Sunday, November 12, 2006

The Myth of the Liberal Media


Click the small arrow in the corner of the screen to playn while staying with this page.

I challenge anyone to send along another working model or theory of media that can demonstrate the reality of the "Liberal Media".

Excerpt from text link (Click the small green arrow at the top):

"Summary

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal."

10 comments:

Duck said...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRn_nzfYtz8
you asked for it

Starrider said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starrider said...

Well, that as well as the other clip are anecdotes...not working theories or models. There are mountains of evidence as well as anecdotes to disprove the "Liberal Media" myth.

For the sake of argument let's grant that Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite were liberals...so what. Do they represent the media as a whole? Where is the structural model of a leftist media? No one would argue that there are not left leaning personalities or perhaps even left leaning stories that make it into the news. Certainly, no one would argue that journalism and journalists are always totally objective and that news manipulation does not occur. The question is what does the preponderance of evidence suggest are the greatest influences on the way the news is framed and the way stories are presented?

I suggest a thorough exploration of the resources provided. Because the phrase "Leftist Media" has been parrotted ad infinitum by "conservative" voices does not make it a fact. None of those voices that I have ever become aware of can supply anything but anectdotes and forceful insistence. Show me a complex working model and theory.
I believe that the true conservatism would cut through all of the rhetoric and deal with the realities of the "media propaganda model". Unfortunatly, "conservatism" has married itself to corporate power and the vested interests of that power to such a degree that "conservartism" does not any longer even know what conservative is. Hence, the interests of the "conservative" party are best served by NOT seeing these truths. Being a Republican or someone who believes in God does not make one conservative.

Duck said...

"None of those voices that I have ever become aware of can supply anything but anectdotes and forceful insistence. Show me a complex working model and theory."



Doesn't this logic work the same in reverse? For instance, if the 6 major media outlets are owned by "conservatives" then doesn't the fact that reporters can slant their presentation of evidence tend to a leftist presentation tend to dis-prove your argument innuendo that the conservatives are controlling our throught through manufactured consent........?

Think about it. The very fact that Katie Couric can say what she wants to the president or any reporter at the whitehouse news conference and the fact that they DO (even when it is a manipulation of the facts) tends to prove the theory that what actually sells is CONTROVERSY not "consent". The conservatives probably do benefit from the leftist reporting views by much of the press....... it sells more papers/ obtains more viewers to sell products through commercials. Virtually every news caster on television is a sex bomb. What are they selling?

Products sell through advertising. Advertising success is directly related to viewership. Viewership is derived from the CONTROVERSY not the consent. Thus most of our news must be filtered with commonsense as to how much bias might be present from one side or the other during the news break while we stare at a commercial for tampons or drugs. Thus in my opinion, News has evolved into entertainment, for the purpose of selling products.

The "entertainment factor" comes from the controversy. Thus, the controversy or "manufactured controversy" gets a much more slanted presentation because it makes it more salacious, which in turn translates to viewership and the promotion of dissent. Why because it sells more tampons and pills.

Duck said...

sorry about the typo's hopefully my point can be translated.

Duck said...

Colbert Review (v42)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wRn_nzfYtz8

This is worth a watch. Bush gets roasted by Colbert in the most uncomfortable of presentations. Yet no one interrupted him. Obviously no part of the administration provided the script.

I must say Colbert fired at will from all angles and the audience was aghast. Yet no censorship.

The political satire seems to be manufacturing NOT consent but CONTROVERSY. Why? Because the CONTROVERSY sells the tampons and pills, not the consent.

Starrider said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starrider said...

Here again is the URL about the propaganda model;

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

and many more resource materials archived here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html

Starrider said...

As to this quote;

"Thus in my opinion, News has evolved into entertainment, for the purpose of selling products."

You are correct of course. This is covered thoroughly in the documenatry "Manufacturing Consent". The consent that is being manufactured is an allegiance to a set of cultural values.

On the question;
Doesn't this logic work the same in reverse? For instance, if the 6 major media outlets are owned by "conservatives" then doesn't the fact that reporters can slant their presentation of evidence tend to a leftist presentation tend to dis-prove your argument innuendo that the conservatives are controlling our throught through manufactured consent........?"

The simple answer is no. If you examine the model and theory as offered in "Manufacturing Consent" it covers this question quite thoroughly as well. The thesis is in fact that the media is totally subservient to power, both corporate and political...but certainly not to a preponderance of leftist thought.
excerpt:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.

Example:

Becuase chanels are open for the commone person to write editorials or e-mails or call in to various media outlets- this creates the false impression that they actually have much influence and access to a pretty monolithic system. Also, when a story sometimes appears that goes against the status quo or conventional wisdom it creates an illusion of greater check and balance than there really is. Still most of the time such a story is marginalized and usually offered up as fodder for the "liberal media" myth.

Think about the beginnings of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Can you name me one major media outlet that did not jump on the bandwagon and glorify, romanticize and hullabaloo the invasion? I am not talking about the occaisional voice of dissent or admonition. Give me one example of major media that spoke out strongly and consistently with a voice of dissent on the topic.
There wasn't any such thing. Once things started to get wily over there in the desert and voices in the media started to question things. They were lambasted as "liberal-America-hating-cut- and run- cowards".

I will tell you that they are in fact cut and run cowards...they should have been asking questions and demanding answers about things like WMD much more forcefully before the war. That is what a media committed to any kind of standards and serious questioning of authoritarian structures would have done. Instead we have a mushy centrist media that plays both sides of the fence and is totally subservient to power rather than the interests of people or society at large.

The Colbert example is but another anecdote and the fact is that the news roasted Colbert thoroughly after the event.

Also, note the difference between the entertainment industry and the outlets of journalism. The model I have offered here has mostly to do with NEWS...not entertainment. You are correct in noting the contemporary fusion of news and entertainment. And who is most dominant in that sphere?

hint: O'Rielly, Limbaugh, Hannity
etc.

I reccomend a thorough examination of the resources and still would like to see a working theory and/or model that demonstrates the workings of the "liberal media".

BB

Starrider said...

p.s.

Do you rmember that hullabalooo with the Dixie Chicks? How should we classify that turn of events?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwc5YSAc-7g