posted October 24, 2004 11:11 AM              

Right now, the Democrats are producing the most noise, and are using the media to convince the nation that Bush is an evil man. Why? Just because he can't talk out of a paper bag? It's not just news journalists, it's celebtrities, musicians, comedians, and movie makers trying to convince us all that Bush is an evil man who is trying to be emperor of the world. How ignorant can people be? Of course the public eats it up like cake, and they're convinced they know what is going on when they really don't, conspiracy or not.

posted October 25, 2004 10:59 AM              

I agree with Star on one point she made. The media is corporate owned in most cases and for that reason ratings are more important than substance. So yes, they go for the sensational because that attracts more viewers. However, that is more the case with TV news than newspapers I think.

The problem we are having with getting fairness and non biased reporting in the news media is due to the FCC doing away with the Fairness Doctrine that was in existance until Ronald Reagan's administration. Congress at that time tried to make the Fairness Doctrine into law before they could do away with it and it passed both the House and Senate but Ronald Reagan vetoed it. Congress tried to make the Fairness Doctrine into law under Bush's adminstration and once again it passed and Bush vetoed it. Without that doctrine fairness and non-biased reporting is pretty much up to the news media to determine. Most news media try to abide by the rules of the Fairness Doctrine anyway but many don't. What we now get depends on the corporation or owners of the news media both broadcasting and newspapers.

Just last summer there was an attempted media take-over which was lead by Sinclair Broadcasting and the FCC headed by Michael Powell was pretty much going to allow it to happen. That would have meant that a couple of corporations would have control of all the media. That was stopped by millions of American citizens protesting and signing petitions.

The rest of what Star said I don't agree with because Kerry was having a hard time getting his message out on where he stood on the issues. The media simply was not reporting much on Kerry's message. The proof is that many of you on this thread said you did not know where Kerry stood on the issues even though he was telling everyone on the campaign trail. Then again that could go back to what Star orginally said. The news media does think we are a bunch of idiots who are just not interested in the political process enough to want to see it on TV. There was very little coverage of the conventions. Nothing like what I grew up with at all.

That can be good or bad. Because what the lack of media coverage is doing is forcing candidates to have to depend on actually going out amongst the people more and also there was a renewed door to door canvassing in this campaign with the use of volunteers.

posted October 25, 2004 02:16 PM            

It is however intellectual dishonesty when they bleat loudly that they are impartial, then run pieces that could have been written at the DNC.

It is intellectual dishonesty when the press takes lying democrat talking points and blasts them across America in headlines coast to coast.

It is intellectual dishonesty when the press ignores the good news available on the ground in the middle east and reports only the outrages of the terrorists.

It is intellectual dishonesty when the press slants every story to show the President in the worst possible light to boost the Kerry campaign.

posted October 26, 2004 01:30 AM            

So, from what you've said, you believe that the "media in general shouldn't be" the way it is now, and that "ignorance rules supreme" in our society at present? OK. And you feel that this is "not a conspiracy". OK.
Was the defensive response really necessary for a civilized discussion?

posted October 26, 2004 01:42 AM            

jwhop
Are you using the 80% as a relative figure or is it truly a fact that the overwhelming majority of journalists are democrats? I have been trying to find statistics on that sort of thing on-line but haven't gotten lucky so far.
I agree that the press should be impartial, but do you feel that the media sources that are primarily right wing are more impartial than the average media sources? I only asks because it seems to me that some media sources are blatantly anti-Bush and others are blatantly anti-Kerry ... who do you know who is reporting without bias for either candidate?

And, jwhop, you a very reasonably minded adult ... why do you think/feel that the majority of "journalists" are democrats that are trying to push a negative image of Pres. Bush? Why do you think/feel that so many Americans are susceptible to this kind reporting which is arguably very partisan and dishoneset?

posted October 26, 2004 01:59 AM              

quote:

---

It is however intellectual dishonesty when they bleat loudly that they are impartial, then run pieces that could have been written at the DNC.

It is intellectual dishonesty when the press takes lying democrat talking points and blasts them across America in headlines coast to coast.

---

Are you flip-flopping, jwhop? What about all that spouting off that it was okay for Sinclair Broadcasting to do precisely what you just said was "intellectually dishonesty" for the news to do? Who is whining now? You said that we were whining about Sinclair Broadcasting doing precisely the same thing.

What do you base your stats on regarding that 81% of the media are democrats and vote for democrats? Where did you get those stats? And does it also apply then that over 81% of the conservative media are Republicans and vote Republican? And if so why is it okay for the conservative media but not the liberal media? What makes what they report then any more truthful than what the liberal media reports?

Actually in a democracy we should not even know or be able to tell what the political affiliation of a news media is. A true jounalist or news broadcaster would sit those things aside. If Reagan and Bush hadn't gotten rid of the Fairness Doctrine and allowed it to be law the news media would have to be fair and unbiased by law. I heard a newscaster on MSNBC say he makes his political affiliation clear and that Dan Rather should do the same thing. I thought, what a fool! If I know his political affiliation then how can I believe anything he reports is credible? Because I now know it has to be biased towards his party affiliation. That should be something we need not know.

posted October 26, 2004 02:14 AM            

Media Research Center Report Pg 1
The Liberal Media
Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than
the American Public — And the Public Knows It

By Rich Noyes
Director of Research
June 30, 2004
Section 1 of 4

Over the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an all-American mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents, but an elite group whose views veer sharply to the left.

Most journalists deny that their profession is stacked with liberals. “I’ve worked around reporters all my life,” CBS anchor Dan Rather declared in an appearance on The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder back on February 8, 1995. “Most reporters, when you get to know them, would fall in the general category of kind of common sense moderates.”

ABC’s Peter Jennings echoed Rather. “We are largely in the center without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage — at least certainly not on purpose,” Jennings told CNN’s Larry King on May 15, 2001.

“The idea that we would set out, consciously or unconsciously, to put some kind of ideological framework over what we’re doing is nonsense,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw similarly declared on C-SPAN just a few days later, on May 24, 2001.

But study after study shows that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are wrong: the newsrooms of major media outlets are not filled with non-ideological “common sense moderates,” nor do they reflect a diverse range of ideological viewpoints. Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found journalists are much more liberal than rest of America. Their voting habits are disproportionately Democratic, their views on issues such as abortion and gay rights are well to the left of most Americans and they are less likely to attend church or synagogue. When it comes to the free market, journalists have become increasingly pro-regulation over the past 20 years, with majorities endorsing activist government efforts to guarantee everyone a job and to reduce the income gap between rich and poor Americans.

This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalists’ attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years.

Journalists on Election Day: Pulling the Democratic Lever

Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every single election.

In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation’s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats:

Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent.

Page 1 http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2004/report063004_p1.asp

Page 2
http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2004/report063004_p2.asp

Page 3 http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2004/report063004_p3.asp

Page 4 http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2004/report063004_p4.asp

posted October 26, 2004 02:25 AM              

Therefore his site and his stats are biased and uncredible. If I presented you with stats about the conservative media from a liberal site would it hold weight with you? I can answer that. No!

Who Are The "Brainwashers"?

by L. Brent Bozell III
October 19, 2004

The decision of Sinclair Broadcasting to air an anti-Kerry documentary in late October is a nightmarish recipe of "creeping fascism, state propaganda, Big Brother and brainwashing." So says the unhinged Molly Ivins, giving voice to the outrage felt by her colleagues in the news media.

Liberals are positively panicked at the idea that somewhere, on some station, at some late date, someone will say something negative about John Kerry without a moment for balance on the other side. Let’s be blunt: welcome to our world, liberals. You’re all for propaganda and brainwashing when it’s Dan, Peter, Tom & Co. are spinning wildly in your direction. In your world, a free press is defined as what happens when so-called "news" professionals sell liberalism relentlessly like a kitchen gizmo on a late-night infomercial.

Conservatives are used to seeing our leaders hounded and our ideas pounded without any quaint notions of balance or fairness on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, and so on. This does not occur on one night every four years. It happens on a daily, even hourly basis. TV news stars have foisted Microsoft forgeries on President Bush (CBS), framed his face next to the letters "I LIE" (NBC), and composed internal memos declaring that the Bush campaign is a cavalcade of liars and must be exposed as such (ABC).