Quote:
Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 23 2004, 02:02 PM
Opti, the Rather thing is mob mentality - they don't care who actually made it, the mob just wants blood and Rather was at the front of the line. There is little logic, just one of those things.
The media in the US is balanced. What is more concerning is the "news cycle" control - which falls almost entirely to the whitehouse. They do their damndest to either get their stories to be number 1, or to get their stories to offset negative stories. Too much of the local media now is dependant on news pieces prepared "elsewhere", sometimes that includes news created by, produced by, and reported by government employees.
Liberal or conservative isn't the issue - the issue is that someone further up the ladder is pulling the string and playing the media to get you the news they WANT you to know.
Alex
|
THE LYNCHING OF DAN RATHER
By Greg Palast
Sep 20, 2004, 16:36
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/...cle_11948.shtml
That guy is a US Journalist that describes himself as being in "exile" from the US media.... he paints a depressing picture of the "news cycle" control and how it affects journalism.
To accept things are really as bad as he suggests, I would have to accept that journalists in general have no principles and are all self serving image whores.. which I dont.. but the treatment of Dan Rather really does seem to be some convincing proof for his argument!
Colin
thanks... I see I was mistaken about the fox comment (thank god) If Murdoch was broadcasting liberal propoganda now the world really must have turnd on its head.. and would have badly fuelled conspiracy thoughts ;-)
Quote:
|
When the question of which news organizations actually tilted left or right, there was one clear candidate: Fox News. Fully 69% of national journalists, and 42% of those at the local level, called Fox News "especially conservative." Next up was The New York Times, which about one in five labeled "especially liberal."
|
And the New York Times was the newspaper I was reading that prompted the initial question.. I cant even recall what the article was about now, but it seemed to be heavilly slanted against Bush and almost an opinion piece rathers than news.. which kind of pissed me off as I was interested in the issue and wanted proper information...
I had seen the gallop poll information from the MRC site reported elsewhere before posting and it was one of the things that supported the view that the public may have been tricked actually!
Quote:
by 3-to-1 Americans Think Media Too Liberal
OVERVIEW:
In February 2003, The Gallup Organization polled 1,002 adult Americans about the media’s accuracy and objectivity. The results were released in March, 2003, in "News Media Get Good Marks for Terrorism Coverage; But public generally skeptical about media accuracy and objectivity." According to Gallup, a "the poll also shows that, more generally, Americans are skeptical about the...objectivity of the ‘fourth estate.’" Archived Gallup polls are only available to subscribers.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE GALLUP POLL:
By three-to-one, more Americans say that the media are too liberal (45%) than too conservative (15%).
63% of conservatives think the news media are too liberal, as do 43% of moderates and even 18% of liberals.
|
Those figures can be interpretted as showing huge numbers of people... and huge numbers of those expected to normally think the opposite.. actually do beleive something that, on the surface, would appear an illogical premise.. That a liberal agenda is being pushed by a bunch of huge conservative owned corporations.
And JR.... that's pretty much good enough for me if You, Alex and Mike are all able to agree the media system is still healthy enough for democracy to work.
(closing all conspiracy theory websites and going back to work)