Hype sells!

I think what he meant, and what I would have said, or agreed with is...

I hear left wing drivel on CNN, NBC, CBS, PBS, and numerous other channels, plus news papers like the Washington Post (Republicans vote against Mothersday), the New York Times, and literally hundreds of other locations. It seems to sell quite well.

It is a real stretch to call CNN, for example, an outlet for left wing drivel. Do you consider my avatar as a left winger? They may lean towards the Democratic Party, but left wing drivel? That would be hard to support.

There is only two spots that it does not sell (as far as I can tell), in Books, and Talk Radio.

Actually there is yet another reason why Radio and Books are dominated by conservatives, and News Papers and TV are dominated by Liberals.

News Papers and TV are one way communication which there is no direct feedback. In Radio, callers call in and debate hosts, which Liberals when debated always lose. TV on the other hand, normally no one can directly contest the crap spewed.

Sometimes, I wonder whether the idiots who call talk radio and try to debate the host are really what they claim to be, or whether they are just plants. Actually, it's more likely that the screeners will allow the real wingnuts through, just so the host can look good, but screen out people with a legitimate argument.

But, maybe that's just my cynicism talking again.

In books, people directly respond by not purchasing books by liberal authors, and do purchase books by conservative ones. In news papers, more often people are buying them for general headlines, stock market information, classifieds, comics, weather, business news and so on. The liberalism gets a free ride.



What person doesn't like to have their own opinions reinforced?

We all do, of course, but then a well rounded person will listen to opposing positions as well.

Again, in either case, Radio programs make or break in listenership. So profit based or not, it would still have to sell ad space.

That's so, still, I wonder whether Genseca's idea that it is the business model that is to blame for the decline in left wing radio is correct. There must be as many gullible people who consider themselves to be liberals as those who consider themselves to be conservative. Maybe left wing drivel would sell on the radio if the purveyors were more business savvy, but, of course, left wingers don't tend to be too business savvy.

It's possible some might view it that way, but most claim that "man-made global warming" is based on junk science, because it is in fact based on junk science.

I take it you have not specifically examined or heard the other side to the theory?



My view is it's politics. There is a faction in our government that believes in near universal control of government is all that matters. To that end, the 'man-made global warming' scare, is a useful tactic to gain more governmental control.

Now, don't me wrong, I know good and well there are many decent people who are convinced these environmental issues. But if you look at their sources for believing it, nearly all are either government controlled, or government funded.

Few if any of the global warming motivated polices even help reduce the supposed sources of global warming. Ethanol for example, actually produces more supposed 'green house gases' than does regular oil based gasoline. Wind mills for example, can not, nor ever have, replaced anything, let alone shut down, or negated the need for new power plants, coal fired or otherwise.

So what's the purpose? The purpose is of course to gain more and more control over everything. More regulations, more Kyoto, more cap and trade. In short... more socialism.

I've engaged in pages long debates on the subject of global climate change. The science, as reported in apolitical journals such as Discover or National Geographic is pretty solid.

You do make a good point that many of the ideas promulgated as "combating global warming" are pure nonsense. The example of ethanol is a good one. The reason that the government promotes the use of ethanol is more likely based on campaign contributions from agribusiness than on a real conspiracy to promote socialism.
 
Werbung:
It is a real stretch to call CNN, for example, an outlet for left wing drivel. Do you consider my avatar as a left winger? They may lean towards the Democratic Party, but left wing drivel? That would be hard to support.

Your avatar is of a left winger who is delusional in the thought that he is an independent.
I suppose to break from the left on lets say immigration might make you an independent in those circles but it doesn’t make you one from my point of view.

And as for CNN being left wing, my gosh of course they are. Anderson Cooper who does news for them not commentary literally apologized before he had to utter any news about the dreaded Jeremiah Wright scandal. I have never in my life seen anyone so upset to have to report the news. Their other news broadcasters are just about the same.

They did for a while have their token conservative (Glenn Beck) who was treated very badly. All of the assistants they hire are also pretty left wing and they would complain if they had to work on the Glenn Beck show. When Glenn signed on with Fox, CNN told him not to bother coming back to finish out his contract. They refused to even let him contact the few aids on his program he got a long with to explain to them why the show was off, or have a good bye party. A few others left CNN to move to Fox and they were not treated very well either.

But I understand needing to think its moderate if you yourself wish to believe you are also.
 
It is a real stretch to call CNN, for example, an outlet for left wing drivel. Do you consider my avatar as a left winger? They may lean towards the Democratic Party, but left wing drivel? That would be hard to support.

Well let's start with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf cried that it was unfair that only Clinton was pressed to release his donor list. Never mind there was a scandal about how Clinton was funded, which turned out to be true. However, Bush released his donor list without problem. And that Carter was also being pressed to release his donor list.

Wolf in talking about the arrest of the Democratic governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich, said the following: “You know, most of the scandals -- most of the political scandals...in recent years have involved Republicans...and they’re all pretty well-known.” He continued by labeling the Democrat’s apprehension a “huge embarrassment.”. One wonders if he said the same thing during Enron after the 20 or so scandals with Clinton.

Wolf had section on a Catholic cardinal who said Obama’s pro-abortion stance is "aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." Wolf ran a promo for the clip as follows: "Also, a scathing rant against Barack Obama from a rather surprising source, a Roman Catholic cardinal -- the story behind his diatribe against the president-elect." A completely neutral response.

In an interview with Wolf, Palin said she is still concerned about connections with Obama's ties to a former member of the Weatherman Underground. Then mentioned "If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it"

Here's how the headline read: Sarah Palin said she would be honored to help out President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."

And that's just one of the CNN's program hosts. Shall I go through all of them?

But what about some of the general stories?
When Eric Shinseki, Barack Obama’s choice for Veterans Affairs Secretary was announced, they headline was 'Obama's choice for VA Secretary opposed Rumsfield.' What was never mentioned was that he didn't actually oppose him, but rather, pushed for more troops in Iraq.

How about CNN's 'legal analyst' Jeffrey Toobin who said "Who cares about ACORN? Who cares about Bill Ayers? I mean, I just don't get this. What is the point of raising that?"
Then after being shown people do care about it said "But he doesn't have an affiliation with ACORN."
Finely after shown he does, said "...I stand corrected on that, but I just don't see why that is going to move voters?" No left-wing drivel there...

Or how about CNN's world affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria, who said of Palin "she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start."

On a personal level, I've watched news reports that I know are being reported from a bias fashion. For example, one news report was on trash floating the Pacific Ocean. At the very end of the report, the reporter said, perhaps we can clean up this plastic trash and end all wars. No left-wing drivel there.

Or one report covered how cars do not need premium gas, and that it is only made in order to soak customers and boost greedy oil company profits. FYI, as someone who worked for a dealership, and watch people come into the shop with problems caused by not having the correct gas in the car, this is just more left-wing drivel.

If you want I can list for you hundreds more. The reason most don't report how bias the mass media is, is because it's so obvious, so wide spread, so universal, that even just looking up these references bores me. In fact, one way to tell the left knows how liberally bias the media is, just look at how many claim it's republican bias. Look up how often they claim that a news reporting is republican slanted, when if fact it just a rare case where they reported accurately with no slant at all.

Sometimes, I wonder whether the idiots who call talk radio and try to debate the host are really what they claim to be, or whether they are just plants. Actually, it's more likely that the screeners will allow the real wingnuts through, just so the host can look good, but screen out people with a legitimate argument.

I can't speak for all, but I can speak for what I've witnessed. Liberals generally are this stupid. From the few recent experiences at work, liberals have the most oblivious views in the world. One said if we all rode motorcycles tomorrow, we could drop the price of gas, and bankrupt all the oil companies. Huh? Anther said that Cuba has the best health care in the world. Remind me why are they dying trying to swim here again? One in talking to her about my position, she told me she no longer wanted to discuss it, and that her husband was in Union management UAW, and she knew everything I said was a lie. (we were not even discussing the automotive industry).

We all do, of course, but then a well rounded person will listen to opposing positions as well.

Example one is above. Example two is when I was in college, conservative discussions were harassed, boycotted, and censored. A free conservative news letter, at stands around the campus, would be looted, and disposed of by liberals who can't stand the thought of any other opinion being heard.

For myself, I was in a Humanities class (actually two of them), in which the professor opened the class by saying there was no morality. So then after a video on Racism, I pointed out there was nothing wrong with it. If nothing is morally wrong, who are you to judge a person who believes racism is ok?

After saying that America imposes it's morals on other nations wrongly, we had a video on abused Women in India. I told the class that there's nothing morally wrong with that, and who are we to impose our morals on India, and judge them?

I was censored, taunted, insulted, and the professor gave me very low grades until I had to drop out or get a very bad score. (which was ok. I had a blast in the class. Most fun I had at that college the entire time) But the fact is, liberals do not want to hear the opposing side... ever.

One of my favorite ones was a class project in which the class was split in half, and had to debate from one of two angles. The situation was a mythical town with a small river and a proposed manufacturing plant. You had to either argue for the jobs and plant at the destruction of the environment, or argue for the environment at the cost of not having jobs.

I looked up a manufacturing plant in, I think Missouri, that was built along a river. Far from destroying the environment, the year around warm water allowed plant and animal life to grow and prosper continuously. The fish population tripled, the plant life increased, and animal life that fed on the fish, also increased. In effect I proved you could have both the environment and the jobs.

I failed the project for arguing from outside the defined limits of the project. :D

I've engaged in pages long debates on the subject of global climate change. The science, as reported in apolitical journals such as Discover or National Geographic is pretty solid.

It isn't that Discover or National Geographic, is in and of itself bias. The sources for the information are nearly all bias. I've been working on a thread for this, and I'll debate it there when I finish it.
 
liberals do not want to hear the opposing side... ever.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here Andy... But I still object to calling such people Liberals. I realize such people call themselves liberals, but people often mislable themselves... Did you see my answer to your earlier question on Liberal vs. Progressive? People who fit the definition of Liberal have far more in common with Conservatives than the Progressives would have anyone believe.

Other than that, very nice post! And your comment about media being so left wing that impartial coverage comes across as being Right wing is spot on!
 
You mean the left wing media that supported Bush's lies about WMD and everything else the little turd did until even they couldn't take any more.

Or do you mean like Fox news that is run by one of the most right wing people in global broadcasting
 
Rupert Murdoch is politically to the right of Atilla the Hun but he does deals with whoever he thinks is going to win.

You are very naive.


Look at Fox during most of the Bush years.

It was nazi propaganda.

Designed by con men for suckers
 
If only GenSeneca had not replied, I would not have known what he said.. but since I saw it... here goes.

CNN is owned by Tunner Broadcasting, who CEO Ted Turner is one of the most left-wing fruit bats there is.

NBC's CEO is Jeff Zucker, is a registered Democrat and gave $5,000 to political action committees, for lobbying purposes, twice.

ABC, owned by Disney, who's CEO Robert Iger, gave donations to the following people:

Mark Warner, Jane Harmen, Howard L Berman, Barbara Boxer, Katrina Swett, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter and Mitch McConnell.

Only the last two are republican, and Specter is considered a Rockefeller Republican because of his largely democrat leanings.

In adition to the $15.3K given to individual democrats, Iger gave $35K to the DNC in 2008 alone, and thousands more to democrat PACs, for a total of $70K just in 2008, of which only $2,300 went to Mitch McConnel, the lone conservative republican.

CBS's CEO Leslie Moonves, although completely inactive since 2001, before that, was a registered democrat, and gave over $35K, including several thousand to Al Gore's presidential bid.
 
Oh I am? Prove it. You show me where I said I had no problem with accounting companies and corporate america being joined at the hip?

You don't know anything. You just put up another straw-man, try and claim I support something I never said I supported, and attack it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh.....so, that's a game (only) you can play, huh? You're all-the-time talkin' about what Liberals think...yet, you have some kind o' magical-firewall that protects your thoughts, huh? That (actually) makes sense, to you, huh? :rolleyes:

Here's what I don't have a problem with. I don't have a problem with private companies, who break laws, being sued, sent to court, fined and imprisoned.
Soooooooooo....you're against (what "Frig" Newton called) Tort Reform.

By your standards, that'd make you a Liberal. :p
 
Talk radio involves thinking more than TV or other media outlets. Thus, leftwing stuff simply doesn't fly on radio. There was a liberal show here locally, and I used to listened to it off and on. It was pathetic.

I don't even remember the specific issue being discussed, but he was complaining the evil republicans did thus and so.
A caller called in and made a dead-on accurate point about why the republicans did what they did.

Suddenly, mid call, the host hung up. Literally mid-sentence, *click* gone. The host even made fun of it, proving that it was done purposefully. He even mocked that he'd hear people complain that he censored opposing views later. Of course, they didn't do that, because they simply quit listening, just like I did. That was the last time I listened to his show. Not surprisingly, it was canceled not even a month later.
......And, this had such a huge-impact, on you, you forgot who the Host (or, the name o' the show) was, right? :rolleyes:
 
There is only two spots that it does not sell (as far as I can tell), in Books, and Talk Radio.

Actually there is yet another reason why Radio and Books are dominated by conservatives, and News Papers and TV are dominated by Liberals.

News Papers and TV are one way communication which there is no direct feedback. In Radio, callers call in and debate hosts, which Liberals when debated always lose. TV on the other hand, normally no one can directly contest the crap spewed.
.....Yet, that's where Porky Limbaugh got his (own) butt handed-to-himself, by some woman who got tired of the crap (he) spewed!!

Yeah......ol' Porky's quite the Debator!!! I guess that's why he had to clear-out the audience....and, BAIL from his T.V.-gig!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:p
 
Well let's start with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf cried that it was unfair that only Clinton was pressed to release his donor list. Never mind there was a scandal about how Clinton was funded, which turned out to be true. However, Bush released his donor list without problem. And that Carter was also being pressed to release his donor list.

Wolf in talking about the arrest of the Democratic governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich, said the following: “You know, most of the scandals -- most of the political scandals...in recent years have involved Republicans...and they’re all pretty well-known.” He continued by labeling the Democrat’s apprehension a “huge embarrassment.”. One wonders if he said the same thing during Enron after the 20 or so scandals with Clinton.

Wolf had section on a Catholic cardinal who said Obama’s pro-abortion stance is "aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." Wolf ran a promo for the clip as follows: "Also, a scathing rant against Barack Obama from a rather surprising source, a Roman Catholic cardinal -- the story behind his diatribe against the president-elect." A completely neutral response.

In an interview with Wolf, Palin said she is still concerned about connections with Obama's ties to a former member of the Weatherman Underground. Then mentioned "If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it"

Here's how the headline read: Sarah Palin said she would be honored to help out President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."

And that's just one of the CNN's program hosts. Shall I go through all of them?

But what about some of the general stories?
When Eric Shinseki, Barack Obama’s choice for Veterans Affairs Secretary was announced, they headline was 'Obama's choice for VA Secretary opposed Rumsfield.' What was never mentioned was that he didn't actually oppose him, but rather, pushed for more troops in Iraq.

How about CNN's 'legal analyst' Jeffrey Toobin who said "Who cares about ACORN? Who cares about Bill Ayers? I mean, I just don't get this. What is the point of raising that?"
Then after being shown people do care about it said "But he doesn't have an affiliation with ACORN."
Finely after shown he does, said "...I stand corrected on that, but I just don't see why that is going to move voters?" No left-wing drivel there...

Or how about CNN's world affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria, who said of Palin "she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start."

On a personal level, I've watched news reports that I know are being reported from a bias fashion. For example, one news report was on trash floating the Pacific Ocean. At the very end of the report, the reporter said, perhaps we can clean up this plastic trash and end all wars. No left-wing drivel there.

Or one report covered how cars do not need premium gas, and that it is only made in order to soak customers and boost greedy oil company profits. FYI, as someone who worked for a dealership, and watch people come into the shop with problems caused by not having the correct gas in the car, this is just more left-wing drivel.

If you want I can list for you hundreds more. The reason most don't report how bias the mass media is, is because it's so obvious, so wide spread, so universal, that even just looking up these references bores me. In fact, one way to tell the left knows how liberally bias the media is, just look at how many claim it's republican bias. Look up how often they claim that a news reporting is republican slanted, when if fact it just a rare case where they reported accurately with no slant at all.



I can't speak for all, but I can speak for what I've witnessed. Liberals generally are this stupid. From the few recent experiences at work, liberals have the most oblivious views in the world. One said if we all rode motorcycles tomorrow, we could drop the price of gas, and bankrupt all the oil companies. Huh? Anther said that Cuba has the best health care in the world. Remind me why are they dying trying to swim here again? One in talking to her about my position, she told me she no longer wanted to discuss it, and that her husband was in Union management UAW, and she knew everything I said was a lie. (we were not even discussing the automotive industry).



Example one is above. Example two is when I was in college, conservative discussions were harassed, boycotted, and censored. A free conservative news letter, at stands around the campus, would be looted, and disposed of by liberals who can't stand the thought of any other opinion being heard.

For myself, I was in a Humanities class (actually two of them), in which the professor opened the class by saying there was no morality. So then after a video on Racism, I pointed out there was nothing wrong with it. If nothing is morally wrong, who are you to judge a person who believes racism is ok?

After saying that America imposes it's morals on other nations wrongly, we had a video on abused Women in India. I told the class that there's nothing morally wrong with that, and who are we to impose our morals on India, and judge them?

I was censored, taunted, insulted, and the professor gave me very low grades until I had to drop out or get a very bad score. (which was ok. I had a blast in the class. Most fun I had at that college the entire time) But the fact is, liberals do not want to hear the opposing side... ever.

One of my favorite ones was a class project in which the class was split in half, and had to debate from one of two angles. The situation was a mythical town with a small river and a proposed manufacturing plant. You had to either argue for the jobs and plant at the destruction of the environment, or argue for the environment at the cost of not having jobs.

I looked up a manufacturing plant in, I think Missouri, that was built along a river. Far from destroying the environment, the year around warm water allowed plant and animal life to grow and prosper continuously. The fish population tripled, the plant life increased, and animal life that fed on the fish, also increased. In effect I proved you could have both the environment and the jobs.

I failed the project for arguing from outside the defined limits of the project. :D



It isn't that Discover or National Geographic, is in and of itself bias. The sources for the information are nearly all bias. I've been working on a thread for this, and I'll debate it there when I finish it.

It does appear, from your examples, that CNN tends to favor Democrats over Republicans. Whether or not that observation can be extended to say that it favors liberals over conservatives, of course, depends on your definition of those terms.

And, on the other hand, here are some random examples from Lou Dobbs:

And tonight, President-elect Obama has nominated an outspoken pro amnesty open borders advocate to be secretary of the Department of the Labor. We'll have a special report on what that appointment will tell us about the president-elect's agenda on illegal immigration and border security. We'll have all of that, all the day's news and much more from an independent perspective straight ahead here tonight.

President-elect Obama today sidestepped a reporter's question on how he plans to keep well-paying middle class jobs in this country. The president-elect missed an opportunity to repudiate the so-called free trade policies that have cost this country millions of jobs, four million manufacturing jobs, just since 2000. Instead, the president- elect called for what he called reciprocity in our trade relationships.


DOBBS: Well, this is, you know, this is early on. The president-elect is starting to look like a bit of -- it's starting to look when it comes to trade, as Lori Wallach, the public citizen pointed out, Global Trade Watch, I mean the old boss is starting to look a lot like the new boss when it comes to the issues of off shoring, free trade. This is troubling indeed.

The above from one transcript. I'm sure that there are more, if someone wanted to take the time to find them.

On a personal level, I've watched news reports that I know are being reported from a bias fashion. For example, one news report was on trash floating the Pacific Ocean. At the very end of the report, the reporter said, perhaps we can clean up this plastic trash and end all wars. No left-wing drivel there.

I'm not sure I get your point with that one. Is cleaning up trash floating in the ocean, and ending wars, a left wing value? Does that mean that throwing trash in the ocean and continuing wars is right wing? Sometimes, your definitions escape me.
 
Hype does sell.

And the media is supposed to be TRUTH to POWER. So they do tend to be looking to "Hype" abuses of power.

That's what has gotten the Bush administration at such a media low point... the constant appearance of abuses of power.

But this goes at either Party when in power. In fact if there isn't much to find the media will even go for the pure sensational.

Anyone that doesn't think the media spent every waking hour chasing around the Monica story when Clinton was President is either severely mentally retarded or a pure 100% liar.

So it goes both ways. But I have to say I have high hopes that with this severe economic mess as well as the Iraq & Afghanistan situations President Obama is being handed by the Bush administration the American people will support both him & his efforts.

I think also being the first Black President he will go the extra mile to do a good job not only for the sake of the present but also for history's sake.

Plus I see President Obama as a very committed husband & father and that too helps keep one grounded and well thought of.
 
Werbung:
It does appear, from your examples, that CNN tends to favor Democrats over Republicans. Whether or not that observation can be extended to say that it favors liberals over conservatives, of course, depends on your definition of those terms.

And, on the other hand, here are some random examples from Lou Dobbs:

The first one was neutral. It was reporting simply what was said.

President-elect Obama today sidestepped a reporter's question on how he plans to keep well-paying middle class jobs in this country. The president-elect missed an opportunity to repudiate the so-called free trade policies that have cost this country millions of jobs, four million manufacturing jobs, just since 2000. Instead, the president- elect called for what he called reciprocity in our trade relationships.

Do you not see the bias? They say "so-called" free trade policies that have "cost this country millions of jobs". That's left-wing drivel.

Well, this is, you know, this is early on. The president-elect is starting to look like a bit of -- it's starting to look when it comes to trade, as Lori Wallach, the public citizen pointed out, Global Trade Watch, I mean the old boss is starting to look a lot like the new boss when it comes to the issues of off shoring, free trade. This is troubling indeed.

Troubling why? Because he's looking like a republican? Does that not indicate a bias?

Even your own examples, show the liberal media bias. Even when they are criticizing Obama for something, it's only that he's not liberal enough for them. Not because they are neutral reporters of the facts.

I'm not sure I get your point with that one. Is cleaning up trash floating in the ocean, and ending wars, a left wing value? Does that mean that throwing trash in the ocean and continuing wars is right wing? Sometimes, your definitions escape me.

Does it make rational sense that trash = war? Only a left wing nut job would think that trash floating in the ocean, some of which is made of plastic, which is made from Oil, some of which might be purchased in the middle east, is thus the cause for the war. That's left wing bias. The reporting is spinning the story with his looney left screw ball conspiracy theory crap. The idea that cleaning up some floating trash in the Pacific would end the war, is absolute insanity.
 
Back
Top