If the far right says the "MSM" is too liberal, and the far left says "MSM" is too conservative…

[NurseJackie]

… does that mean that it's just about right? (Not including Fox News, of course. That's an entity all to itself.)

When voters hear some of the Republican candidates say one thing, and then hear some of the Democratic candidates say another thing, it must be confusing. What's true?

[Iliyah]

1. I'll say that Journalism is dead.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The Republican Party issued a directive

to their candidates to attack the moderators at the debate as part of a coordinated plan to misdirect the public away from the embarrassing buffoonery of republican primary political discourse.

The traditional mass media remains a powerful agent of indoctrination through brainwashing for the global corporate state.

[treestar]

3. I agree - people get upset when they hear

what they don't like and overlook what they do like.

If you want to find out how successful the liberals have been and how they control the country, read a right wing publication. It'll almost make you feel better.

Pox Noise is an exception so the right thinks it is fair and balanced. If we had an equivalent, we'd think it was fair and balanced, too.

Also akin to the way people insist themselves to be the actual center, rather than looking around and describing the positions for what they are - thus Obama can be both a right wing tool and a Marxist. DUers who think Obama and Hillary are tools of Wall Street should read right wing publications, where they will be relieved to learn that both are actually Communists.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. +1 ... These days, when folks say the media is ...

"too conservative/liberal", it really translates into: "The media is not saying what I want it to say, and/or focusing on the narrow range of issues of interest to me.

[LiberalArkie]

4. The MSM has lost most of the credibility it had in the 60's and 70's due to them

being entertainment sources. It used to be that a TV station had to have equal time. If the station had a republican candidate on for 30 minutes they also had to have their opponent on for 30 minutes. That is why you have the opposing party give a speech after the state of the union speech. The stations also had to have a certain amount of time set aside for hard news and local news. The network news organizations were separate from the entertainment divisions. However at some point the news departments became part of the entertainment and had to produce their own operating capital. Before this the news departments were financed by the corporate entity, the news departments did not have to make a profit, now they do.

[99Forever]

5. No.

It means the CORPORATE media is bought and paid for by the establishment cronies. The "left/right" crap is quite simply Kabuki Theater used to distract from the real issues and it works just fine on the gullible.

[JRLeft]

6. ^ This if the OP believes the media is just about right, then that person

has bought into the propaganda.

[stillwaiting]

7. So only the "far left" believes the MSM is too conservative?

"Conservative" meaning focused on Big Business interests and the financial elites interests over average American interests on domestic economic policy.

So glad you're here.

The MSM is owned by a few LARGE corporations. It's not far fetched to believe they skew what's reported (and what is not reported) to protect and advance Big Business interests. It seems to me that this is clearly what's been happening over the past decade or two. In fact, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to act in a way that increases their stock price. I question the insight and judgment of anyone who disputes that. And, if the media is protecting and advancing Big Business interests as a primary focus in their coverage THEN IT IS TOO CONSERVATIVE.

It is never wise to base ANY of our beliefs on what the far right believes about anything. Take in the facts, assess the situation, and come to your own opinion. The crazy thing is that on very rare occasions, if doing that, we just might agree with the right (or even the far right) on issues. It sure as hell won't happen often, but it does happen occasionally. Unless one has been programmed to simply be a reactive and reflexive robot that is.

[Fumesucker]

8. The difference is that by and large it is the "far right" that *owns* the M$M, writes the paychecks

When the owners are complaining about people whose paychecks they write you really have to wonder what's going on.

[GoneFishin]

9. No. There is an objectively correct answer. Are media mega conglomerates owned by poor people

or rich people? Who benefits by conservative policies which give deference and preferential treatment to billionaires and neoconservative policies?

[reddread]

10. not at all. those complaints are ubiquitous and justified

misinterpreting the source of the problem as gubmint instead of gubmint influence merchants is the sole difference and simply perceptual.
any "moderate" thinking that the radical destruction of US information infrastructure is a prudent and acceptable sign of even handedness
is the real problem.
should such an honestly stupid creature truly exist.

[JoePhilly]

11. RW whack, Joe Scarborough, 3 hours a day on ...

... Liberal MSNBC.

Game over.

[GoneFishin]

12. Yep. "Liberal" MSNBC which shitcans every liberal host who questions the status quo.

[delrem]

14. Correct analysis examines how the MSM is owned.

It examines the corporate ties between the owners.

It isn't a matter of "right vs left", because that scale is meaningless for the issue. The MSM can define what is considered "right", "left", "moderate", "center", however it wants, for its own purposes - or rather, to suit the purposes of the small set of owners. It can define what is "news" vs what is ignored. For those tied to the MSM through the umbilicals of their TVs, it can define their whole social reality, their entire understanding of the world.

This is why it's a good thing for people to throw out their TVs, or rather, to unsubscribe from the MSM services and to learn how to access a wide variety of sources from across the world. Many even on DU will say that's scary, even evil - look at all the posts dismissing everything coming from just about every independent or non-MSM source, e.g. you listen to RT, then you "support Putin", and so on. Every source is intrinsically biased but by accessing multiple sources having diverse origin (not all *the same* as in the MSM) one at least has a basis for learning how to account for those biases.

This has been said before so many times by so many people, esp. on DU. But until people cut the MSM umbilical they'll never understand. Never.