Excerpt from Bozell's New Book (re: Media Bias)

[Overpaid Slacker]

I don't think things are as imminently apocalyptic for our liberal newsmedia as Bozell does, but Hell, he's only been at this for 16 years, so what does he know?

Check it out.

JP

[singpilot]

The article WAS interesting, but the best part was over on the 'right' side of the page.

The ad for "W" ketchup.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker

If I am not mistaken, his website is MediaResearchCenter. He has gone to great lengths in this site to lay out media bias, including clips and in context assessments. This is one of my favorite resources for proving what idiots my liberal commrades are, when they carp on about "right-wing" media.

[RoninLB]

the public has been sucking up the lib twist since the Nam controversy. So now we're dealing with the 70 million guilty boomers as the target audience.

afwiw, the problem was caused by the draft deferals. If no deferals than every college grad boomer would have the same think.

[Moneyguy1]

The point being? And, yes, I did read the exerpt.

I would welcome a balanced media and fear one totally slanted one way or the other. Neither side has the edge on defining the American Way.

It would be so nice if someone could (WITHOUT PASSION) define what makes a liberal and what makes a conservative and what makes one good and the other bad. Not one person in a thousand can accurately define these labels, but use them as if they really understood them. They have become buzzwords for a dysfunctional society.

It would be nice if the left loonies and the ultras on the other side would LISTEN for a change and learn what it is that pi$$e$ off the other end of the spectrum rather than simply deride anything the other side says.

I do not want to live in a Theocracy or in any other kind of totalatarian state. I want a balance of good moral values and the freedom to think for myself, and not fall lockstap into any idiology without question, no matter how that idiology warps the facts. When you say God is on your side, it becomes questionable whether you are any different than the other guy who says the same thing.
I see a few folks here who do espouse a certain philosophy no matter what the truth really is, and wind up using attack and emotion to offset any question another may have about their stand, not to mention selective quotes and revised history. Rationale and logic go out the window to them, and those concepts become meaningless and just get in the way. How can ANYONE who thinks for themselves actually believe that ANY leader is perfect and things could not be better? Why is party loyalty more important than the welfare of the nation?

Is there something wrong with questioning someone's actions? Is there something wrong with civil discourse? If I question the wisdom of the President on some point does that make me a (fill in the blank) to some of you automatically? From what I have seen, afraid so.

George W. Bush is far from being the best person in the White House, and the idea of Cheney with his superior and smug attitude for four more years acting as puppet master really scares me. On the other hand, is the opposition any better? Is change for the sake of change a solution? Who are we to believe? And, why should we believe them?

Questions about FDRs motives re: the onset of WWII. Conspiracy theories, all pointless. Interesting time wasters, fodder for alternate history and science fiction novels.

History provides the luxury of examining an event after it happens, sort of like those who re-enact Civil War Battles. But, the re-enactments change nothing. What happens today cannot be examined at leisure; the future is unknown. We react as we think prudent at the time, and the future will have the luxury of deciding whether we did well or not.

End of rant from a member of a dying breed; those who like to think for themselves

[Overpaid Slacker]

Hey, we'd all like to think for ourselves; Bozell's (and others') point is that the leftie agendists in mainstream newsmedia are doing our thinking for us; not only in the "slant" but in the editorial function of deciding what makes it to the "news" or not. The media have limited success in telling people what to think, but are nearly universally successful in telling people what to think about.

"Neither side has the edge on defining the American Way", to the extent it means anything, is a canard to silence the inquiry into whether in fact there are biases in the newsmedia and, if so, what, if anything to do about it.

"George W. Bush is far from being the best person in the White House, and the idea of Cheney with his superior and smug attitude for four more years acting as puppet master really scares me." Yeah, that's thinking for yourself; no mediamenticide there... C'mon, you're your own undoing. If thinking for yourself and not being spoonfed spin is your avowed purpose, Bozell's analysis and critiques ought to be interesting to you.

If, however, you usurp the mantle of objectivity bordering on omniscience to deride those with whom you disagree, you've become what you despise. And it has a label.

Please provide us with your sealed-in-the-envelope "correct" definitions of conservative and liberal. We await enlightenment with bated breath from the arbiter of such matters. 'Til then, we'll go on, unshackled by having to have a label for every occasion and a pigeonhole for every notion. What is the point? I submit that it's not the pedantry.

JP

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Hey, you even spelled "bated" right. How come nobody else does that?

[turbocarrera]

you can spell bate as bait - bated as baited.. either is correct afaik

[Overpaid Slacker]

Jeez, guys ... the point has become the pedantry I figured that's what Blue was up to, and then turbocarrera took the "bait."

Bated is used not in the sense of having had "bait" attached, but as in held back, as follows:

bated

\Bat"ed\, a. Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath. --Macaulay.

bated

adj 1: held back; "we watched the daring feats of the acrobats with bated breath" 2: diminished or moderated; "our bated enthusiasm"; "his bated hopes"


Fracas ON!!!!!

JP

[turbocarrera]

bastards!

[Moneyguy1]

I really do not know good definitions of the political extremes, and even wonder if there are good definitions of same.

True, I am not attracted to Mr. Cheney any more than I am toward any individual in a position of power who tends to treat truth in a cavalier manner and claims executive privelege on inconsequential matters. I didn't like it when Clinton and his cronies did it either. And, it would appear there are even members of the Republican hierarchy who have voiced the opinion that Cheney should go, like Bush I who was advised to replace Dan when he ran for re-election. I would like to see the President be able to function without being eclipsed, perhaps he is a better leader than he currently appears (to me) to be. BTW..perhaps a look at the corporate scandals of late might help explain my dislike of former executives (even though I had my own company and an MBA). I admit my bias in that respect, having been witness to some companies that were run only to benefit a few (Global Crossings, Sterling Homex to name two). But that is a whole different potential topic, the need, the degree, and type of control that should be applied to large publicly owned corporations

The point I was laboring to make is there is grist for the mill on both sides; common hopes that can be fused and used for the overall betterment of our society. The problem is who is defining "betterment" and who will be bettered.

Yes, I have views on the political situation. Sometimes they will rub people the wrong way. I try to remain civil and establish a dialog.

And, if, as the excerpt states, the media is left biased in print, then from observation the opposite case could be made on cable news stations. Could be; I am not making that accusation. It is just one possible understanding of the situation.

Do you, Slacker, really think that GWB is the best person to be in the White House? If we disagree, that is an honest difference of opinion. I can respect that. But, I also said I wondered if the opposition was any better.

Truly sorry if my remarks upset you. That is not my aim. If there are specific points I made that you find offensive, please deliniate them and I will try to be more specific.

Like I have said before, trying to stay in the middle is dangerous. Both sides can take potshots!!!!!!!

My comments were aimed at the extremes of the spectrum; those factions that cannot or will not listen to any philosophy but their own; showing distain for the views of others who may think differently. I do think the majority of citizens are somewhere closer to the center, although all the noise comes from the ends.

I disagree with extremists. Is that wrong?

Please also observe that the above statements contain no attempt at belittling rational views, sarcasm or even innuendo. There are those on both sides of the aisle (but far from the poles) who debate and opine here without resorting to that, and I appreciate it.

Overall, an interesting subject for discussion. Whether there is any definite answer one way or the other will be the best part of the debate.

(wearing wet suit to deflect oncoming mud)

[CamB]

From the article (I know you guys aren't reading it ):

In fact, they are right to be scared. The liberal news media are headed for a meltdown. To be sure, even today the vast power of the liberal media cannot be underestimated. But the days of liberal spin always prevailing are coming to an end. This has nothing to do with some sinister right-wing conspiracy. Rather, the problem lies with those in the liberal news media themselves. So dismissive are they of any claim of liberal bias, no matter how well documented, that they regularly allow this bias to seep into news stories. Even when poll after poll reveals that Americans have lost confidence in the news media, the liberal media elites do not deign to cleanse their industry of the bias that plagues it.

I don't know if I can put this simply, but I'll try. I think you'll find that the "liberal bias" in the media is quite possibly a function of the liberal leaning of journalists (as Bozell states). This is not their "fault". If there is such a large percentage of liberal journalists, maybe you should ask why there aren't more conservative journalists? Most people don't become journalists to make a fortune - they do it because of other reasons. Often, one of these reasons is a social interest.

Like it or not, I'm gonna say that this social interest is stronger amongst liberals than conservatives. In other words, I'm arguing that a liberal media is self-fulfilling.

Bozell can accuse them for not presenting a balanced viewpoint all he likes. I argue it isn't their fault. I wonder if he is aware that he doesn't appear to be capable of presenting a balanced view himself? He is just as guilty as they are.

(edited for worst spelling ever)

[widebody911]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Hey, you even spelled "bated" right. How come nobody else does that?

he said, with baitlike breath...

[304065]

This is not their "fault

Cam, it IS their "fault.

The "pure" model of journalism is communication of events to the consumer, who can then run them through her own values system and figure out how to weigh the facts in that great calculus that dictates human behavior, including how to vote.

Deliberately construing objective facts in a light intended to provoke a particular reaction among the audience, where the reaction is political in nature is the definition of "bias."

It happens because of the irresistable temptation on the part of the journalist to use their position as communicator of facts as a means to advance what they perceive as the correct social agenda.

The comment in the article JP referenced, "We are the social conscience of this country!" perfectly underscores this tendency.

If you are suggesting that liberal journalists simply do not know any better, I submit that they cannot possibly be that naive.

If you are suggesting that they are "faultless" because they are doing what they think is right, well, irrespective of whether you AGREE with their agenda or you don't, it's still a conscious decision to distort, whether for the benefit of the left OR the right.

And THAT, at least in my book, makes them most definitely at fault, in conscious disregard of standards of objectivity.

The toothpaste is out of the tube on that one, though. What remains is the conscious recognition of the bias and demand for alternative material, which we got, in the Mid-80's or so, in the form of AM talk. The proliferation of Internet news sources catering to the world view of the consumer sealed the coffin on network media.

[CamB]

Oh, and if you think you have a problem with a "liberal bias" in your media, I am more concerned with the consistent dumbing down of it (and NZ is very much guilty of this too).

The "feel good" stories are pushing important items further and further into obscurity

[CamB]

No I don't think I mean that.

What I think I mean is that...umm... I'm going to struggle to get this across eloquently, but I'll try.

Lets assume they are liberal in general. The average "news" article (ie, not commentary or opinion, in which bias is ok) will probably be a pretty fair reflection of the facts. This is what you want and what I want.

The major criticism of Bozell (I've looked at his website) is that it is in the emphasis on certain stories and omission of others that the problem lies.

This might be true. What I believe is that it can still be true even if the journalists are attempting to be unbiased. Why so? The simplest way I can think to describe it would be to refer to what I call "centre" - ie, between left and right ---> I don't think I'm far away. Mulholland would also probably not consider himself that far from centre. Our individual definitions of "centre" are probably miles apart.

So I guess what I mean is that journalists could well believe that they are presenting a balanced view.

Besides, given there are right wing media outlets out there, why isn't there an attack on them (Fox News, plus plenty of options outside the US).

[RoninLB]

The self-identity of the Dem base is still wrapped up in Vietnam. It was a liberal Dem war that being turned against it needed assertions of a higher morality. That military force was immoral was imbedded in the psyche of activists everywhere.. Bush2 saying that the military will be used preemptively is a profound attack on these boomers, and their childrens, self-image. I'm not sure if they hope that we fail in Iraq, but they are in a constant state of denial that it might succeed. And to compound the issue is this cowboy who challenges their image as the best people. The obvious displacement of the dems "think" is asserting moral superiority while defending Clinton's perjury, sex games, billing records, etc. Inner doubts about their own moral position is an obvious path to anger imo. This all leads to group dynamics, which is another explain at another time.

afwiw there are 19 Dem senate seats that are vulnerable and only 2 of the 15 Rep seats that are vulnerable. 10 of the 19 Dem seats are in Bush's red states. So today the last toehold of political power is being able to raise a filibuster of 40 votes in the senate. The Dems are really pissed off. The last rantings of the Dems will be calling the president a traitor/crook etc.

[Overpaid Slacker]

{disclaimer -- Maker's Mark has control of many of OPS' functions right now, so send all complaints to Loretto, KY c/o Bill Samuels -- see picture:


BSJ -
You're my boy, Blue!!! (just watched Old School again).

Cam -
It is a considered decision by journalists to state what they say the manner in which they say it. Look, just recently at the LA Times deriding Bremer for having left Iraq "without a farewell address, 'as though he could not look Iraqis eye-to-eye'" when in fact he DID deliver an address, and a damned good one. Look also at the NYT, WaPo,BoGlobe etc. deliberately mischaracterizing the 9/11 commission's recent plurality statement that their findings debunked Bush's claim that Iraq was responsible, through al-Qaeda ties, for 9/11, when the Bush admin. had NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. These are just a couple of literally hundreds of deliberate mischaracterizations of what was said b/c it's convenient to the editorial policy to do so. This is why soooooo much of the BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! crap is so gravity-warpingly sophomoric.

Quick question -- why, if the Bush admin. is so disconnected and "unilateral" has there been next-to-no coverage of the unprecedented success this admin. has had in diplomatically addressing Sudan? (in which hundreds of thousands of muslims are being slaughtered, along with animists and Christians). Much less the fact that (again) France has vetoed (1) not only the use of NATO's RRF in protecting the democratic elections to be held in the "globally" supported efforts in Afghanistan (Chirac's response was that we can't use the RRF for "just any" purpose -- to the heroic Karzai's face!!!) but (2) sanctions against the Sudanese government if the slaughter doesn't stop. Oh, could it be France's enormous oil interests in the Sudan -- does that sound familar? *coughFoodforOilIraqScamcough*

MoneyGuy -
We can agree to disagree on any number of fronts and I'd still buy you a beer (or a Maker's) if we wind up in the same ZIP code at some point. I don't think you're as "middle" as you think you are and claim to be is all.

Bozell's point (with which I agree) is that, sure there are conservative voices in the media, but they're unabashedly, right-there-in-your-face conservative -- and to blame them for being EXACTLY WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE -- ie conservative -- as some counterbalance to liberalism, in what is delivered as objective journalism, is a feeble dodge. It's the classic op/ed page vs. front page-above-the-fold dichotomy -- if you have a political position to advance, great -- it belongs on the former, not the latter, if you any claim to be "reporting" or a "journalist." Let alone claiming to be the "Newspaper of Record."

The implied point in Bozell's excerpt is that the liberalnewsmedia defines ITS positions as the middleground, and any to the right of it as "rightwing" or "extreme" or "ultra", which is another all-too-common Liberal Orwellian exercise. If you can define what is the middle of the road (and in direct conflict to public opinion polls) then you get to set the parameters of the spectrum. I invite you to review Chucky Schumer's "objections" to Bush's court nominees as evidence that the Left redefines the center in order to characterize what it considers to be its opposition as whackos.

For example, every senatorial rating system I've seen puts Kerry to the left of BigFatTedKennedy, and if not the leftmost senator, then #2 (a distinction usually held by BFTK). And Edwards averages the #4 leftmost. BUT, for being, by all accounts the leftist-ist (I've been drinking) senator, do you EVER hear Kerry described as "liberal" let alone "ultra-liberal"? He IS for Chrissake, but he's not described that way in any mass-distribution information outlet.

Similarly, when asked what their opinions are w/o a back-up survey of what their opinions actually are, Libs (even those that turn out to be radical) tend to characterize themselves as middle-of-the-road, whereas Conservatives tend to acknowledge their right-of-center views. So, when it comes to trusting one side of the political spectrum to acknowledge that they're off the political mean, I can't defer to the self-determination of the truly left. Marginally Democratic folks are likelier to acknowledge that they're "left" than slathering "Bush = Hitler" lefties. That's just F*cked up.

As far a W -- well, he's not a conservative -- ask any conservative -- spending throught the roof, incl. education spending up 60%!!! Given our available choices, would I rather have him or the ever-increasingly bipolar, unstable Gore in the Big Office right now? Hands down it's W. I think he's a great foreign policy President -- and not just b/c his immediate predecessor had nothing resembling what could be called "foreign policy" with a straight face. We can't require a permission slip of foreign, actively anti-US governments to act.

Whoof. Enough for now...my fingers are tired.

And to all a good night.

JP

[ronin]

Originally posted by CamB
Most people don't become journalists to make a fortune - they do it because of other reasons. Often, one of these reasons is a social interest.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. and don't be fooled into confusing most journalist's desire to push a personal agenda with some sort of altruism

[ronin]

JP...

I LOVE YOU, MAN! you don't say much, but when you do...