Is there such a thing as a "liberal media"?

[UdoKier]

Poll question: Is there such a thing as a "liberal media"?

Is there such a thing as a "liberal media"?

[bobweaver]

1. Yes but they are comparatively small, mostly print and internet.

[GOPFighter]

2. No, but there used to be an educated, principled media

Not anymore, though

[Maria Celeste]

19. When?

The media has always had agendas, going back the to yellow journalism days. Some I agree with, some I don't. As a whole its never been educated or principled.

That said, I find most of the conventional media more clueless than political, unwilling to really get to the heart of any story.

[GOPFighter]

27. Edward R. Murrow, Cronkite

During the 1950s through the 70s I think the press took their job a lot more seriously and tried to report things as they saw it. Not entirely sucessful, but much better than today's pampered talking heads.

[OrwellwasRight]

3. There are liberal books, but there's really no "liberal media"

I don't hear the media talking about the Two Faces of Power. I don't hear them criticizing the supremacy of capital or the degredation of labor. I don't hear them talking about how we STILL incarcerate a higher percentage of our people than any other nation (apartheid-era South Afrida used to beat us, but I don't believe that is the case any more).

We won't have a "liberal" media until one can openly discuss the flaws of capitalism without being marginalized and derided as a Commie Pinko Scumbug (with my apologies to DUer Commie Pinko Scumbag).

[mcscajun]

4. Voted "other" -- take exception to "and has always been" in the following:

"No. The media is and has always been CORPORATE, and thereby RW, with exceptions for issues like gay rights, which don't threaten their power."

We have a fully bought and paid for Corporate Media now, but it hasn't always been that way. We had a thriving adversarial press before the Fairness Doctrine got toppled and Media Consolidation became the order of the day. And it wasn't so very long ago... :::sigh:::

I can recall when the NY Post was a hotbed of liberal thought and Jimmy Breslin and Pete Hamill were THE columnists to read there. Now it's a right-wing rag not even fit to use for wrapping fish or lining birdcages.

[OrwellwasRight]

5. Doesn't it also have to do with the tendency, after Watergate,

for so-called "journalists" to start socializing with the politicos they were suppossed to be reporting on?

I mean, it is rather difficult to critically investigate and try to take down the very people who give you "status" in both the reporting world and the social world and invite you to parties with expensive caviar.

[mcscajun]

11. Reporters have always socialized with those in power...

...but you're right, it did get rather egregious after Watergate.

If you don't socialize with people in power, you miss a lot. Especially when they've had a few drinks and their guard is down. :) Even if it's "off the record" you'd at least come away with some perspective and background on your story.

[OrwellwasRight]

13. I'm just not sure how objectively you can report on shrub

when he is invitiing you to private barbeques on his ranch that are "closed" to the media not attending as guests, and the reporters/guests are not allowed to write about what happened.

[mcscajun]

14. I totally agree. But then I don't think barbeques are the problem here...

...the problem is nobody standing UP to him at his press conferences.

[OrwellwasRight]

18. Yeah did tyou read that post transcript here a couple of nights ago?

It was pathetic. Why do journalists even bother asking questions anymore?

How it goes:

Do you think it was a mistake to invade a Iraq?

Dangerous man, dangerous region.

Next question...

How it should go:

Do you think it was a mistake to invade a Iraq?

Dangerous man, dangerous region.

I'm sorry, sir, but that does not answer my question. Was it a mistake?

Tough weeks. Everyone else thought...

That still doesn't answer my question.

Freedom is on the march.

Are you refusing to answer my question?

(Reporter then writes that the president refused to answer the question instead of reporting the talking points that shrub wants in the press anyway.)

Did you see Tim Russert yesterday? Pathetic.

[UdoKier]

8. BUT...

Even in the 60s, NBC ran a totally biased hit piece on Jim Garrison of "JFK" fame, and even "liberal" Walter Cronkite has been a consistent defender of the ludicrous Oswald as lone killer, "magic bullet" scenario. That sort of thing makes me think that they were on THEIR side, going WAY back.

[mcscajun]

10. I think the JFK incidents are in a category by themselves...

...there's a great deal of Fear driving the reporting of that particular piece of history. And unfortunately, by the time the archives are all open (if indeed they still exist by then) I'll be dead and I'll never see the truth revealed.

[BeFree]

6. No

But what most sheeple consider to be the "Liberal Media" are the various shows which offer up alternatives to the conservative view of "This is how everyone is supposed to live."

Anything anti-war, pro-rights or pro-environmental are considered alternative to the con's views.

[NewJeffCT]

15. disagree somewhat

It's not just the various shows - I genuinely think most people out there think anything outside of Fox (whom most acknowledge as leaning Republican) is slanted the liberal way. Why? Because the RW Noise Machine has been pounding that into our heads for 30+ years now. Every time something goes against the Republicans, the RW media will raise the "librul media" Boogeyman specter, no matter how legitimate the charges may be. Even if they don't raise it, it's been pounded into our heads so often that many will think that anyhow.

I think the shows, assuming you mean those Sunday morning talking head shows, tend to be the most balanced out there, outside of Fox. At least you get a liberal talking their point of view. The choice of liberal often leads something to be desired... but, at least there is somebody. It's certainly better than RW Wolf Blitzer "debating" social security with a rep of the RW American Enterprise Institute and the Far RW Heritage Foundation.

[SHRED]

7. When idiots spout...

that the media is 'liberal' I tell them to listen to Air America.
If the damn media was so liberal then you would hear AA topics and stories all over the 'liberal' media.

People that spew this nonsense don't even know what the words 'leftist', 'progressive', or 'liberal' really mean.

I work with dumb asses who I point to listen to our local station: http://www.klsd1360.com/main.html
Nowhere else, over the public airwaves, will you hear these views in the San Diego region.
Yeah...it's a real 'liberal' media...jeeesh.

[Kolesar]

9. I think NPR is "barely left of center"

NPR plays some conservative material that comes off really out of place and clumsy. I think NPR blows it by not covering stories. They blew the prewar coverage of Bush's Lies of Mass Destruction.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. Did you see that analysis of NPR last year that proved

that the majority of their "experts" are actually from right-wing think tanks?

The only that makes people think NPR is left is that:

1) they do in depth reporting (e.g., a three minute story instead of a 20 second headline + soundbyte), but thorough coverage is just good journalism, it is not left leaning

and

2) they do cover stroies ignored by the MSM: again, this is simply better coverage, it is not left-leaning coverage.

When will someone call out the RW media on the fact that reporting on world facts is not revolutionary, it is responsible. We have let them tell the sheeple that if an outlet covers a story about non-whites, it must have a liberal ax to grind.

Other than a few books and magazines, the only lefty media there is Pacifica Radio, but virtually no one has access to it. Air America is a start, but again, I don't think they are really calling capitalism out for what it is and telling workers to stand up for themselves and stop being stooges for the RW.

[frylock]

20. i think that npr is worse than fox news in many respects..

people associate them with being liberal or left leaning, so when they speak favorably about the administration, or fail to call them out on flawed or failed policy, it is then used as ammunition by the righties; if the über-libs at NPR see nothing wrong, then everything must be okey-dokey. It's a little insidious in nature, frankly.

And NPR is far from being "public" in the true sense of the word. They receive an awful lot of funding from corporate interests, and that makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, for them to report with any impartiality.

[OrwellwasRight]

22. I don't know about worse than Fox.

I see your point, but it can't possibly be worse than going out and creating little fascists.

Did you hear the obsequious interviewing of Richard Perle a couple of weeks ago?

It was very much like my dialog above except that Perle didn't just avoid answering questions, he also gave lies and half-truths, and Inskeep let him get away with it. I just don't see Bob Edwards letting Perle get away with that shi^t.

[Kolesar]

23. I give credit to NPR for producing stories about poverty, environment, etc

That is more than newspapers or TV can manage. There was a time when NPR was a feast of reports challenging the establishment. Sadly, the Newt Gingerich-types ended that with their pathetic hate campaign against public broadcasting.

[OrwellwasRight]

24. Don't get me wrong, NPR is my main source of news.

I find their work to be some of the highest quality around. I just do not agree that it is left-leaning. The RW has convinced the sheeple to expect so little from the news that in-depth reporting somehow appears to them to be liberal ("How could it not be biased? Since I don't hear about the failures of US foreign policy on Fox, this must be some made-up left-wing propaganda..." some reflexive Bush voter says to himself.).

[NewJeffCT]

25. Do you have a source for that data on NPR?

I'd appreciate it as part of a LTTE I'm trying to compose.

Thanks

[OrwellwasRight]

26. This might be it:

http://www.fair.org/reports/npr-study.html

I think I have the link saved at work, so if I find a different source when I get there tomorrow, I'll send it to you. Good luck!

[OrwellwasRight]

28. Here's a newer link:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html

I think I gave you an older study above. Cheers.

[NewJeffCT]

29. Thanks

I appreciate it.

[UdoKier]

31. The other thing that makes people think it's left-wing...

...is the subdued, "intellectual" tone of much of the programming. People who are used to sensationalistic reporting go into withdrawal listening to NPR.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. The corporate media is out to make a buck. That means lots of

sex and violence in order to sell both the news and entertainment.

[unpossibles]

17. the media companies are not liberal

many of the employees are - we're willing to work long hours for little pay or recognition and for the most part have very little say in the editorial content.

As a former photo editor for a major online news source, I can say this with first hand experience. There were a lot of things we were not allowed to show, and a lot of fluff we were directed to show. Every now and then someone would slip something important in, but usually not able to.

I had Wingers accuse me of bias recently when I had to do a gallery of the human side of the troops and I included some rather sobering casualty reports in the captions. I would not have minded doing the gallery so much if it were not for the fact that we were so locked down on anything "negative" (ie: honest) about the war.

As much as I honestly hate the "if it bleeds it leads" idea, I do feel it is the media's responsibility to let the public see what is happening in the world. It is far to easy to support a war where the casualties (American and Iraqi), the problems, and the horror is invisible and white-washed.

When you see these pictures of limbless children and people throwing rocks at tanks, and riots around the world burning effigies of Dumbya (pics you know few will see over here, especially if they rely heavily upon the TV and MSM) right next to the latest photo of J-Lo with her million dollar jewelry it gets a little hard to take.

All of our photo department were very liberal and politically active, but our hands were tied by "superiors" and the dollar signs in their eyes.

[rman]

21. rephrasing the question: "Is there liberal media bias in the MSM?"

To which the answer would be "No"

But of course there are liberal media. AAR covers Moderate- (Franken) to non-conformist- (Majority Report) liberal/left-wing.
And there's always DemocracyNow!

[durutti]

30. Of course there *are* liberal media -- like The Nation...

And Mother Jones, Harpers, Utne Reader, and The American Prospect; and Air America; and alternative weeklies generally. And there are also the blatantly right-wing media -- the New York Post, most talk radio, the National Review, WorldNetDaily, Fox News and so on.

Most other media are not really biased to the Right, but rather to the top. They reflect the interests of owners, advertisers, the state, and well-funded pressure groups, think tanks, and PR firms.