become more so over time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. The slant is obvious in the editorial page

the 24 hour so called news channels are editorials, period. And those who think they are not are not paying attention.

Which is part of the problem

As I said bellow, I love the Martin Bashir show, but his is not a news show, it's an opinion show

[Uncle Joe]

93. Yes but what is less obvious is the slant by omission or inflection in actual news reporting.

What does one media corporation report on, another leave out altogether and how do they report it?

The determination of what's reported on and what stories are left as trees falling in the forest with no one around to hear them is every bit as insidious, and probably more so than the obviously slanted partisan editorials.

There can be no doubt that shadow money has a corrupting influence on organizations charged with influencing the American People either overtly or covertly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. And you are forgetting that organizations that used to have their own media

no longer do.

Pointing back at labor again... I cannot get my local labor council to do that which leads workers at the mercy of a local paper that wishers labor went away.

But I will go back to my original point,. NEITHER party owns the news... NEITHER OF THEM, or the polling companies. Which is what the root of the conspiracy is.

This actually reflects how little people know of how media actually works.

Once people get it, then we can go on about correcting many of the problems that exist in media. (IT is not a trouble free place, but the troubles are not coming from where the conspiracy folks think it is coming from)

[zappaman]

97. "This actually reflects how little people know of how media actually works."

The most ironic statement ever uttered on the internet!

[Uncle Joe]

99. I never said either "party owns the news" I said the system is corrupted.

Mega corporate conglomerates own the news, and they own the Republican Party, while they dominate the Democratic Party.

I said the corporate media's prime directive is to sell commercials, mega corporations and plutocrats are the corporate media's primary commercial buying clients, the people are just customers and there is a major difference in fiduciary responsibility between those two words.

The sense of a public good is given short shrift, this handicaps the Democratic Party since their natural role by tradition is being the "Party of the People."

The belief that privatizing everything under the sun trumping the greater or public good naturally benefits the commercial buying mega-corporations and plutocrats the most, by extension the commercial selling corporate media and the monopoly loving Republican Party as well.

I'm convinced corporate media coverage whether editorial and/or "news" is the primary reason that both parties have been pulled dangerously to the right in order to please or satisfy the 1%.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. the pull right

is really not media, but that is my view...it was during watergate that the liberal media meme emerged

[Uncle Joe]

102. And which institution let that meme stick around and even repeated it?

One can argue all day long on where they or someone else is on the political spectrum, but there is one thing that can't be argued with, the corporate media is first and foremost corporate and as another poster mentioned down thread, corporations are authoritarian structures.

Today's corporate media remind me of the old professional wrestling referees; who were always looking in the wrong direction or being purposely "distracted" while the abusive shit hitting the fan was happening behind them, the fans would go wild trying to get their attention to the illegalities happening in the ring, but they always seemed to miss it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. You can thank Karl Rove for that one

and a few others.

Anyhow, you can blame the media all you want... and not trust the media for all I care. Where we are is closer to the media environment of the 1920s, lacking some serious muckracking. But to say the media is in the bag is just damn stupid.

And I invite people who think this to TRY hard to try to cover politics in a balanced way... I really do.

I dare say that part of the problem, is that really people in general do not really get what media does.

But at least where I do this, we are not going to coddle candidates or parties.

Where we are is not a nice place, but you know what. media is not the origin of that... it is the parties, and very specific individuals within parties. Sadly we can all name names.

[Uncle Joe]

106. I don't look for coddling of candidates or parties.

I've criticized Obama on at least two major issues and the Democratic Party in general on others.

Having said that, the current manifestation; which make up the corporate media is dysfunctional and corruptive.

Karl Rove does not have super powers, the corporate media itself sustained that meme, I don't recall much if any corporate media rebuttal to that slanted chain of thought.

Don't get me wrong I'm not totally pessimistic about the state of American Journalism, the silver lining being the Internet and its' growing influence in democratizing the distribution and dissemination of information.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Well, at this point it wasn't the media

it was hate radio, it was a careful whisper campaign and media consolidation.

What I feel, is that most people really have a very surface level view of what is really going on. As to the net. I used to share your hopes, not anymore.

Most people chose carefully what they want to read and stay within that comfort zone, even on the net. Why I said, 1920s all over.

The mythology of a balanced media, and one might have existed during the 1950s and 60s, is just that. There were many stories that due to editorial decisions were never covered back then either. Or were covered poorly.

[Uncle Joe]

116. The Internet has democratized the exchange of information and allowed thought mobility.

Finding a comfort zone on the Internet is not a negative despite the corporate media's recent push of that meme.

The comfort zone that you might find on the Internet is of one's own choice, the alternative; being spoon-fed by a handful of corporate conglomerates via conventional one way information streams is not.

Furthermore the silver lining isn't just about getting your information via the Internet for the Internet's sake, the influence of instantaneous, mass two way debate affects the corporate media's perception of what it can and can't get away with as well in regards to propaganda.

Ie: the "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" slander would be far more difficult for the corporate media to get away with today than it was in 1998-1999 and even more so in the future as the Internet grows in power and influence allowing the people to become more aware.

The same holds true for politicians and waging wars based on lies as in the Bush Administration's war with Iraq.

Finally, the sheer magnitude of the numbers of people participating in public debate begets an overall balancing act, mot to mention reverses the dumbing down effect of having too much information distribution and dissemination concentrated in too few hands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. As I said, I used to hold that view until I started to do serious reporting

and damn it, show me the corner of the internet that has debates over your local political landscape.

I mean serious discussion.

Perhaps having to cover these very local politics has made me realize that yes, there is a critical role for the dreaded media that will spoon feed you everything and make you uncomfortable, or in this case just familiarize you with issues.

[Uncle Joe]

131. The corporate media has not been helping the American People become familiar or enlightened with the

issues at least on the national level.

It has become a propaganda machine first and foremost, we don't have a free press save as it serves corporate, plutocratic interests.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002222333

Reporters Without Borders has released its annual World Press Freedom Index and the United States fell 27 points to No. 47 on the list. Why? "more than 25 (reporters) were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police" during Occupy movement protests.

"The worldwide wave of protests in 2011 also swept through the New World. It dragged the United States (47th) and Chile (80th) down the index, costing them 27 and 47 places respectively. The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behavior, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation."

I don't mind hearing uncomfortable news if its' real, however the corporate media seems to be having a problem with it.

As for the local level, despite its' growing power and influence the Internet is still relatively young, the first generations having gone to school with it having entered the workforce not too long ago.

If the Internet were comparable to the airplane we would be about the time of Lindbergh flying solo across the Atlantic.

Furthermore there is plenty of serious discussion and debate about the issues of the day on the Internet including here at D.U. if you don't see it perhaps you haven't been looking hard enough?

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. We will have to seriously agree to disagree

because quite frankly, at this point, I really do not think people actually understand what media does.

Nor do I expect people to understand the reality. We cover local boards. where decisions that affect people are actually made... these barely register any hits. Now the missing puppy, reunited with his forever family will go through the roof.

Nationally, CSPAN is a good example. Most people do not even know it is in their lineup.

[Uncle Joe]

135. I can agree with that.

Don't get me wrong I know there is good media out there doing the mundane stuff but we ignore the corporate propaganda media machine at our own peril, it has the most power and has caused maximum damage.

Having said that I believe your OP too readily dismisses the idea of corporate media conspiracy to manipulate the people toward its' own desired corporate/plutocratic ends and not to raise the peoples' awareness as to what's best for them, the public good and the nation.

The corporate media has great power, hence its' responsibility to the American People is greater as well.

Peace to you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. And here you raised another issue

it is not the power, that has never been at dispute, and I blame Clinton for that one by the by... it is the, they are automatically in the tank for democrats (damn lib'rul media) or they are in the tank for Republicans (here) it can't be. They are automatically exclusive. That is what I was raising as a serious issue.

By going they are in the tank for... the serious issues that exist with media are dismissed.

In my view we should break them up into itty bitty parts, and NOBODY should be allowed to own more than two outlets in any given market, like it used to be. 1996 led to consolidation. And right now we are seeing the same process happen in local markets as well.

[Uncle Joe]

137. That was part of Telecommunications Act, Clinton had a Republican controlled

Congress in both houses, he and Gore were trying to get the Internet expanded to rural areas and schools where it was undeserved, that was the trade-off.

Your thinking is too binary, the corporate media is in the tank for the corporate supremacists; they own the Republican Party and they dominate or at least have great influence in the Democratic Party.

I can tell you all day long that vanilla ice cream is all you should eat for dinner as it's superior to French Vanilla and someone else can tell you that French Vanilla is the best and that's what you should consume.

It doesn't make any difference which one of us you listen to, ice cream stock will appreciate in value and you won't have a nutritious dinner except maybe on the Calcium side.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. I still blame him for it

and will never forgive him for it, since that destroyed a somewhat balanced system.

[sabrina 1]

139. The MSM only hires 'safe reporters'. So what we get as 'news' is what

is understood to be 'safe' for public consumption. That is why most of us no longer use the MSM as a main source of 'news'. I want to see real reporters, investigative journalists, every day on our 'news' channels. But most of them lost their jobs way back.

Take eg, Ashley Banfield. She was being touted as a great foreign correspondent whose reports from Afghanistan were seen every night on MSNBC. She looked great, she was embedded with the military, people listened to her reports.

But as soon as she explained how restricted she was from reporting what she actually saw in Afghanistan, not even on the air but at a relatively private function, they destroyed her career. She was kept in a back room not allowed to appear on the air until her contract expired. She has never recovered and we the people lost a great reporter.

Take also Greg Palast. He cannot appear on our MSM and had to go Britain to work. Imagine if just these two reporters had been free to do their work on our MSM, how much better educated the public would have been during the Bush years. And they are only two of the many who either were fired or quit in disgust.

Sorry, but it is a well known fact that the US media is tightly controlled, earning its disgraceful place at around #54 on the World Free Press list during the Bush years and again more recently.

We have a corporate controlled media and that is what we get, corporate controlled news. Both Repubs and Dems who appear on the media know they have to be careful about how much they say. People like Kucinich or Sanders or even Conyers at this point, are rarely seen on the Corporate media's 'roundtable' discussions eg. We get the same old 'pundits' recycled year after year, because they can be trusted not to go 'too far' in informing the public about what is really going on.

When you start watching more independent media, the difference is like night and day. And now that is where people go to get their news, to news media that is not Corporate Owned although they are buying up media wherever they can.

Murdoch doesn't just own Fox. He is all over the world and the question is, who is backing that organization? I think we are beginning to find out.

[zappaman]

74. Thank you for this rational post!

"The corporate media as an institution is simply pre-disposed to the privatization of everything over the public good not because it's better for the people but because it's more profitable to the corporate media.

The corporate media's "prime directive" is selling commercials and informing the American People is a secondary concern if not farther down the totem pole to that priority."

Nice to see someone gets it.

[randome]

4. I agree with you. There are all sorts of cross-currents in play in the media.

Pundits bending over backwards to 'prove' they are being fair.
The 'piling on' phenomenon -when one outlet posts a story, all the others want to catch the light.
And the journalists who want to prove their relevance by saying something pithy.

[vi5]

5. They like a horse race.

And when there is no horse race, they like to side with the perceived winner.

It's why they were tougher on Mitt when he seemed to be losing badly and tended to go lighter on some of Obama's gaffes or bad interviews or whatever. And it'ss why now that it's a horse race and Romney's camp has succeeded at giving the impression of some kind of momentum, that they are more than happy to fluff him up a little more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. So the polls, on their own, could not have tightenend, LIKE THE DO EVERY GENERAL ELECTION

when you are getting close to election day. Like they have for at least fifty years. That history has none at all to do with this.

[vi5]

17. Huh? I'm a little confused.

Of course the polls have tightened like they always do. Did I say anything that gave the impression otherwise? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I think the polls have naturally tightened and they like that because it gives them their horse race scenario.

In '08 there was much less of that tightening (which was still there, just not as much as now) and so I think they were generally more favorable towards Obama.

As it sits now with a tighter race I think they are hedging their bets more and not really blasting one candidate or the other. They just like sensationalism all around.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. If yuo listen to the editorial pages

of course they are. MSNBC is not news, FOX is heavily editorialized, as in editorial page, CNN is also, but the NATIONAL NEWS DESKS are mostly sticking with the story, not the editorial.

Perhaps that is the problem, people no longer know the difference between the 24 hour cables, mostly editorial content, and the half an hour nightly news.

But hey, maybe we should not bother with this any more... since it is all a conspiracy I tell ya.

Re-read the OP, both sides cannot be right, unless there is no conspiracy and the news services, not the editorial desks, are actually doing their job and making BOTH sides uncomfortable.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

53. +1

I miss the old CNN, the Cable NEWS Network.

[libtodeath]

7. Good point

However the media does trend RW in many ways.
An example would be the entire Libya non story that is being a daily carrying of the crazies water trying to turn it into a scandal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I do not think it is RW, it is more like media likes a scandal

trust me, we are getting waved a few bloody flags locally. And I mean, if that scandal, (any of the three we are fact checking right now) blows up, it might cost somebody an election. Operative word here is might.

[liberal N proud]

9. The media has become one giant editorial machine

They no longer report the facts, just what they think or the talking head wants you to think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. If you are watching Mathews or O'Reilly, you are watching the editorial page

not the news desk.

FYI

[sadbear]

12. Why do you believe anything right-wingers and republicans say?

They claim victimhood in EVERYTHING. That's their M.O. Remember, they're the one who claim we're infringing on their 1st Amendment rights when when request they stop bullying homosexuals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. So if I have a local member of council tell city staff that

they are upgrading the city infrastructure, such as the water main, I should not believe him because he is nominally a Republican? Oh never mind the city works department making a mess of traffic in that city street? Are you telling me I should do that? I guess my lying eyes are not showing me the city crews doing that.

Sadly I do not fall into Newt's trap of "the other." You go right ahead.

[sadbear]

15. If you want to play little games with semantics, that's fine.

I suspect you know what I really meant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I am giving you an actual example from a local city council

that is very conservative.

By your definition I should question ANYTHING coming out of the Council at large actually, since they are all Republicans.

This is a problem that is not helping the country, and when BOTH SIDES play this shit, it leads to very dysfunctional governments, I cannot work with you, since you are the enemy. This is what functionally we now have. And this is what you are asking me to do. Sorry, I will not take a sip from that punch.

[sadbear]

28. Again, I think you know what I meant.

And I apologize if you don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Again, you are taking a very dangerous position,

and sadly you are not alone...

Ergo why we have such a dysfunctional congress and why we also have such dysfunctional state governments and we find ourselves one step away from actual violence.

I apologize for not being to communicate the danger of this.

But I guess you are correct. SMOKE FILLED ROOM, somebody bring the cheese and the wine, we got to decide...WHOOHOO!!!!

[sadbear]

37. I don't understand.

Do you think liberals and progressives have always been this way? I remember a time when we were the way you suggest we should be, and as I recall, that didn't work out too well for us. And I don't think it will get any better if we return to those days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You think civil wars are civil?

Because this is where we are right now, linguistically.

[sadbear]

44. So do you want to win or lose?

I suspect that you'll say we've already lost, but humor me. Would you rather that the republicans win? You can sit on the sidelines all you want, but when one side begins shooting linguistic bullets at me, I don't sit and take it. To me, the republican party of today is much too dangerous to allow them free reign over the country. And you're fooling yourself if you believe this isn't their goal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Sadly you are mistaken

I will vote against Romney on PRINCIPLE, as in I do not agree with his views... but I will REPORT THE NEWS, not what makes you happy.

I am amazed, actually no, I am not, that you think that somebody telling you that both sides cannot be right and the news is against both will vote republican.

Now if you care, MY LOCAL race actually points to the D winning the seat of Congress and getting rid of the incumbent. Those my dear are the facts on the ground. Oh wait, I thought polls could not be trusted.

[zappaman]

63. Sadly you make no sense

I am amazed, actually no, I am not, that you once again lecture us even though you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Read Ben Bagdikian's MEDiA MONOPOLY and get back to us.

[sadbear]

71. Is that a response to me?

Is this what you've been talking about during our entire exchange? I guess we were definitely not on the same page even at the beginning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. The page is simple

there is no media conspiracy, because if there was one, how come BOTH the RIGH WING PARTISANS and the LEFT WING PARTISANS think the media is in the tank for the other side? Clear enough for you now?

You know you have a right to your own views, but not your own facts kind of a thing.

[sadbear]

81. Because the right-wing partisans claim victimhood for everything...

especially when they're not the victims. And that's a fact. Do you not understand this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Because left wing partisand claim victimhood for everything...

especially when they're not the victims. And that's a fact. Do you not understand this?

Both sides say this, and while there is a grain of truth for both, there is a grain of truth FOR BOTH.

It is not just one side saying this. Do you even comprehend what I am trying to tell you?

Oh wait, by your logic I am a republican troll and the head of Romney 2016 (since there is no way he is winning this year per STATE POLLS... my bad, polls are in the tank for Romney, sorry)

[sadbear]

85. I can appreciate what you're trying to do

but this false equivalence is bullshit.

Both sides may say this, yes, but to even suggest that we do it to the same degree is ignorant. I have nothing else to add it you're going to stick to your suggestion that we're the same. If we can't agree to the basic assumptions, then we are at an impasse.

Later.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. No kid, it is not false equivalency

learn to read the news. We are not entitled to our own facts, that goes for both sides.

If both sides claim the media is in the tank for the other side, it cannot be... it is impossible.

Now editorials, yup, that is why we call them EDITORIALS.

You are entitled to your opinion, which is clear the GOP is the enemy of the united states, but not your own facts. And as you try to pass your own for actual facts, some of us are laughing here in the corner, hysterically in fact.

[sadbear]

90. Condescend much?

Funny you should talk about laughing in the corner, though. That is funny.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Well it is either that or cry

for the state of the country...

And no, I am not being condescending, you have your own ideas and confuse those for facts on the ground.

So I guess I am a republican troll in your mind... so be it.

What I find funny is that you still cannot deal with the idea that to those of us who are NOT partisan, you should the same as RW partisans, and you know what? It is funny. In fact, it is hilarious.

[sadbear]

104. I said I can appreciate what you're trying to do.

Really, I can. And I wish it were true. So no, I don't think you're a republican or a troll. I just find your take a little naive and simplistic, for whatever reason. Why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious is beyond me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Perhaps because I work in the field

and perhaps, just a tad of more of a clue as to what actually goes on inside media organizations?

You know this little FIRST HAND info.

I suggest that having primary knowledge of a profession hardly makes one naive.

Now rumors and innuendo do.

[zappaman]

107. You work in the field?

writing for a free online version of the local PENNYSAVER does not mean you "work in the field".
As to having "just a tad of more of a clue as to what actually goes on inside media organizations?", you have amply demonstrated, in your usual condescending manner, that you are the one who hasn't a clue.

[zappaman]

94. Sorry "kid"

I get what you are saying and am in agreement.
Then again, I'm not laughing hysterically over in the corner.

[woo me with science]

18. The media is corporate-run. It is STRUCTURALLY corporate,

so the bias runs to corporate interests and profit-making. News divisions are now structured as profit-making entities; thus, they are motivated for their own survival to do what the corporate one percent want them to do....which is turn elections into ratings grabbers...vapid horse races and entertainment, rather than coverage of the candidates and issues that would actually serve the people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I guess close elections are something new

regardless of the history of the last fifty years at least.

Oh did I mention that is way before media consolidation?

[porphyrian]

20. The media has a profit motive to create a "horse race," even if one does not exist.

There are still millions of dollars for them to reap from campaigns which they will not likely get if they admit one candidate is already winning with any considerable margin. All honest indications are that the President is winning everywhere he needs to be and that he will be President for four more years. All we need to do at this point is vote, which record numbers of us have already done.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. So they did that fifty years ago, before media consolidation?

[porphyrian]

26. Fifty years ago, the media had actual jouralists with journalistic integrity.

If you can't see the difference, your aren't paying attention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Again, you are tellimg me that they are getting close now because of lack of integrity

but they were doing such fifty years ago because of integrity? I am getting whiplash at this point.

These are opposing views that actually directly contradict each other. WHOOHOO, we should just all get together and decide who wins in a smoke filled room! (Who brings the good food and wine)

For the record when PARTISANS on both sides believe this, it really cannot be true.

[porphyrian]

33. You aren't understanding me. Allow me to clarify.

The media is currently creating a horse race where one does not exist because it has a profit motive for doing so and no integrity.

Fifty years ago, the media may also have had a profit motive to create a horse race, but the amount of money was nowhere near to what is available today and there were journalists who had integrity that would insist on reporting the truth, no matter what.

There is no contradiction in my position and if you are getting whiplash from it, it is because you don't understand what I'm saying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. We are? Again, you are telling me that the trend for election to tighten

that has existed for fifty years, since polling began, is made up?

Is that what you are telling me?

No, what i am getting whiplash is that the same polls were honest before, but now that they are not going my way, they are not.

[porphyrian]

47. Never mind. You're right. I'm sorry to bother you. n/t

[zappaman]

56. You have not the slightest clue what you are on about

The poster you are replying to is correct.
And the media is mostly RW today since it is owned by a small handful of corporations.
You probably don't know this, but corporations are usually conservative.
I know you fancy yourself a "professional journalist&quot your words) since you write for the free online version of the local Pennysaver, but you really have no idea what you are on about here and it is embarrassing.

[slackmaster]

25. Automatic Rec for industry information from a professional that works in the industry

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. There are a lot of factors at work.

With respect to a few media outlets (Fox News, the Wall Street Urinal) there is obvious bias. We can ignore Fox and WSJ because they are, in fact, "in the tank" for Romney even when they claim to be reporting news. The evening MSNBC shows are liberal and they don't claim to be otherwise; but they are editorialists, not straight news reporters.

As to the rest - those that claim to be delivering unbiased news - one might perceive some bias on the part of individuals, but it's interesting, for example, that the righties didn't like Candy Crowley even before she fact-checked Romney; they claimed she was a liberal. Meantime, on our side of the fence, we assumed she leaned toward the right and wouldn't be fair to our guy. Turned out she was very fair (except that the righties thought she wasn't).

I think a lot of journalists have become a bit lazy - they report on what somebody else has already reported instead of doing their own investigation and checking facts. And they echo the opinions that are already "out there." This might have to do with the intense demands of the 24-hour news cycle, and/or with the fact that many news outlets have cut their reporting staff, forcing them to rely on what someone else has already done.

There is also the desire to seem important. "Pundit" is Sanskrit for "wise man," and the cable news yakkers now designated as pundits seem to feel obligated to comment on everything, and not just report, even if they don't know what they are talking about. Exhibit A: Wolf Blitzer. I'm not sure he's actually biased, but I am pretty sure he pulls stuff out of his ass because he wants to seem wise.

But the other thing is what happens at the receiver's end. We are also biased - all of us. Everyone sees the world through their own prism. We perceive information through the prism of our belief system, whatever that may be. We are all subject to "confirmation bias," the tendency to accept information that confirms what we already believe, and to reject that which does not. I prefer some cable shows and newspapers to others because they tell me what I would rather know. If someone reports news that is contrary to what I believe, I might be inclined to assume the reporter is biased against my position because I don't want my belief bubble to be popped.

We have little control over what others report to us, but we do have the ability to step back and question how we perceive it. It's too easy to assume a biased source of any information that does not square with what we believe. Yes, some sources are biased, but it's up to us to figure out if a particular source has an agenda or if they are just offering up something we don't want to hear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. WSJ used to have a barrier between the news page

and the editorial page, and the NEWS department used to be VERY GOOD... now the editorial, no, not really.

Some news papers have gone the way of the 1880s, my local so called daily falls in that category, the same goes for Murdoch, but they are NOT YET the majority of medial

News Desk tends to be different from EDITORIAL PAGE, and people are having a problem distinguishing between news desk and editorial page.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. If the paper is a good one, that's true.

Unfortunately, these days the editorial opinions sometimes seem to bleed over into the news department. WSJ (since Murdoch bought it) is a good example of that. Their news reporting was once among the best, and even the editorials, though on the conservative side, were at least reasonable. Now they are like a print version of Fox News, with bigger words.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. That is why I made the qualifier about the WSJ being good before

But these papers are still the minority. One good example of this trend though is actually my local daily, which was bought by a local land developer and proceeded to fire reporters and editors that would not follow his "editorial stance." You think the WSJ is bad? This is the Chicago Trib oh circa 19885.

For some odd reason their circulation numbers have hit botton and keep on digging.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

32. They can sell more soap with a perceived tight race

That's why I see nothing in Chicago while swing states are inundated with TV, radio, robo calls...

Excluding Fox, of course they want to talk up the perceived loser. It keeps water cooler debates fueled and translates to windfall $$$$$$ for the network. The networks have ESPN'd politics.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd is a good company man.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. MSNBC chuck todd is an editorial writer

MNSNBC is the editorial page.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. He's a useful idiot...

...on MSNBC's editorial page.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. But we agree, this is not the news desk, right?

Look, he is no different functionally than any other editorial writer in the three cables, four if I count Current.

At least Current, which I like, does not make the pretension to being a news station. The other three should try that from time to time.

[loyalsister]

45. This has bothered me too

It seems that if a republican is allowed to speak, an interviewer is accused of being RW. Journalists are doing their job when they let extremists rattle on. It gets them on the record.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

49. That presumes journalists aren't tools..

...Watch Meet the Press. David Gregory isn't the journalistic "purist." He stands up to Dems and challenges them but let's Rs run roughshod over him and filibuster. The business model is predicated on getting "good" guests. Would "quality" R guests come back if they believed what they say would be scrutinized? Never know. And besides, there's a time constraint. If you have a number of topics to get to there's no time to debate filibustering Rs. Let them have the last word, then move on.

Meet the Press is lacks journalistic integrity. It's not alone.

[loyalsister]

52. That's exactly the point

I posted something about Candy Crowley before the second debate that essentially gave her the benefit of the doubt. It was littered with a barrage of insults and claims that she is a RW tool. And yet most agree she did a pretty good job. The problem here is the narrow- minded assumption that the media is against us. And, of course it is the same assumption that is made by RWers.

I think part of the problem is that people accept and expect the journalists to facilitate and participate in a semantic WWF rather than moderate. Anger rules the airwaves and the uglier it gets the more the public - Democrat, republicans, etc.. responds. It's really very embarrassing that people look for "smack downs" to come from journalists.

I haven't seen MTP for awhile because I sleep too late for it. So I have no comment on that. I get most of my news from reading and turn CNN on occasionally. MSNBC to soothe myself from time to time.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

54. Hard to respond to this because I was attacking MTP (but I will)

...I said that Rs get preferential treatment. Gregory challenges Dems; Rs get a free pass in most cases because they've learned how to game the format.

The program lacks journalist integrity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. The sunday shows, all of them, have been known as editorials for a long time

well before Gregory started in the business, so what is new?

[laundry_queen]

48. Yes, exactly the same thing

because right wingers, masters of projection, are spot on when they call the media 'liberal'. This is another instance of false equivalence.

I agree with Woo upthread. The media is corporate. The end. Sometimes that favors the left but far more often it favors the right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. I am talking of the NEWS desk, not the editorial pages,

which this thread shows most confuse for the news desk

[laundry_queen]

115. What news desk? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as NPR nightly news programs

none of the cables are news strictly speaking any longer, though even Shep Smith is good in disasters, and CNN can be very good when they go to their roots. Otherwise most of the cables are the opinion pages.

[RomneyLies]

50. I think everything about anything in the media comes down to two words.

Advertising money.

[Jamastiene]

51. Do you also believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced?" n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Fox news is editorial now and most of the time

is the editorial page considered news? So is MSNBC and CNN by the way... as well as Current.

Can you tell the difference between the news desk and the editorial page?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

64. I used to think MSNBC was objective...

...in so much as you used to see stories like this, even from Rachel!

*Mr. President: Bailout Wall Street but not Main Street?

*The President is furthering Bush Adm programs like wiretapping and he's kicking the Gitmo can down the road.

I listen to Ed Schultz every day. About a year and a half ago, Ed was beating the daylights out of Obama, so much so that his listeners were calling in and saying you're (Ed) going to cost the President any chance of re-election. I watch MSNBC every day. For about a year and a half now, MSNBC has lost its objectivity; prime time has become the Obama Re-Election Committee.

The only objective voice I hear in the media today is Norman Goldman.

Needless to say, I look forward to the return of objectivity to MSNBC post-election.

:fingers crossed:

[ronnie624]

55. "MOSTLY doing it's job"

if the MSM establishment's "job" is promoting the interests of its owners and advertisers, which includes military contractors.

And, of course, that is its "job". This is an issue that stands separate from perceived polling bias, and is, in my opinion, far more important.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. So you are tellimg me that overall they are biased and

both sides are right? Talk about whiplash.

Regardless, what people confuse for news is the editorial page anyway.

[ronnie624]

119. When it comes to the US political landscape,

MSM are bias toward whichever direction lies the 'side' that is most likely to serve media owners' interests, which are often (most of the time?), in direct conflict with the interests of both 'sides'.

If that makes any sense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. No it makes zero sense

actually.

I am not saying there are no problems in media, lord knows there are, but it is time we all realize that both sides cannot be right. It is mutually exclusive.

[ronnie624]

125. I don't see MSM as taking sides.

The owners of MSM (which includes military contractors) do not for one minute, believe the general public understands the implications of the policies and legislation they lobby our government for. Their goal as far as the 'sides' are concerned, is to distract them with entertainment.

On a side note, I don't think there is a greater conflict of interests, than huge corporations--whose sole purpose for existence is profiting from war--owning vast swathes of American media, and thus the ability to disseminate mass propaganda. I don't like that, one bit.

[zappaman]

57. There is a reason this thread only has 2 RECS

I suggest you read Ben Bagdikian's MEDIA MONOPOLY.
In the last 20 years, journalism has been replaced by entertainment as a handful of corporations have a stranglehold on the mass media, not only here, but the globe.
You have no idea what you are talking about...but I'm not shocked.

[Cali_Democrat]

67. +1

Anyone who thinks the media is "mostly doing it's job" is incredibly delusional.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

68. One serious problem with today's media is that reporters don't...

...have the time or budget to do investigative reporting, like Greg Palast or Matt Taibbi. As a result, what you get is locker room headlines, i.e., comments intended to incite the other side. It's just another sport, now, and sports programming is a successful business model.

[zappaman]

69. That's true

And the budget has definitely decreased while everything is dominated by the entertainment departments.
Not a difficult idea to grasp for most of us...

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. The budget, you are correct,

it costs money to get records and all that for a good ol' fashioned investigation. Trust me, am fully aware of that. And more than one story has died on the cutting room, due to a very real and climbing cost.

But that is a problem that also has to do with how it is funded, and all that. This I will give credit to the right, they went on a media buying spree a while ago, the progressive side, we cannot get them to donate money for the most part.

And that is more than just valid, and I will be the first one to agree with you,

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

73. Can you measure "conspiracy?"

Though I haven't seen her do it this year, Rachel was doing it in 2008.

She was counting the number of +McCain/-Obama and vice versa in the "media." She found that the reporting overwhelmingly favored McCain.

I'm buying. What do you think about measuring the conspiracy, Nadin?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. We have first have to define media

As I stated I am not considering the editorial pages part of the news department.

Look I love Martin Bashir, the man is good, but his program is an OPINION program, so is Rachel, and lord knows I watch her every night, almost

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

110. The sample size was enormous.

Safe to say, the "editorial" variable was statistically insignificant.

But I see that you're not buying even as the the number of editorial articles in the sample approached zero.

You're just a (religious) "believer" and can't be budged.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. If believer means being able to differentiate between the editorial page

and the news department, so be it.

Regardless, if you think that the media and the companies are in the tank for both parties, since that is the mirror image, I can't help you.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

113. lol are any of us asking for your help?

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. The laughs are becoming cheap round these parts

DU (and it's mirror image) are hust a bucketful of laughs.

[krawhitham]

75. " It cannot be in the bag for both Romney and Obama at the same time. It just can't. "

The are in the bag for who ever they feel is losing, and yes that can change from day to day

tie/close race = ratings

[nolabels]

78. Nationally, i would say yea, but locally no

Especially if you had read the rag of newspaper my area everyday. Must remember audience + add revenue = profit

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. So polls never change, except when it is convenient to push a meme

Okie dockie, sorry if I do not drink from that punch bowl.

[treestar]

83. I used to read both the Nation and the National Review

They were very similar, even in set up.

And both sides were convinced the other side had the media.

I always said if you want to feel better, go to the other sides's publications. Then you'll learn how your side controls the media, controls education, is winning and getting everything it wants and turning the US into a disaster thereby.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. And doing it for real, it got drummed into my head

very early, the difference between opinion and facts.

Yup

[brooklynite]

86. The media (with the obvious exceptions) isn't "red" or "blue"...it's "green"

Whatever coverage delivers an audience for its advertisers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Why the 24 hour editorial, so called nooz channels exist

yup

[Egalitarian Thug]

96. With the exception of Faux, there is open media collusion. It is not for either

candidate for political or philosophical reasons, it is for ad buys. 6 corporations own 90+% of all the media in America. That media is entirely financed by selling advertising. Political advertising is a huge market every other year and even bigger each four.

When one candidate is unopposed or overwhelmingly likely to win, they don't buy the very expensive advertising and the media loses that unspent money, therefore it is in the media's interest to be in the bag for whichever candidate looks to be falling behind. The Big Profits are the horse race.

So yes, it is not only possible but it is inevitable that the media will be in the bag for both/all candidates depending on market, budgets, and momentary popularity. This also precludes the media from doing its nominal job.

[ronnie624]

124. I'm not saying there isn't collusion,

but it isn't necessarily requisite. Corporations by their nature share similar interests and goals, primary of which, is making profit. Just about all of them, would benefit from wholesale deregulation, for instance. A lot of people mistakenly believe that talking about MSM as an institution, means you are trying to advance some sort of conspiracy theory, but conspiracy is not necessary if everyone shares common goals.

[Egalitarian Thug]

140. You're right, it is not required, but it invariably develops for just the reasons you cite.

That's the problem with allowing any small number of companies to control any market, they will inevitably collude to set the bounds of competition.

If there were, say 50, companies competing in this given market, we would see Adam Smith's theory in practice and see a continually lowering of prices and rising quality, but the nature of corporate-government cooperation like we have now makes what we see inevitable. Everybody will agree to keep prices high and limit innovation. just look at the professional sports leagues or the insurance and computer industries.

[countryjake]

98. Tell that to the employees of the Seattle Times

Seattle Times reporters protest campaign ads

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Seattle-Times-reporters-protest-campaign-ads-174879511.html

In the letter, the staffers said the ad campaign threatens to compromise the newsroom's integrity, pointing out the newspaper company has now become a top contributor to McKenna's campaign by running the ad.

"We are now part of a campaign's machinery, creating a perception that we are not an independent watchdog," the letter stated.


Seattle Times hit with backlash after paying for political ads
Washington state's largest newspaper buys space in its own pages to support campaigns for governor and gay marriage, outraging members of its news staff and prompting many readers to cancel their subscriptions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1024-free-political-ads-20121024,0,5925661.story


Inslee Campaign Says The Seattle Times Has Some Explaining to Do
Eli Sanders ~ The Stranger Slog on Wed, Oct 17, 2012

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/10/17/inslee-campaign-says-seattle-times-has-some-explaining-to-do

This morning the Seattle Times ran a full-page ad supporting Republican Rob McKenna which was paid for by the Times Company itself. This unprecedented move raises serious questions about who prepared the ad and who participated in its publication.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. san diego inion trib

they still are exceptions

[Media Lies]

108. as the number 1 propaganda machine in North America Fox News sure does its job!

Every 15 seconds they repeat the Libya Lie! Repetition is the key to success in any good propaganda campaign.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Since Fox, CNN. MSNBC and Current are editorial papers best case

no disagreement from me. They are pushing an editorial position.

CNN used to do news but that is long gone, by at least a decade, if not longer.

[GeorgeGist]

117. Junk media

don't know SHIT.

[hrmjustin]

118. Someone needs to remind the media that they are supposed to be liberal. I think they forgot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. That is the problem

I can interview a stalwart of the Democratic party in the morning and a Ron Paul fan (or worst candidates running on that libertarian bent) in the afternoon and neither should ever find out what is my personal POV. That is what real reporters do.

Here people know I am quite liberal, but in the field, people have no clue. For god sakes even my local occupy friends did not know where I stood politically, even after long talks and discussions. That is what real reporters should be able to pull off.

The media is not liberal and it's not conservative. That said, the facts at times do tend to have a tendency. But it is the facts Ma'am, just the facts.

[zappaman]

126. Thank you for reminding us in every single post...

what an amazing serious reporter you are.

[carolinayellowdog]

127. Media is PLURAL, dammit!

It has taken decades of creeping illiteracy but at last everyone seems to have discarded the singular medium/plural media distinction. At first it infuriated me as atrocious grammar, but now it's a fait accompli. But the problem isn't just one for the grammar police who learned the appropriate usage in school back in the day. Using "media" followed by "is" enables extreme intellectual confusion and dishonesty.

Now, following suit, a lot of talking heads seem to have completely forgotten the word "phenomenon" and are now using "phenomena" as a singular. But that one doesn't seem to have such potential harmful consequences.

[ecstatic]

128. If the media was doing it's job, we would have clean energy, safe food,

and safe/quality products. The media isn't reporting how pollution and fake food is killing us. Women wouldn't be at risk for having their reproductive rights rolled back. Nobody would think Obama was born in another country. Romney's campaign would have sunk the moment he chose Ryan.

If the MSM did it's job, we would be in a much better situation because Americans wouldn't be as complacent and tuned out from what's going on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. And you guarantee, cross your heart, people would be watching

because you know what, damnit I can't.

We cover development boards, where DECISIONS that AFFECT REAL PEOPLE are taken, traffic is very low. Missing puppy reunited stories go through the roof. I can guarantee a snooki story would have the same effect by the by.

[LanternWaste]

133. By creating a narrow monopoly of media owners we have also created a narrow realm of coverage.

In the early 80's, Ben Bagdikian wrote an eye-opening (for me-- especially at the tender age I was then) book called 'The Media Monopoly', narrating how the media functions within the standards of journalism countered by corporate advertising (creating an additional layer of self-censorship).

The book seems to have been prophetic, and its updated re-issues never change the original premise, but merely strengthens it by adding even more examples. Bagdikian’s final caution is this: by creating a narrow monopoly of media owners we have also created a narrow realm of coverage.

The conspiracy exists, but not one as we would think of as a conspiracy-- more a common agenda shared by all media outlets, that agenda being profits, higher share prices, and good relations with advertisers-- all of which weaken objective news reporting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Alas that is a problem with large media

but that is not what most people talk about here.

In my view large media should be broken up into itty bitty pieces... and nobody should be allowed to own more than two outlets in a single large media market. (Wait, go back to regulations we had before a certain piece of legislation was signed by Clinton?)

[LanternWaste]

138. I absolutely agree; otherwise it becomes something that is not in fact, media.

"arge media should be broken up into itty bitty pieces..."

I absolutely agree; otherwise it becomes something that is not in fact, media, but simply a megaphone for a very small, very narrow number of interests-- i.e., advertising disguised as news, using media as its mechanism

Looking at it from my end of the pool, The Fairness Doctrine seems at its worst, merely benign; and at best (and in my firm opinion), a much-needed layer of protection for objective reporting.