Media for the American Way

Maybe it's my work computer, but the link isn't working.

Link worked fine on my computer, not that it matters. It was a yawn of an article for me. As if no conservative media outlets ever spent money on conservative fundraisers. After all, conservatives are pure of heart and the epitome of all that is right...eous...

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
Link worked fine on my computer, not that it matters. It was a yawn of an article for me. As if no conservative media outlets ever spent money on conservative fundraisers. After all, conservatives are pure of heart and the epitome of all that is right...eous...

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

---

Joe, which "conservative" media outlets are you talking about? National Review? American Spectator? At least they admit their bias, and therefore the reader knows where they are coming from. (The same could be said for The Nation or Mother Jones.) But I love your implication, whether you intended it or not - that the news outlets mentioned in this article are in fact liberal and would thus naturally contribute to a left-wing cause.

I'm inclined to agree with you William. I very much prefer to know up front which side of the fence people are on. I read the Nation sometimes even though I mostly disagree with them but at least there I know which side they are on.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But I love your implication, whether you intended it or not - that the news outlets mentioned in this article are in fact liberal and would thus naturally contribute to a left-wing cause.

---

I don't think the media is very liberal at all. It's just the right wing that likes to think so. Any media outlets that run stories on gay people, and then automatically include opposing viewpoints from the ultra-right wing, are NOT liberal.

There are stories every year around major religious holidays, about what religious services are being held and the significance of certain ceremonies, and you never hear the viewpoint of atheists or agnostics in response.

I too, am weary and tired of hearing that the media is "liberal." I too, don't agree. In fact if anything I find talk radio to be conservative to ultra-conservative, and I don't listen to this drivel.

1) Joe, you wrote: "As if no conservative media outlets ever spent money on conservative fundraisers." The implication is that the news outlets in the posted article were liberal giving to a liberal cause. Maybe you didn't think that through.

2) As much as I detest lefties, I don't automatically equate them with atheists and agnostics. I don't think godlessness equals liberalism, though it's a nice idea.

3) I don't count talk radio as part of the liberal media, simply because it isn't liberal. We're talking television (CNN,etc.) and newspapers (NY Times, etc.) here. Focus, people, focus.

I think a re-reading of of the Arthur Jenses speech in 'Network' would be timely for many in these discussions:

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians, no east, no west, no Communists, no Third Worlds. There is only one holistic system of systems. One vast and immane, interwoven, interactive, multi-variant, multi-national dominion of dollars; Petrol-dollars, electro-dollars, Yens, Pounds, Rubles and sheckles. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the stucture of the world today. That is the atomic, and sub-atomic, and galactic structure of things today. And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and you will atone. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only I.B.M. and I.T.T. and A.T.&T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their Council of States? Karl Marx? They sit down with their statistical decision theories, lineal programming charts, and their Mini-Mac solutions and compute the cost-price probabilities of their stocks and transactions, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, all inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale, and it has been ever since Man crawled out of the slime.

Our children, Mr. Beale, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit; in which all will hold a share of stock; all necessities provided for, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.


And so it goes, as the masses blather about this or that ultimately insignificant, unsolvable issue, the raping of the planet by the insatiably greedlust-driven oligarchy continues pretty much unabated.

And will the press do anything to protect us?

The New York Times? Apparently news about the pollution caused by paper mill operations (by far the most profitable part of the Times Corp.) is not "fit to print".

The Commies in Red China? The same ones who were never mentioned in TIME magazine until the '60s by direct order of Henry Luce? Try finding criticism of them in the New York Post or any other Murdoch paper - wouldn't want to get the boys in Beijing upset right when the negotiations over satellite TV access and upcoming 2008 Olympics rights are coming to a critical point.....

The "Liberal Press" - what a canard, the biggest of the Big Lies ....Dr. Goebbles would be proud.....

A BRIEF TAXONOMY

"The Nation" is progressive, as are "Mother Jones," "Commonweal," "Transition," "The Progressive," and "Z." Actually, "Z" is pretty leftist.

The "New Yorker," which only mentions Black people in articles about entertainment figures or criminals and which Latinos, Asians and non-Easterners (unless they're British) rarely merit discussion, is "liberal," as is "Partisan Review." No one I can think of reads the latter anymore.

The "New York Times," like the "LA Times" and the "Washington Post," is centrist; on some topics they all are downright conservative, on others they are quite liberal. Until Young Sulzberger took over, they wouldn't even mention the word "gay," and none of these papers seem to understand of the concept of "Latinos of African descent." Oh well--as the paradigm shifts, so will they. "The Economist" and "USA Today" are also fairly centrist, with the former a bit to the left, the latter a bit towards...well, blandness.

"The Wall Street Journal," like the "New York Post" and "The Weekly Standard," is conservative.

Further to the right is the "National Review" and "City Journal," by those folks at the Manhattan Institute.

"The WAshington Times," owned by Sun Young Moon, is loony-right-wing.

****
Among TV stations, I think the major networks may have liberal to moderate anchors, though the corporate parents are very pro-corporation, pro-Wall Street, and pro-ruling class. CNN has gotten more conservative every year, and Fox, as part of Rupert Murdoch's empire, is openly conservative--which I find a bit comforting, because although I find that ideology inimical, I'm glad to know that Fox is upfront about it. Not ONE of these stations could get enough of the Clinton brouhahas (whether it was "Travelgate" or "Lewinskygate" or the supposedly trashed White House in 2000--no matter how spurious the rumor, how meretricious the gossip, they slavered over and snapped it up! Moreover, not ONE could portray Gore with any equanimity, though they have at times give Bush a free ride. But now that they smell blood with him (well, all except Fox), they're nipping at his brogans. I think this is what's probably really at work: opportunism, venality, and cravenness. What's truly sad is that most Americans--MOST--get their news from these empty excuses for public information organizations.

You know, fantomas, reading some of your posts lately, I think I'm falling in love...

As to the discussion, well--we do need to clarify that William uses the term "left" rather more freely than most. After all, in another thread, he referred to Arlen Specter as a "leftist". I neve thought Arlen and Noam Chomsky were real close, myself.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
A BRIEF TAXONOMY

....
"The Wall Street Journal," ... is conservative.

---

Editorial page only. The rest of this topnotch paper is eagerly devoured by people of all political persuasions. They don't win Pulitzer Prizes for nothing. "Local" boy Al Hunt, from Orange VA, is the token non-right-winger on the editorial page.

[quote]
"The WAshington Times," owned by Sun Young Moon, is loony-right-wing.

---

The _Washington Times_ is widely regarded as a front for the Korean CIA through which money is funneled into the United States for the purpose of gaining access and influence.

People, do I have to say this again? "Get a shortwave radio." Further, in big cities, you can get the BBC, Deutsche Welle, and French TV news on the public broadcasting stations. Brace yourselves, though; you may be shocked to hear news stories that do not start with the words, "The administration says...."

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I can't see how anyone who reads the NY Times everyday, and looks at the choices they make in stories to cover - the unabashed hatchet jobs they did on Reagan, Bush and W, and their shameful apologism for Carter and Clinton - can conclude they are anything but the obvious: a completely biased, shamefully partisan, left-wing tool of the self-appointed Eastern liberal elite. Why, I might even say they are part of "a vast left-wing conspiracy," but a version of that line's already been taken.

To me the NY Times is not just left-wing but boring. And not even comforting-boring like The Weather Channel, but smug Masterpiece Theater boring. When I read the Times, I always imagane the voice of one of those guys who host classical music radio stations. "Republicans in Congress poisoned 255,483 children last month, according to a report released yesterday by the Democratic National (continued on page 25)..."

editorial by William Safire.

I rarely agree with him, and am suspicious of his motives in this case, but the outcome of the investigation into how CBS came to use forged documents is important.

I will be very curious to see what that outcome is, and who it leads to; whether goose or gander.

I agree, the case should be investigated for possible prosecution if the facts warrant it, but I suspect that the WH may be directing US Attys to soft-pedal it, lest it appear retaliatory. frown

LOL, just read your post! I hear Corey Flintoff or Linda Wertheimer's condescending tones when reading pieces from the Times given to me by others. (No way am I going to help fund that sanctimonious rag; with CCCPBS I don't have a choice!)

Male classical announcers have butched it up considerably over the past decade. The "personalities" on KDFC in SF sound downright rollicking at times!

I always like Corey what's his name