The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., has an interesting article on the unequal situation of media control and messages in the U.S.
To quote two paragraphs:
"In other words, conservatives are given a comfort zone by their national media, which in turn gives them a political cohesion. They are part of a team with shared goals. But what makes this conservative media such a potent political force is the lack of anything comparable on the liberal side of the U.S. political divide."
"There is no liberal “media home” remotely like what the conservatives have built. Indeed, the mainstream news outlets – that conservatives incorrectly label the “liberal media” – studiously avoid tilting to the liberal side and increasingly compete for conservative viewers and readers."
Full Version: Conservative Media Bias
The website Media Whores Online is a great source regarding media bias. They keep track of what the media reports and how it's slanted, and also what they DON'T report. In their words, "Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the astonishingly vast myriad of whores who call themselves 'journalists.' MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media 'columnists'."
The site is by no means neutral itself, though. Just a warning.
The site is by no means neutral itself, though. Just a warning.
Thank you!
I am so tired of hearing of the liberal bias.
That seems as silly as Fox news " Fair and balanced reporting
I am so tired of hearing of the liberal bias.
That seems as silly as Fox news " Fair and balanced reporting
[quote]Originally posted by conor500:
The website Media Whores Online is a great source regarding media bias. They keep track of what the media reports and how it's slanted, and also what they DON'T report. In their words, "Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the astonishingly vast myriad of whores who call themselves 'journalists.' MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media 'columnists'."
The site is by no means neutral itself, though. Just a warning.
Well then this media whores thing is based on a lie, since they claim to be unbiased and yet call their enemies whores, paranoids and lazy scribblers. Even you say they aren't neutral, contradicting their claim of non-bias. How can you trust what they say?
The website Media Whores Online is a great source regarding media bias. They keep track of what the media reports and how it's slanted, and also what they DON'T report. In their words, "Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the astonishingly vast myriad of whores who call themselves 'journalists.' MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media 'columnists'."
The site is by no means neutral itself, though. Just a warning.
Well then this media whores thing is based on a lie, since they claim to be unbiased and yet call their enemies whores, paranoids and lazy scribblers. Even you say they aren't neutral, contradicting their claim of non-bias. How can you trust what they say?
I'm agreeing that they do have an agenda, and I'm not sure why they say they are "unbiased". Still a good source of information, though.
Media Whores criticizes pundits across what passes for the "mainstream spectrum" these days -- the range from left-of-centerright to right-wingnut.
Interesting that William1865 didn't respond to the original post, which didn't refer to Media Whores. The conservative bias of the press, and more importantly, to political discourse in general, is appalling.
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Interesting that William1865 didn't respond to the original post, which didn't refer to Media Whores. The conservative bias of the press, and more importantly, to political discourse in general, is appalling.
Sorry, but the whole idea is just too silly to take seriously. Making the case that the media is really liberal is like trying to convince someone the Earth is really round. If you don't believe it by now, you never will.
Interesting that William1865 didn't respond to the original post, which didn't refer to Media Whores. The conservative bias of the press, and more importantly, to political discourse in general, is appalling.
Sorry, but the whole idea is just too silly to take seriously. Making the case that the media is really liberal is like trying to convince someone the Earth is really round. If you don't believe it by now, you never will.
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
[QB media” – studiously avoid tilting to the liberal side and increasingly compete for conservative viewers and readers."[/QB]
If thats true its quite a turn around from 1992 when the media worshipped at Clinton's feet and mocked GHW Bush to get Bill elected.
[QB media” – studiously avoid tilting to the liberal side and increasingly compete for conservative viewers and readers."[/QB]
If thats true its quite a turn around from 1992 when the media worshipped at Clinton's feet and mocked GHW Bush to get Bill elected.
Sorry - double post
[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]
[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]
Sorry, but when Fox News is constantly excoriated - and rightly so - for being rightwing, while the Democratic waterboys on CNN, the NY Times and Washington Post are given a free pass for the way they fawn over the Democrats, then it's very clear to me that there is a shocking liberal bias in the media. Thank goodness for the Wall Street Journal.....
Fox News Channel is more like The White House News Channel as far as I am concerned.
FOX News = FAUX News
"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." ---William Kristol, GOP strategist
"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." ---Pat Buchanan
"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." ---William Kristol, GOP strategist
"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." ---Pat Buchanan
There is no way you can look at the coverage of Clinton and Bush and think that the media is biased against conservatives. The right wing created an entire media project to spread misinformation and potential scandals about Clinton, and the media ate it up. We had a constant investigation by both legal authorities and the media, from 1994 until the end of his presidency, and it continues to this day.
Meanwhile, the Shrub has gotten a pass by the media on all the potential issues in his current and past actions. Here is a man who literally failed at every business he tried, until he found baseball. He lied to the American people about his past drug/alcohol abuse, including his arrest. He apparently both 1)dodged the draft and 2) failed to complete his cushy Air National Guard assignment.
This man ran on a "character" platform, yet there has not been one example of anything he has ever done to make this world a better place. The only thing he has over Clinton is an apparent ability to keep his pants zipped. Yet those same conservative voices who blasted Clinton, and created a media front of conservatives to keep the blasting of Clinton front and center, now call anyone who disagrees with our acting president a traitor. There is no way the media could investigate Bush's past, because the conservative wing of the media would not allow it. The hue and cry that would ensure would drown out any coverage of any findings. After all, in the post-9/11 world, the media barely reported that, as had been expected, there were more votes for Gore in FLA than Bush, when a complete recount was done.
I really believe those who say the media has heard the "liberal bias" charge so often they are deathly afraid of ever giving any ammunition to make it seem true. Our country is a much worse place for this lack of journalistic courage.
Meanwhile, the Shrub has gotten a pass by the media on all the potential issues in his current and past actions. Here is a man who literally failed at every business he tried, until he found baseball. He lied to the American people about his past drug/alcohol abuse, including his arrest. He apparently both 1)dodged the draft and 2) failed to complete his cushy Air National Guard assignment.
This man ran on a "character" platform, yet there has not been one example of anything he has ever done to make this world a better place. The only thing he has over Clinton is an apparent ability to keep his pants zipped. Yet those same conservative voices who blasted Clinton, and created a media front of conservatives to keep the blasting of Clinton front and center, now call anyone who disagrees with our acting president a traitor. There is no way the media could investigate Bush's past, because the conservative wing of the media would not allow it. The hue and cry that would ensure would drown out any coverage of any findings. After all, in the post-9/11 world, the media barely reported that, as had been expected, there were more votes for Gore in FLA than Bush, when a complete recount was done.
I really believe those who say the media has heard the "liberal bias" charge so often they are deathly afraid of ever giving any ammunition to make it seem true. Our country is a much worse place for this lack of journalistic courage.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
CPT - Right on!
agreed also cpt. What was masterful of shrub was how the media was handled to put everything including the desperate shape of the economy, the health crisis, the deficit crisis, and the Administrations own problems with corporate scandal on the back burner, and instead replace these impending problems/disasters with nothing back Iraq...Iraq...Iraq...and it worked to a "t".
The perfect case for the fact that the media is more conservative than liberal is how they covered the news of Pelosi being voted minority leader. I was home that day and couldn't believe what I saw. Here we have a historic event of the first woman ever to lead a party in congress and after only a minute or two of her speaking to reporters, CNN and MSNBC broke away in the middle of her speaking and fielding questions. FOX lost the feed and actually did go back to her until the end of her speaking.(kinda funny that they lost the feed, unbelievable that they went back.)
If the media were truly biased liberal, they would have stayed on the whole time and then spent the next hour talking about issue. Yah, right the media is liberal, give me a friggin break!!!
If the media were truly biased liberal, they would have stayed on the whole time and then spent the next hour talking about issue. Yah, right the media is liberal, give me a friggin break!!!
[quote]Originally posted by Seabaseballluvr:
The perfect case for the fact that the media is more conservative than liberal is how they covered the news of Pelosi being voted minority leader. I was home that day and couldn't believe what I saw. Here we have a historic event of the first woman ever to lead a party in congress and after only a minute or two of her speaking to reporters, CNN and MSNBC broke away in the middle of her speaking and fielding questions. FOX lost the feed and actually did go back to her until the end of her speaking.(kinda funny that they lost the feed, unbelievable that they went back.)
If the media were truly biased liberal, they would have stayed on the whole time and then spent the next hour talking about issue. Yah, right the media is liberal, give me a friggin break!!!
Maybe it's not an issue of liberal vs. conservative, but the fact that the media don't want to bore people half to death. I really don't think a midday press conference announcing the leadership - male, female, whatever - of the minority party in Congress is all that exciting. Plus, I think if you read some papers and check out transcripts of news shows, Nancy Pelosi has been mentioned quite a bit. In fact, she was on "Meet the Press" this weekend. I don't think that makes NBC's news coverage any more liberal than it already is.
The perfect case for the fact that the media is more conservative than liberal is how they covered the news of Pelosi being voted minority leader. I was home that day and couldn't believe what I saw. Here we have a historic event of the first woman ever to lead a party in congress and after only a minute or two of her speaking to reporters, CNN and MSNBC broke away in the middle of her speaking and fielding questions. FOX lost the feed and actually did go back to her until the end of her speaking.(kinda funny that they lost the feed, unbelievable that they went back.)
If the media were truly biased liberal, they would have stayed on the whole time and then spent the next hour talking about issue. Yah, right the media is liberal, give me a friggin break!!!
Maybe it's not an issue of liberal vs. conservative, but the fact that the media don't want to bore people half to death. I really don't think a midday press conference announcing the leadership - male, female, whatever - of the minority party in Congress is all that exciting. Plus, I think if you read some papers and check out transcripts of news shows, Nancy Pelosi has been mentioned quite a bit. In fact, she was on "Meet the Press" this weekend. I don't think that makes NBC's news coverage any more liberal than it already is.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
... and William dozed off - dreaming of a Jerry Falwell sermon, a capital gains tax cut and a romp in the hay with Tucker Carlson....
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
... and William dozed off - dreaming of a Jerry Falwell sermon, a capital gains tax cut and a romp in the hay with Tucker Carlson....
william, with all due respect I find it "exciting" if one happens to belong to that minority party, myself.
[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
agreed also cpt. What was masterful of shrub was how the media was handled to put everything including the desperate shape of the economy, the health crisis, the deficit crisis, and the Administrations own problems with corporate scandal on the back burner, and instead replace these impending problems/disasters with nothing back Iraq...Iraq...Iraq...and it worked to a "t".
I'm not one of these "the American people are really smart" conservatives, but you guys must think the American people are extraordinarily dense. Are they so dense they're too stupid to figure out whether or not the economy is bad on their own? I think most people get that our economy is in a bit of a downturn. Perhaps they trust Republicans to deal with economic issues more than Dems. Perhaps, even with a sluggish economy, people thought that the threat of Iraq/terrorism simply took precedence. But I don't think voters are just complete idiots.
agreed also cpt. What was masterful of shrub was how the media was handled to put everything including the desperate shape of the economy, the health crisis, the deficit crisis, and the Administrations own problems with corporate scandal on the back burner, and instead replace these impending problems/disasters with nothing back Iraq...Iraq...Iraq...and it worked to a "t".
I'm not one of these "the American people are really smart" conservatives, but you guys must think the American people are extraordinarily dense. Are they so dense they're too stupid to figure out whether or not the economy is bad on their own? I think most people get that our economy is in a bit of a downturn. Perhaps they trust Republicans to deal with economic issues more than Dems. Perhaps, even with a sluggish economy, people thought that the threat of Iraq/terrorism simply took precedence. But I don't think voters are just complete idiots.
[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
william, with all due respect I find it "exciting" if one happens to belong to that minority party, myself.
Do you guys not get C-SPAN?
william, with all due respect I find it "exciting" if one happens to belong to that minority party, myself.
Do you guys not get C-SPAN?
[quote] But I don't think voters are just complete idiots.
Maybe you're thinking isn't typical of conservatives, though judging from your posts, I suspect that it is. I only wish that four years ago I could have had a dollar for every time I heard a conservative say something along the lines of "I used to believe in the basic good judgment of the American people even if I occasionally disagreed, but they way Americans reacted to the impeachment of Clinton has changed that." Many conservatives DO believe that the American people are idiots, or at least that they are in need of moral direction.
Maybe you're thinking isn't typical of conservatives, though judging from your posts, I suspect that it is. I only wish that four years ago I could have had a dollar for every time I heard a conservative say something along the lines of "I used to believe in the basic good judgment of the American people even if I occasionally disagreed, but they way Americans reacted to the impeachment of Clinton has changed that." Many conservatives DO believe that the American people are idiots, or at least that they are in need of moral direction.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I think most people get that our economy is in a bit of a downturn. Perhaps they trust Republicans to deal with economic issues more than Dems. Perhaps, even with a sluggish economy, people thought that the threat of Iraq/terrorism simply took precedence. But I don't think voters are just complete idiots.
I seem to remember during the last presidential selection, woops, election that the republicans kinda sorta acknowledged that the economy was good but under the republicans it would be better. Just wondering when that is going to kick in.
I think most people get that our economy is in a bit of a downturn. Perhaps they trust Republicans to deal with economic issues more than Dems. Perhaps, even with a sluggish economy, people thought that the threat of Iraq/terrorism simply took precedence. But I don't think voters are just complete idiots.
I seem to remember during the last presidential selection, woops, election that the republicans kinda sorta acknowledged that the economy was good but under the republicans it would be better. Just wondering when that is going to kick in.
[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
I seem to remember during the last presidential selection, woops, election that the republicans kinda sorta acknowledged that the economy was good but under the republicans it would be better. Just wondering when that is going to kick in.
When we make W's tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Penalty and give investors tax incentives to put their money into American business and industry. If Democrats had their way we'd have raised taxes by now, which would have crushed out economy even harder.
I seem to remember during the last presidential selection, woops, election that the republicans kinda sorta acknowledged that the economy was good but under the republicans it would be better. Just wondering when that is going to kick in.
When we make W's tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Penalty and give investors tax incentives to put their money into American business and industry. If Democrats had their way we'd have raised taxes by now, which would have crushed out economy even harder.
[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
Maybe you're thinking isn't typical of conservatives, though judging from your posts, I suspect that it is. I only wish that four years ago I could have had a dollar for every time I heard a conservative say something along the lines of "I used to believe in the basic good judgment of the American people even if I occasionally disagreed, but they way Americans reacted to the impeachment of Clinton has changed that." Many conservatives DO believe that the American people are idiots, or at least that they are in need of moral direction.
I agree, and I think that was a strategic blunder on the part of conservatives. But I don't think it was very widespread, certainly not in any public way. I would say I don't think most Americans have tastes, principles and opinions as refined and enlightened as mine, but it doesn't really matter. Even if most Americans are dumb as dirt, that doesn't give the government the right to take their money or their guns.
Maybe you're thinking isn't typical of conservatives, though judging from your posts, I suspect that it is. I only wish that four years ago I could have had a dollar for every time I heard a conservative say something along the lines of "I used to believe in the basic good judgment of the American people even if I occasionally disagreed, but they way Americans reacted to the impeachment of Clinton has changed that." Many conservatives DO believe that the American people are idiots, or at least that they are in need of moral direction.
I agree, and I think that was a strategic blunder on the part of conservatives. But I don't think it was very widespread, certainly not in any public way. I would say I don't think most Americans have tastes, principles and opinions as refined and enlightened as mine, but it doesn't really matter. Even if most Americans are dumb as dirt, that doesn't give the government the right to take their money or their guns.
William1865, with all due respect what planet are you from? Since when did the republicans become the anti-death penalty party. And with all these tax cuts, how are we going to pay for this expensive war that is at hand and not put ourselves into huge deficits again?
As an economist, I also have to point out that tax cuts are the last thing one wants to do in a recession - particularly the kind of tax cuts that were approved last year. If tax cuts must be the method, a better choice is payroll tax cuts, which would hit at the average American - those with tight disposable income who could benefit from an increase more than the rich (and given even my modest pay from a non-profit, I am among the rich in this country).
It is far better in a tight economy to find some sort of fiscal stimulus (spending increase). Ironically a war I don't personally support could provide that stimulus, IF the cost of fuel doesn't skyrocket and destroy any help a fiscal or tax stimulus could give.
However, you will never find the kind of analysis I put into 2 paragraphs in any visual media. The TV pundits, particularly, have seeming adopted the Jerry Springer method of discourse - yell loudest until your time runs out. And even on shows like Meet the Press, the answers are so rehearsed that you don't ever hear a truly original statement from anyone.
Maybe the problem is not a liberal/conservative bias, but a bias toward ratings, and the conflicts that give them. The media doesn't need Clinton-like scandals because we've got a big, honkin' war right around the corner.
And William - since when are taxes=taking people's money. If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine. Just realize you'll be farming hardscrabble somewhere in the MidWest for a "living" that will barely keep you alive. Our taxes pay not only for infrastructure (military, roads, aircraft radar) but medical and technological research that makes our standard of living better, health care and education (which should be considered public goods like defense) and myriad other benefits.
I don't use my local schools, but I sure don't mind funding them - the hopefully well-educated children of today will be the wage earners who will be funding my Social Security in 40 years.
It is far better in a tight economy to find some sort of fiscal stimulus (spending increase). Ironically a war I don't personally support could provide that stimulus, IF the cost of fuel doesn't skyrocket and destroy any help a fiscal or tax stimulus could give.
However, you will never find the kind of analysis I put into 2 paragraphs in any visual media. The TV pundits, particularly, have seeming adopted the Jerry Springer method of discourse - yell loudest until your time runs out. And even on shows like Meet the Press, the answers are so rehearsed that you don't ever hear a truly original statement from anyone.
Maybe the problem is not a liberal/conservative bias, but a bias toward ratings, and the conflicts that give them. The media doesn't need Clinton-like scandals because we've got a big, honkin' war right around the corner.
And William - since when are taxes=taking people's money. If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine. Just realize you'll be farming hardscrabble somewhere in the MidWest for a "living" that will barely keep you alive. Our taxes pay not only for infrastructure (military, roads, aircraft radar) but medical and technological research that makes our standard of living better, health care and education (which should be considered public goods like defense) and myriad other benefits.
I don't use my local schools, but I sure don't mind funding them - the hopefully well-educated children of today will be the wage earners who will be funding my Social Security in 40 years.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
As an economist, I also have to point out that tax cuts are the last thing one wants to do in a recession - particularly the kind of tax cuts that were approved last year. If tax cuts must be the method, a better choice is payroll tax cuts, which would hit at the average American - those with tight disposable income who could benefit from an increase more than the rich (and given even my modest pay from a non-profit, I am among the rich in this country).
Our taxes pay not only for infrastructure (military, roads, aircraft radar) but medical and technological research that makes our standard of living better, health care and education (which should be considered public goods like defense) and myriad other benefits.
I don't use my local schools, but I sure don't mind funding them - the hopefully well-educated children of today will be the wage earners who will be funding my Social Security in 40 years.
Excellent comments. I don't like everything my taxes are spent on, but I don't think totally relinquishing everyone of a responsibility to fund public good is a solution.
As an economist, I also have to point out that tax cuts are the last thing one wants to do in a recession - particularly the kind of tax cuts that were approved last year. If tax cuts must be the method, a better choice is payroll tax cuts, which would hit at the average American - those with tight disposable income who could benefit from an increase more than the rich (and given even my modest pay from a non-profit, I am among the rich in this country).
Our taxes pay not only for infrastructure (military, roads, aircraft radar) but medical and technological research that makes our standard of living better, health care and education (which should be considered public goods like defense) and myriad other benefits.
I don't use my local schools, but I sure don't mind funding them - the hopefully well-educated children of today will be the wage earners who will be funding my Social Security in 40 years.
Excellent comments. I don't like everything my taxes are spent on, but I don't think totally relinquishing everyone of a responsibility to fund public good is a solution.
[quote]Originally posted by Seabaseballluvr:
William1865, with all due respect what planet are you from? Since when did the republicans become the anti-death penalty party.
He's actually (I think) referring to the estate tax, which the Republicans like to refer to as the "death" tax. You see, the theory is that when you're rich and alive you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and when you die you leave your money to your heirs and THEY shouldn't have to pay taxes either.
William1865, with all due respect what planet are you from? Since when did the republicans become the anti-death penalty party.
He's actually (I think) referring to the estate tax, which the Republicans like to refer to as the "death" tax. You see, the theory is that when you're rich and alive you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and when you die you leave your money to your heirs and THEY shouldn't have to pay taxes either.
[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
... and William dozed off - dreaming of a Jerry Falwell sermon, a capital gains tax cut and a romp in the hay with Tucker Carlson....
No, yes and no.
... and William dozed off - dreaming of a Jerry Falwell sermon, a capital gains tax cut and a romp in the hay with Tucker Carlson....
No, yes and no.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
As an economist, I also have to point out that tax cuts are the last thing one wants to do in a recession - particularly the kind of tax cuts that were approved last year. If tax cuts must be the method, a better choice is payroll tax cuts, which would hit at the average American - those with tight disposable income who could benefit from an increase more than the rich (and given even my modest pay from a non-profit, I am among the rich in this country).
It is far better in a tight economy to find some sort of fiscal stimulus (spending increase). Ironically a war I don't personally support could provide that stimulus, IF the cost of fuel doesn't skyrocket and destroy any help a fiscal or tax stimulus could give.
However, you will never find the kind of analysis I put into 2 paragraphs in any visual media. The TV pundits, particularly, have seeming adopted the Jerry Springer method of discourse - yell loudest until your time runs out. And even on shows like Meet the Press, the answers are so rehearsed that you don't ever hear a truly original statement from anyone.
Maybe the problem is not a liberal/conservative bias, but a bias toward ratings, and the conflicts that give them. The media doesn't need Clinton-like scandals because we've got a big, honkin' war right around the corner.
And William - since when are taxes=taking people's money. If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine. Just realize you'll be farming hardscrabble somewhere in the MidWest for a "living" that will barely keep you alive. Our taxes pay not only for infrastructure (military, roads, aircraft radar) but medical and technological research that makes our standard of living better, health care and education (which should be considered public goods like defense) and myriad other benefits.
I don't use my local schools, but I sure don't mind funding them - the hopefully well-educated children of today will be the wage earners who will be funding my Social Security in 40 years.
If only you could be on television, capt, the world would be a better place.
As an economist, I also have to point out that tax cuts are the last thing one wants to do in a recession - particularly the kind of tax cuts that were approved last year. If tax cuts must be the method, a better choice is payroll tax cuts, which would hit at the average American - those with tight disposable income who could benefit from an increase more than the rich (and given even my modest pay from a non-profit, I am among the rich in this country).
It is far better in a tight economy to find some sort of fiscal stimulus (spending increase). Ironically a war I don't personally support could provide that stimulus, IF the cost of fuel doesn't skyrocket and destroy any help a fiscal or tax stimulus could give.
However, you will never find the kind of analysis I put into 2 paragraphs in any visual media. The TV pundits, particularly, have seeming adopted the Jerry Springer method of discourse - yell loudest until your time runs out. And even on shows like Meet the Press, the answers are so rehearsed that you don't ever hear a truly original statement from anyone.
Maybe the problem is not a liberal/conservative bias, but a bias toward ratings, and the conflicts that give them. The media doesn't need Clinton-like scandals because we've got a big, honkin' war right around the corner.
And William - since when are taxes=taking people's money. If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine. Just realize you'll be farming hardscrabble somewhere in the MidWest for a "living" that will barely keep you alive. Our taxes pay not only for infrastructure (military, roads, aircraft radar) but medical and technological research that makes our standard of living better, health care and education (which should be considered public goods like defense) and myriad other benefits.
I don't use my local schools, but I sure don't mind funding them - the hopefully well-educated children of today will be the wage earners who will be funding my Social Security in 40 years.
If only you could be on television, capt, the world would be a better place.
[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
He's actually (I think) referring to the estate tax, which the Republicans like to refer to as the "death" tax. You see, the theory is that when you're rich and alive you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and when you die you leave your money to your heirs and THEY shouldn't have to pay taxes either.
Yeah, that's exactly the theory. You nailed it just perfectly.
He's actually (I think) referring to the estate tax, which the Republicans like to refer to as the "death" tax. You see, the theory is that when you're rich and alive you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and when you die you leave your money to your heirs and THEY shouldn't have to pay taxes either.
Yeah, that's exactly the theory. You nailed it just perfectly.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
And William - since when are taxes=taking people's money. If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine. Just realize you'll be farming hardscrabble somewhere in the MidWest for a "living" that will barely keep you alive.
f**king A. I never said I wanted to live in a society without taxes. Taxes are taking people's money, which alas is a necessary evil. I just think they should be as low as possible so people are allowed to keep what is rightfully theirs. You bitch about media debates not being adequately comprehensive, yet you reduce what I've said down to your own simplistic interpretation and then courageously refute it. "It's a controversial stand, but I'm going to go on record and say that, yes, we need taxes. You can quote me on that." Well, bra-f**king-vo.
And William - since when are taxes=taking people's money. If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine. Just realize you'll be farming hardscrabble somewhere in the MidWest for a "living" that will barely keep you alive.
f**king A. I never said I wanted to live in a society without taxes. Taxes are taking people's money, which alas is a necessary evil. I just think they should be as low as possible so people are allowed to keep what is rightfully theirs. You bitch about media debates not being adequately comprehensive, yet you reduce what I've said down to your own simplistic interpretation and then courageously refute it. "It's a controversial stand, but I'm going to go on record and say that, yes, we need taxes. You can quote me on that." Well, bra-f**king-vo.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
When we make W's tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Penalty and give investors tax incentives to put their money into American business and industry. If Democrats had their way we'd have raised taxes by now, which would have crushed out economy even harder.
Ah yes, Dr. Bush's tax cuts - good for whatever ails ya!
Huge surplus? (Clinton) Tax cut!
Huge deficit? (Bush) Tax cut!
Need $$ for prescription drug program? Tax cut!
Dropping $50 billion on a war? Tax cut!
[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
When we make W's tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Penalty and give investors tax incentives to put their money into American business and industry. If Democrats had their way we'd have raised taxes by now, which would have crushed out economy even harder.
Ah yes, Dr. Bush's tax cuts - good for whatever ails ya!
Huge surplus? (Clinton) Tax cut!
Huge deficit? (Bush) Tax cut!
Need $$ for prescription drug program? Tax cut!
Dropping $50 billion on a war? Tax cut!
[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
[quote] f**king A. I never said I wanted to live in a society without taxes. Taxes are taking people's money, which alas is a necessary evil. I just think they should be as low as possible so people are allowed to keep what is rightfully theirs. You bitch about media debates not being adequately comprehensive, yet you reduce what I've said down to your own simplistic interpretation and then courageously refute it. "It's a controversial stand, but I'm going to go on record and say that, yes, we need taxes. You can quote me on that." Well, bra-f**king-vo.
Whoa! Clearly William, I touched a nerve, and didn't meant to reduce your argument to any simplistic idea. My point is simply that I am sick of people who complain about how high are taxes are, and that taxes are some kind of immoral grab for the peoples' hard-earned money. You're right, we do need taxes, and the US is one of the lowest-taxed, if not the lowest-taxed, industrial power in this world. We get a huge amount of value for our tax dollars, and I for one do not begrudge the government the money I give it.
As for what is "rightfully theirs" perhaps I'm a PollyAnna, but I think this country is ours, all the citizens, and I have no problem paying my share for that everything we have as a collective society. I have never been to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, but understand that my tax dollars are well-spent on saving those lands.
It is interesting that everyone wants their taxes lowered, but no one is willing to give up the benefits their city, town, county or state get from the "pork" that comes from government spending.
The last time we had huge deficits, in the late 80's, one of the news magazines ran a story on ordinary citizens, coming together at a conference and given the hypothetical power to reduce the deficit any way they wanted. When they examined the actual budget, they found that there was almost nothing they actually felt comfortable cutting. It is very easy to blame our government spending on "pork" or "fraud" or "waste," but the reality is the US runs a pretty lean ship.
Whoa! Clearly William, I touched a nerve, and didn't meant to reduce your argument to any simplistic idea. My point is simply that I am sick of people who complain about how high are taxes are, and that taxes are some kind of immoral grab for the peoples' hard-earned money. You're right, we do need taxes, and the US is one of the lowest-taxed, if not the lowest-taxed, industrial power in this world. We get a huge amount of value for our tax dollars, and I for one do not begrudge the government the money I give it.
As for what is "rightfully theirs" perhaps I'm a PollyAnna, but I think this country is ours, all the citizens, and I have no problem paying my share for that everything we have as a collective society. I have never been to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, but understand that my tax dollars are well-spent on saving those lands.
It is interesting that everyone wants their taxes lowered, but no one is willing to give up the benefits their city, town, county or state get from the "pork" that comes from government spending.
The last time we had huge deficits, in the late 80's, one of the news magazines ran a story on ordinary citizens, coming together at a conference and given the hypothetical power to reduce the deficit any way they wanted. When they examined the actual budget, they found that there was almost nothing they actually felt comfortable cutting. It is very easy to blame our government spending on "pork" or "fraud" or "waste," but the reality is the US runs a pretty lean ship.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Whoa! Clearly William, I touched a nerve, and didn't meant to reduce your argument to any simplistic idea. My point is simply that I am sick of people who complain about how high are taxes are, and that taxes are some kind of immoral grab for the peoples' hard-earned money. You're right, we do need taxes, and the US is one of the lowest-taxed, if not the lowest-taxed, industrial power in this world. We get a huge amount of value for our tax dollars, and I for one do not begrudge the government the money I give it.
As for what is "rightfully theirs" perhaps I'm a PollyAnna, but I think this country is ours, all the citizens, and I have no problem paying my share for that everything we have as a collective society. I have never been to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, but understand that my tax dollars are well-spent on saving those lands.
It is interesting that everyone wants their taxes lowered, but no one is willing to give up the benefits their city, town, county or state get from the "pork" that comes from government spending.
The last time we had huge deficits, in the late 80's, one of the news magazines ran a story on ordinary citizens, coming together at a conference and given the hypothetical power to reduce the deficit any way they wanted. When they examined the actual budget, they found that there was almost nothing they actually felt comfortable cutting. It is very easy to blame our government spending on "pork" or "fraud" or "waste," but the reality is the US runs a pretty lean ship.
You wrote: "If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine." How could that be anything but simplification? But whatever. I suppose I'm more of an individualist than you are. Anyways, I suppose we're a bit off-topic here.
Whoa! Clearly William, I touched a nerve, and didn't meant to reduce your argument to any simplistic idea. My point is simply that I am sick of people who complain about how high are taxes are, and that taxes are some kind of immoral grab for the peoples' hard-earned money. You're right, we do need taxes, and the US is one of the lowest-taxed, if not the lowest-taxed, industrial power in this world. We get a huge amount of value for our tax dollars, and I for one do not begrudge the government the money I give it.
As for what is "rightfully theirs" perhaps I'm a PollyAnna, but I think this country is ours, all the citizens, and I have no problem paying my share for that everything we have as a collective society. I have never been to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, but understand that my tax dollars are well-spent on saving those lands.
It is interesting that everyone wants their taxes lowered, but no one is willing to give up the benefits their city, town, county or state get from the "pork" that comes from government spending.
The last time we had huge deficits, in the late 80's, one of the news magazines ran a story on ordinary citizens, coming together at a conference and given the hypothetical power to reduce the deficit any way they wanted. When they examined the actual budget, they found that there was almost nothing they actually felt comfortable cutting. It is very easy to blame our government spending on "pork" or "fraud" or "waste," but the reality is the US runs a pretty lean ship.
You wrote: "If you want to live in a society without taxes, fine." How could that be anything but simplification? But whatever. I suppose I'm more of an individualist than you are. Anyways, I suppose we're a bit off-topic here.
Actually, William, I don't know if we're really off-topic at all. As the media grows more shrill, and the sound-byte replaces reasoned debate, it is not surprising that conservatives dominate the airwaves. Because conservatives often are reacting to liberals' ideas, and because conservatives (in this country at least) seem to view politics as a game to "win" and liberals view politics as a means to an end, it is easier for conservatives to "score points" in television shows and on the radio.
Before another bee gets in your bonnet, I am not arguing that conservatives don't have ideas of their own, but that in the normal politics of liberals pulling society to change, and the conservatives acting as a brake (which I actually believe ends up with us in the middle, where we should be), the conservatives are more likely to react to liberal concerns, issues, etc. Conservative voices often deny or minimize problems (e.g., global warming now, or racism in the 50s and 60s) because they fear the repercussions of change. Only after society has grown to a point that the issue cannot be denied to conservatives come up with solutions, and those solutions are most likely to maintain the status quo as much as possible.
Again, just a thought.
Before another bee gets in your bonnet, I am not arguing that conservatives don't have ideas of their own, but that in the normal politics of liberals pulling society to change, and the conservatives acting as a brake (which I actually believe ends up with us in the middle, where we should be), the conservatives are more likely to react to liberal concerns, issues, etc. Conservative voices often deny or minimize problems (e.g., global warming now, or racism in the 50s and 60s) because they fear the repercussions of change. Only after society has grown to a point that the issue cannot be denied to conservatives come up with solutions, and those solutions are most likely to maintain the status quo as much as possible.
Again, just a thought.
Very, very well said, CPT. What an educated and well written discussion from you. Thank you.
And William: your referring to yourself as refined and enlightened gave me a great laugh to get the day started...
And William: your referring to yourself as refined and enlightened gave me a great laugh to get the day started...
indeed very well said cpt. You are very eloquent in putting thoughts to words my friend.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Before another bee gets in your bonnet, I am not arguing that conservatives don't have ideas of their own, but that in the normal politics of liberals pulling society to change, and the conservatives acting as a brake (which I actually believe ends up with us in the middle, where we should be), the conservatives are more likely to react to liberal concerns, issues, etc. Conservative voices often deny or minimize problems (e.g., global warming now, or racism in the 50s and 60s) because they fear the repercussions of change.
I will no longer participate in this debate since anything I say is rather condescendingly dismissed as a "bee in my bonnet." A few final thoughts, though.
A. You totally discount the fact that there might be room for some sort of debate on issues like global warming. The essence of your argument is, "Conservatives are always wrong, liberals are always right." How could conservatives possibly be right about anything if our entire political platform consists of opposing liberal ideas until they're proven right, then co-opting them? But
B. Has it ever occurred to you that, rather than liberals trying to solve problems and conservatives trying to ignore them, perhaps liberals and conservatives have different solutions to problems?
C. Conservatives want to allow individuals the right to choose to keep a portion of their Social Security tax dollars in private investement accounts. Liberals are trying to stop this. Who's putting the brakes on what there?
But again, I'm sure nothing I say is to be taken seriously, but rather should be regarded as a mere "bee in my bonnet." Sorry for wasting your time, Capt., et al.
Before another bee gets in your bonnet, I am not arguing that conservatives don't have ideas of their own, but that in the normal politics of liberals pulling society to change, and the conservatives acting as a brake (which I actually believe ends up with us in the middle, where we should be), the conservatives are more likely to react to liberal concerns, issues, etc. Conservative voices often deny or minimize problems (e.g., global warming now, or racism in the 50s and 60s) because they fear the repercussions of change.
I will no longer participate in this debate since anything I say is rather condescendingly dismissed as a "bee in my bonnet." A few final thoughts, though.
A. You totally discount the fact that there might be room for some sort of debate on issues like global warming. The essence of your argument is, "Conservatives are always wrong, liberals are always right." How could conservatives possibly be right about anything if our entire political platform consists of opposing liberal ideas until they're proven right, then co-opting them? But
B. Has it ever occurred to you that, rather than liberals trying to solve problems and conservatives trying to ignore them, perhaps liberals and conservatives have different solutions to problems?
C. Conservatives want to allow individuals the right to choose to keep a portion of their Social Security tax dollars in private investement accounts. Liberals are trying to stop this. Who's putting the brakes on what there?
But again, I'm sure nothing I say is to be taken seriously, but rather should be regarded as a mere "bee in my bonnet." Sorry for wasting your time, Capt., et al.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I will no longer participate in this debate since anything I say is rather condescendingly dismissed as a "bee in my bonnet." A few final thoughts, though.
Looks like he must have tied that bow tie to tight today....takin' his toys and going home.
OK boys, now we can really rip him!
Just kidding, of course!!
I will no longer participate in this debate since anything I say is rather condescendingly dismissed as a "bee in my bonnet." A few final thoughts, though.
Looks like he must have tied that bow tie to tight today....takin' his toys and going home.
OK boys, now we can really rip him!
Just kidding, of course!!
you know I rarely agree with william when it comes to politics, but you know, for one guy with maybe one other exception on this board and I think we all know who that is, william, you put up a good fight, and I respect that, and that I mean. I don't think that most of these political threads would be half as entertaining if we didn't have you to banter around with us. Yes sometimes things tend to heat up a bit, which is typical of politics though isn't it...?
[quote]Originally posted by Seabaseballluvr:
William1865, with all due respect what planet are you from?
I am from France.
William1865, with all due respect what planet are you from?
I am from France.
Sorry, guys, perhaps I lost my cool, but that whole "bee in the bonnet" thing really got me going (I got a bee in my bonnet over a bee in my bonnet!). I don't even wear a bonnet. At any rate, I do think this thread has sort of meandered into God knows where. But whatever.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Actually, William, I don't know if we're really off-topic at all.
See, Captain, I'm saying that our off-topic diversion is a problem, but you're just denying that the problem exists. When it becomes obvious that this is a real problem, you'll probably just steal my solution. Damn conservatives . . .
Actually, William, I don't know if we're really off-topic at all.
See, Captain, I'm saying that our off-topic diversion is a problem, but you're just denying that the problem exists. When it becomes obvious that this is a real problem, you'll probably just steal my solution. Damn conservatives . . .
I have no idea if William is really not going to access this string any longer, but I simply have to respond.
I really almost edited out the "bee in your bonnet" comment, which was NOT intended to dismiss William's or any other conservative's political ideology. My point in saying that was just to note that people take things very personally on this board (albeit much more civily than most others, and I like that), and it is just a discussion board. No one should be trying to attack anyone, and that was not my intention at any time.
Further, I only pointed out the perpetual give and take between conservative and liberal voices as a way of pointing out why conservative voices likely have an edge in our current society and media. Yes conservatives and liberals have different ideas on how to solve problems, but it is also true that conservative ideology is meant to conserve our present society - to not rock the boat too much. Every society evolves, and there are always those trying to push that evolution and those trying to slow it. I truly believe that having both forces is what keeps a good society on an even keel - just enough change to keep us moving, without causing huge amounts of social unrest. This is good for society, the economy, almost everything. I actually appreciate that the US has managed to create a system where both forces seem to be in pretty good balance (okay, the 50s and 60s together were a bit much).
So, my thinking is that in our sound byte culture, the liberal voices have not had as good an ability to get their messages across (I'm thinking from the 80s onward) because a) until last year our society was in pretty good economic shape, so people don't want to rock the boat and
the agents for conserving our present society are better able to summarize their ideology and fit the format. If you recall back to the 88 campaign, the running joke was that Michael Dukakis had a 80 point plan for everything - you just cannot get 80 point plans for social change boiled down to a sound byte. That does not meant that Dukakis was automatically good and GHW Bush was automatically bad.
Finally, my only point on global warming is it a clear area where responding too broadly to the threat likely would create significant social upheaval, and the conservatives fight that. On the other hand, as small steps are proposed that won't impact our society too much (banning CFCs), but could have a major positive impact on the issue, conservatives are more than happy to support change like that because it does conserve our society.
I really almost edited out the "bee in your bonnet" comment, which was NOT intended to dismiss William's or any other conservative's political ideology. My point in saying that was just to note that people take things very personally on this board (albeit much more civily than most others, and I like that), and it is just a discussion board. No one should be trying to attack anyone, and that was not my intention at any time.
Further, I only pointed out the perpetual give and take between conservative and liberal voices as a way of pointing out why conservative voices likely have an edge in our current society and media. Yes conservatives and liberals have different ideas on how to solve problems, but it is also true that conservative ideology is meant to conserve our present society - to not rock the boat too much. Every society evolves, and there are always those trying to push that evolution and those trying to slow it. I truly believe that having both forces is what keeps a good society on an even keel - just enough change to keep us moving, without causing huge amounts of social unrest. This is good for society, the economy, almost everything. I actually appreciate that the US has managed to create a system where both forces seem to be in pretty good balance (okay, the 50s and 60s together were a bit much).
So, my thinking is that in our sound byte culture, the liberal voices have not had as good an ability to get their messages across (I'm thinking from the 80s onward) because a) until last year our society was in pretty good economic shape, so people don't want to rock the boat and
the agents for conserving our present society are better able to summarize their ideology and fit the format. If you recall back to the 88 campaign, the running joke was that Michael Dukakis had a 80 point plan for everything - you just cannot get 80 point plans for social change boiled down to a sound byte. That does not meant that Dukakis was automatically good and GHW Bush was automatically bad. Finally, my only point on global warming is it a clear area where responding too broadly to the threat likely would create significant social upheaval, and the conservatives fight that. On the other hand, as small steps are proposed that won't impact our society too much (banning CFCs), but could have a major positive impact on the issue, conservatives are more than happy to support change like that because it does conserve our society.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Further, I only pointed out the perpetual give and take between conservative and liberal voices as a way of pointing out why conservative voices likely have an edge in our current society and media. Yes conservatives and liberals have different ideas on how to solve problems, but it is also true that conservative ideology is meant to conserve our present society - to not rock the boat too much.
I'm back, baby!!!!! But I don't agree that conservatives want to "conserve" present society. We're the ones who want to privatize Social Security and education, while liberals want to keep the status quo. Perhaps this is one of those "can't we move beyond these tired old labels of liberal and conservative," but I like being called a conservative. Besides "conservatism" is less a one-word ideology and more a brand name for a product that has changed over the years. Sort of like "Burger King" sells a lot more than burgers now, but you don't want to go messing with a well-recognized brand.
But no matter how much conservatism or Burger King may change, you can always count on this: The media is way, way liberal.
Further, I only pointed out the perpetual give and take between conservative and liberal voices as a way of pointing out why conservative voices likely have an edge in our current society and media. Yes conservatives and liberals have different ideas on how to solve problems, but it is also true that conservative ideology is meant to conserve our present society - to not rock the boat too much.
I'm back, baby!!!!! But I don't agree that conservatives want to "conserve" present society. We're the ones who want to privatize Social Security and education, while liberals want to keep the status quo. Perhaps this is one of those "can't we move beyond these tired old labels of liberal and conservative," but I like being called a conservative. Besides "conservatism" is less a one-word ideology and more a brand name for a product that has changed over the years. Sort of like "Burger King" sells a lot more than burgers now, but you don't want to go messing with a well-recognized brand.
But no matter how much conservatism or Burger King may change, you can always count on this: The media is way, way liberal.
[quote] But no matter how much conservatism or Burger King may change, you can always count on this: The media is way, way liberal.
I know others have pointed this out (maybe not on this board), but while members of the media may be liberal (probably from spending too much time muck raking and reporting on the problems of our society - damn bleeding hearts), media companies are not. Media companies are in the business for the same reason GE makes appliances, to make $$. They can't afford to be too liberal, or the bottom line will suffer.
So, we have a media where the reporters are coming from a vantage point of believing liberal ideology (in the broadest sense, and not including anyone who works for the Wall Street Journal ) working for companies that don't want to p*ss off conservatives (and are run by those who are likely conservatives themselves - not counting the owners of the Washington Post ), particularly when conservatives are in power. Hence, it is possible for two completely different viewpoints on the media to co-exist and be at least partially true (and if that doesn't win me the Nobel Peace Prize, nothing will).
Now, William, privatizing social security and education are not ideas that will radically transform society. In fact, both those ideas are actually a return to earlier days, when retirement was an individual's and not a government's responsibility and education (at least beyond 8th grade) was the responsibility of the family. The only change is using public funds, rather than private ones. Again, I am not putting a value judgement on either idea (although with the shape my retirement account is in, I am looking forward to the public handout of Social Security), just defending my position.
I know others have pointed this out (maybe not on this board), but while members of the media may be liberal (probably from spending too much time muck raking and reporting on the problems of our society - damn bleeding hearts), media companies are not. Media companies are in the business for the same reason GE makes appliances, to make $$. They can't afford to be too liberal, or the bottom line will suffer.
So, we have a media where the reporters are coming from a vantage point of believing liberal ideology (in the broadest sense, and not including anyone who works for the Wall Street Journal ) working for companies that don't want to p*ss off conservatives (and are run by those who are likely conservatives themselves - not counting the owners of the Washington Post ), particularly when conservatives are in power. Hence, it is possible for two completely different viewpoints on the media to co-exist and be at least partially true (and if that doesn't win me the Nobel Peace Prize, nothing will).
Now, William, privatizing social security and education are not ideas that will radically transform society. In fact, both those ideas are actually a return to earlier days, when retirement was an individual's and not a government's responsibility and education (at least beyond 8th grade) was the responsibility of the family. The only change is using public funds, rather than private ones. Again, I am not putting a value judgement on either idea (although with the shape my retirement account is in, I am looking forward to the public handout of Social Security), just defending my position.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.