Isn't it scary when Fox news is considered 'neutral'? I wonder what was 'neutral' in Hitler's Germany. When they come to power, everything not neutral is banned and all you are left with is public school, Fox News, and "Pravda". Isn't it what Bush Sr.'s speech on abolishing free speech and the bill to crack down on Internet blogs and forums is all about?
I've been on this planet a lot longer than most of you guys. I was about 12 years old when I first recognized that the media does not report facts; they report opinions. At one time the media was a lot more neutral (World War II), but since the 1960s it has been pretty much taken over by the liberal viewpoint. It makes perfect sense that the media has been taken over by the liberals. Ask your liberal friends that went to college which degrees they got. It is much more likely that the liberals went to college for right brain (creative) endeavors, such as art, writing and liberal arts programs. It is much more likely that conservatives went to school for business, engineering and other left brain (logical) programs. That is why there are two camps with polar opposite viewponts. The thought process tends to be different. IMHO, a person who is strongly biased on either the liberal or conservative side cannot write political stories objectively. Every poll taken in the last 20 years shows heavy liberal bias in the media. It gets much worse in the Washington beltway, where most political correspondents are located. You may or may not like Fox News, but it is the only news program that regularly shows both sides of the story by inviting opposing parties to debate their viewpoints. It is much easier to see which side is telling the truth because it is not rehearsed. You don't see that on any other program. Even the Sunday morning talk shows on other networks typically do a one-one-one interview with the host.
For the ones that condemn the media as 'unfair', will you openly support state controlled media and denounce capitalism?
I don't think that is what's being said. Read my post. Liberal thinkers are more attracted to liberal arts type jobs, like journalism. I don't think it was planned that way; it just happenned because of the type of education that many liberals pursue. My wife's family members are all hard-core extreme left-wing liberals. They idolized Bill Clinton and thought that he walked on water. Most went to college, but every one that did pursued liberal arts programs and so their friends.
There are about 150 million Republicans in the U.S. Even if there is some validity to left brain/right brain, it's nonsense there isn't enough Republicans interested in journalism to fill the open spots. Eventually in an open market, supply and demand will work itself out. And here we have people are condeming the result of such, and in essense, condeming the process (capitalism).
It's illogical to assume that because the country is 50% conservative, 50% of the media will be conservative. It's comes down to a matter of what types of professional positions are most favored. I don't think you will find very many artists in the conservative camp. Likewise, there aren't many conservatives attending liberal arts journalism programs. Every study performed in the last 20 years shows that the media is becoming more liberal. There is no headcount balance. I think your open market observation does explain why conservative talk show hosts, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are so popular. There was a huge void to be filled, which created a large demand for conservative viewpoints. People got tired of hearing the one-sided liberal viewpoint that dominates other mainstream media outlets. Fox News and talk radio fill the void and bring some degree of balance to the situation. That balance was missing with ABC, CBS, NBC and all the other liberal news outlets. If their news presentations had been more fair and balanced, there would never have been a demand for conservative viewpoints.
The problem with your point is that it's only relevant if there isn't enough supply to satisfy the demand. Which was my point, even if those on the left are more likely to take up journalism, it's still not a case of a lack of supply. Ie, many complain about the NYTimes, but there are several papers in NYC. The biggest is the NYTimes. It's the biggest simply because more people choose to buy it. If there was sufficient demand for a different paper, that paper would have the power that the NYTimes currently has.
Nah kid nah. It had more to do with your post than yours did with mine, even if you don't understand why.
Everyday I buy a NY Post in the morning as I get in the subway to go to work and when I come back I get the NY Times. I don't read everything but most of the political stuff. Let me tell you that on most subjects they have a pretty different take. That is why I read both to get a more balanced view on what is going on Unfortunately newspapers and other news media are treated like coke and Pepsi and we know that they are both bad for us. Lets say you are democrat so in general would like to read NY times and they ever so gently push you further to the left and if you are a Republican and prefer to read the post you are nudged to the right. So it is very hard to get both sides. Its like wearing colored lenses at all time. These are major newspapers and have a special place in our culture I think they have a responsibility to provide either a non-tainted view or both sides. Very few people would read both paper and this phenomenon has polarized our view to a point that it is very hard to find common ground and we all lose.
There is such thing as media bias: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp And so on..
Just because someone or some organization is in it to make money via the free market system, doesn't automatically mean that there is no bias there. As someone mentioned earlier, your logic doesn't make sense.
Dudley, what you are saying is exactly why you are getting the responses you are getting. The logical side of the brain is not used and therefore it cannot comprehend the ramifications of a persons makeup and their ability to logically associate facts and reality vs. a dream world.
It means their agenda is to make money, not slander your heroes. Do you watch C-Span or Fox/CNN? Perhaps if there is a "problem", it's because of people like you.
Politician, I would watch how you debate. You like to throw in some low blows when someone counters your arguments. Don't be a bigot when you are trying to debate on a topic dealing with "bias". Did you happen to look at this research? I think you're argument is for an unbiased media is off point.. How the media vote Journalists political views How the public views the media Admissions of Liberal Bias Denials of Liberal Bias Watching the news on major networks is a waste of time, IMHO.
Perhaps you should read the original post and ***understand*** the post before regurgitating the same old thing. I don't mean to be *rude*, but it's crystal clear only 2-3 people were capable of even understanding the point before regurgitating all over me. Lets go back to the analogy used in here.: I'm saying they make Pepsi because people buy Pepsi. And they make Coke because people buy Coke. You're saying they make Pepsi because it's high in calories, while others say they make Coke because it's high in sugar. Or to break it down simpler. New York City's two largest papers are the "liberal" New York Times and the "conservative" New York Post, with the Times being the dominant paper. Why is the Times the dominant paper and not the Post? Because more people choose to buy it. That's how America works. The only thing stopping anybody from saying anything about anybody is consumer demand. Again, do you watch C-Span or Fox/CNN? The same time people are complaining about the "problem", they need to take a good look in the mirror because they are likely the biggest part of it.
My 74' Mustang had Bias tires on it.. Could never figure out why that damn car always veered to the left.