How the media is secretly right-wing

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 9:46am

Check out this quote from today's article on the closed session:

"Unable to win their way with votes, outnumbered Democrats used a rarely invoked Senate rule to force a secret session as a way to dramatize their assertions that the Bush administration misused intelligence in the run-up to war in Iraq."

Why isn't this being reported as "Senate discusses Bush administration in closed session. The charges are so serious that the democratic leadership called for a closed session to discuss the monumental charges against high leadership in the administration"?

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:00am

Which paper was that, touchme?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:12am

It's an AP article! Shameful behavior.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:16am

All in all, I think it played out very well. They're calling him "Give 'Em Hell Harry" and that could only be good.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:24am

I agree, and it was only an afternoon.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:26am

They are all still afraid of Georgie et al.

Give it a few more weeks, and then maybe they might actually report the facts.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:29am

You mean like they did with the WMDs?

I'm tired of pretending like we won because someone got a little more press. We won't win until the media stops accepting spins from this corrupt and lying administration.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 10:30am

Agreed.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 11:42am

The media is neither conservative nor liberal. The media is, however, a slave of The Man -- and that's far more insidious.

[cturtle]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:26pm

SECRETLY? puuuhhh-leeeeze ...

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:34pm

How the media is secretly right-wing

LOL LOL LOL Maybe Fox News is, but everyone else sure isn't.

Maybe you can answer why last week on 60 Minutes, Ed Bradley did a story about Valerie Plame. He interviewed one of her classmates who said "We CIA people like to remain anonymous." Tell me, why didn't Bradley ask, "Then what is she doing on the cover of Vanity Fair?"

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:45pm

'Tell me, why didn't Bradley ask, "Then what is she doing on the cover of Vanity Fair?"'

Um...what?

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:51pm

Goth - simple answer - "Because she was outed by the Vice President's Chief of Staff."

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:55pm

I mean...if she was on the cover of VANITY FAIR dressed like Diana Rigg from the Avengers with the title "My Secret CIA Life" BEFORE she was outed by the administration, Goth might have a point.

But, as usual, Goth doesn't.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:56pm

straws, prepare to be clutched more often.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 12:58pm

most of the media in the US is owned by big corprorations that control what they cover and how. you see the news the way these big companies want you to see it. there is no longer a law requiring equal time so anything can be presented as news and the networks are not obligated to show both sides of an issue (thank you ronald reagan) no matter how "fair & balanced" they claim to be.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 2:12pm

quick note:

speaking in terms of "both sides" of an issue is a misnomer. There are more than two sides to every coin.

Posted: 11/2/05 at 3:04pm

The media is absolutely right-wing. The talk of the "Liberal Media" is what we call "The Big Lie"-- you repeat it often enough and people believe it to be true.

So the Media is liberal? Quick, name an arm of the "Liberal Media"? The NY Times often gets branded "Lefty" but they blindly printed Judy Miller's absurd stories about the reasons for the Iraq war. CNN? Don't make me laugh-- they, as much as anyone, brought down Clinton with their coverage of Matt Drudge's gossip about the President's affairs. NPR? Ha, the media is so conservative that when there is actual balance, the right wing freaks and screams bias. Meanwhile, who got more endorsements in 2000? (Bush) How many newspapers have called for an end to the Iraq war? (any?) How many editorials do you read for universal healthcare or full marraige rights for Gays? (Zip)

Just think back to any election: 2000? Gore was somehow a compulsive liar and an egghead, while Bush's spotty Texas record and repeated blunders were glossed over. I could go on and on and on but I won't: Check Eric Alterman's excellent book "What Liberal Media" which I think can also be accessed through his website (WWW.WhatLiberalMedia.com I think)

The only source for actual liberal coverage is Air America Radio. I hope it can survive.

[Janean]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 3:27pm

Speaking as someone who's worked in newspapers, commercial radio, and now public radio:

- Most reporters are "liberal" by nature. Most reporters get into the business because they want to question, explore the world around them, and challenge the traditional and authoritarian views. The media SHOULD be "broad-minded," the definition of liberal.

- Most Republicans don't want to become reporters. They want to make money instead. You do NOT become rich in the news.

- Most reporters don't want to let their politics or beliefs show in their work. They're usually very good at exploring a perspective alien to their own. But sometimes they're accidentally tripped up by their choice of words or phrasing.

- Most media owners are conservative, Republican, profit-seekers. The owners/publishers don't usually run the day-to-day reporting operations, but sometimes choose their managers (and their opinion writers!) with Republican values in mind.

- The news is not a profitable business. It's very expensive to maintain a staff of reporters and editors, in addition to the usual technical production costs. Entertainment is where all the money is. This has two affects:
1) Consultants have for a LONG time been telling media how to make things flashier and shorter to keep the public's attention. (I feel like a Kindergardener when watching the television)
2) News organizations across the board are cutting back on their staffs, dismantling overseas bureaus, and using more of those #*@$! PR videos that companies and the government send out.

- The Associated Press is closely tied to its member operations. Where I live, their office is part of our newspaper. AP reports from here are in essence the newspaper's reports.

I proudly work for a public radio station, owned by a board made up of the community. National Public Radio is the ONE organization that's expanding news staff and opening bureaus, because the world is so complex we can't live with sound bites.
We're far from perfect, and we have our quibbles with NPR. But it's the only place I can listen to the news and get a full picture from more than two perspectives.

There's a reason why FOX viewers are the most uniformed group in the nation.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 3:31pm

Janean,

Well-said. I love me some NPR. They are always striving to cover multiple points of view. Are they perfect? Far form it, but I'll give an A for effort.

I am constantly amazing not at the coverage, but at the selection of coverage...the way it frames America's reality is astonishing to me. And THAT is what I find so right-wing.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 3:41pm

Read this book. I read it in J-school.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888363479/102-6044880-7260117?v=glance

It's really cheap, really short and puts everything into a pretty good perspective.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 4:03pm

Janean, did you mean uninformed like idiots, or uniformed like Nazis?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 4:06pm

JoeKv99--will you marry me?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 11/2/05 at 4:17pm

I believe it.

Then free speech becomes a joke.

Like Russia under Stalin and under Communism.

Like Spain under Franco.

Like suddenly disappearing threads on what you think is a communal message board.