Have you ever asked anyone WHY they think the MSM is liberal?

[raccoon]

If so, what did they say?

(I haven't but I will next chance I get, and report back to DU.)

[SpiralHawk]

1. Because the right-wing propagada corps pushes the idea endlessly

They saw long ago that by projecting a lie loud and long they could make it stick...and so they go on with it.

[spanone]

2. cheney and bu$h* took that 'lie' theory to the highest levels ever

[YOY]

3. Everything regardless of how flippant that doesn't parrot Rush and FOX is liberal.

You could be selling fucking frappaccinos and make it look like the fucking Communist Manifesto because they didn't fly the flag in the background.

To quote a Nazi

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Of course I don't know anyone who does that around here...

[patrice]

11. 1+~ = All anyone in the construct has to do is stick with the Lie, NOTHING else is needed.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. Yeppers. And this is why you need some "absolute"

frames of reference when you get into political debates. If you're a Nazi, Alan Simpson is a "leftist". You can't define political terms like liberal, conservative, centrist, leftist, rightist, etc. on relativism, EXCEPT in case specific arguments.

For example, Obama might be a centrist or even center/left in United States politics TODAY, but on an absolute scale, say the rest of the world and/or historical examples, he's probably center/right or even on the right, albeit not the FAR right. These absolute/relative viewpoints lead to MUCH confusion in DU discussion.

[YOY]

21. We do. The political compass. It doesn't change.

www.politicalcompass.org.

It doesn't change...although many would want it to.

[treestar]

4. The M$M may be quite talented at appearing both ways

Or being negative to such extent that it always seems that way to each side.

The social issues may be a big part of it. Right wingers rant on about the acceptance of premarital sex and homosexuality and casual sex in TV shows and movies - giving them a preliminary focus that the media is against them, setting them up to see only what is against them.

It is fascinating in some ways that both sides really think the media is against them.

The media exists to sell things, so they want people to spend money, and so they tout whatever will do that - that's their real underlying goal and how they end up carrying water for Republicans, who seem to be pro-business.

[CBR]

5. Honestly, I have and most of the time they pretty much

say it is because they push multiculturalism and European values. Which, to me, means they (the media) don't bash minorities and gays. They do not like when non-white, non-Christian, non-American issues are covered (which is a rarity still).

[asjr]

6. If my right-wing brother-in-law is

any indication, it is when a Democrat is President. I have had a ongoing, though benign, fight with him since 1992. What exasperates me is he is a college graduate, a practicing attorney and listens to Rush Limbaugh. We are miles apart both geographically and politically. It is the only way I can tolerate him.

[tom_paine]

16. Intelligence is not the defining characteristic here, consciousness is.

Which is why the entire concept of consciousness has been edited out of our National Dialogue by the Corporate Aristocracy.

Consciousness leads to empathy, a strong sense of right & wrong, as well as other ideas very dangerous to The Ruling Elites.

That's the conundrum, and why so many otherwise intelligent people wind up replicating their Medieval Ancestors when it comes to following Pied Pipers. Because intelligence has very little to do with it.

Let us take one example: psychologically-designed advertising. It assaults people at the subconscious level, where defense against it is much more difficult, if not impossible. Research has shown that people who are conscious of being manipulated are much more difficult to manipulate.

So, that's it in a nutshell, and by that one example can be generalized across the whole of human though (with exceptions, of course, but there are always exceptions to any generalization).

You're brother's intelligence won't help him, only raised consciousness will. But such is impossible because it has been edited out of the vocabulary and National Dialogue, just as in Orwell's 1984 similar linguistic engineering was performed.

[asjr]

18. I agree. It just has always flummoxed me

that a supposedly educated person can be so dense. Times, they are a-changing.

[peekaloo]

7. Funny thing.

I know this one guy who's white, sixty-ish and a rabid wingnut who owns parrots. He's constantly sending me crap e-mails, you know the ones that disregard facts in order to legitimize their "outrage". Well anytime I ask him for proof of "liberal bias" he has no answer of his own, just repeats the same tired crap over and over. Coincidence?




p.s. I've noticed lately their e-mails are keen on mentioning a "source" did not originate from Fox News AND they have no problem with a black man as president. :think: If only someone could train them to stop shatting themselves and wallowing in it.....}(

[patrice]

8. A. Because ChurchCo says it is.

[zipplewrath]

9. It's a given

It's not something they feel any need to actually demonstrate, support, or justify. It's a given, like up is up and down is down. The media is liberal "by definition".

[Dappleganger]

10. Because Fox News says it's so 40 million times a day.

And people believe it and repeat it.

[msongs]

12. dems have run screaming from the word liberal so why not attack everything as liberal? nt

[Jackpine Radical]

13. I haven't asked, but I have some opinions.

First, the notion of a leftist M$M was created by right-wingers hoping to force the media to the right.

Second, neither liberalism nor conservatism is a monolithic philosophical or political entity. There is, for example, a difference between economic and social agendas. One may be a cultural liberal and a fiscal conservative, etc. I think that the media tend to be fiscally conservative and culturally liberal (giving the appearance of being tolerant of minorities, gays, etc.). The conservatives look at the media and see all the apparent tolerance, and thinks "Liberal!" The liberals look at the media, see the advocacy of corporate-friendly economic policies, and think "Conservative!"

And BTW, I think the apparent social liberalism of the media is very shallow and inauthentic in many areas.

[tom_paine]

14. You cannot use reason on propagandized people.

It's simply impossible, with some very small exceptions.

Go ahead, try. You'll be amazed and your education as to how people's minds (ours, too - it's just that our stupidities lie in different places than theirs) work.

If you're young, it will be difficult not to be disillusioned.

What you will find out likely withing the first handful of people you ask is that denial is the most powerful of human emotions, and apparently modern PR/advertsiing/marketing is getting people to agree on prefabricated notions, that once a person "settles it" within their own minds, blind them to everything else.

You will get many answers but most of them will be prefabricated talking points parroted from others. You won't find one person in ten who's given the matter much thought beyond parroting what they've heard. Thus, you will be left with self-referential nonsense, put together by someone else far away, that has been accepted mindlessly without any mental processing, and comes out identical to what came in, like corn kernels in shit.

You will be AMAZED at the percentage of people who, in the Age of TV/PR/marketing, are simply incapable of critically thinking. Maybe it was always this way, but the observable trend that I can see is that we reached a high-water mark 40-50 years ago and it's been downhill ever since.

It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with a particular view (try excplaining THAT to people, you're disillusionment will be even greater) - it's whether or not people have the capacity to examine events without "outside assistance". Like the Rise of the Punditry where people are told exactly what to think about what they just saw, and given the most limited mental menu possible to choose from - which appears to always be the narrowest point of view which leads one to worship the Corporate Aristocracy. (but that's some observational critical thinking on my part - that I came up with myself, after long observationa and analysis forced me to see "conventional wisdom" for what it was for - mere marketing and PR, which dominates every aspect of our lives now)

But almost everyone chooses from said menu without thinking - because thinking is HARD and who's got the time in this hustle-bustle world, eh?

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your results. I hope they are fundamentally different than what I saw a few years ago, but that seems unlikely.

Also, you might want to reconsider performing this little experiment, especially if you're young, because disillusioned to the extreme is no way to live life. And something like this may begin to open your eyes to the fact that nearly EVERYTHING in Modern America is pretty much bullshit, insanity, PR and lies, and the vast majority of the vaunted American People are much closer in mentality to 1930s Germans than 1930s Americans.

If you do try it, good luck and most definitely PM me when you post your results.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. I've always told people that if the media actually was liberal, we wouldn't have been

subjected to 8 years of Bush/Cheney. What more proof would anyone need?

[housewolf]

17. Because they've been told so for the past 30 years

Every day, over and over again, they're told to mis-trust the "liberal media"

[Marr]

20. I have, several times. The most common response was

that the big media outlet in question didn't cover one of the right wing's made-up controversies. If you can prove that they did in fact cover it, the conservative will tell you they didn't cover it thoroughly enough.

I've also heard them say that this or that reporter clearly had a disdainful expression when talking about some piece of news that was positive for the right wing. You can't really argue with something like that.

[snooper2]

22. The same reason the far left claims it is right wing pushing corporate meme

Because both sides focus on narrow issues and articles, stories, be it "news"; that aren’t' covered at all or aren't covered to their point of view.

Example-

There was a story up north somewhere of lawn service companies that couldn't get any workers. If I remember correctly a couple employers gave interviews to some local outlet. People were coming to apply, and when they would call them in to be hired the people would say, no thanks. I just have to apply to so many jobs to stay on unemployment. I can't make as much cutting grass as I do with the unemployment checks.

Now, this story was pushed by the rush the pill popper, hannity the scammer, and nasal boy himself mark levin continually for a couple days for the obvious reasons. And their thought process- None of the MSM are covering it because they are liberal.


This is the same thing seen here at times, except the meme is the MSM is right wing corporate owned lackeys so they won't cover xyz. If you need examples, go to the top of the DU page and do a search on "why isn't the MSM covering" and you'll get plenty of hits ;)