Page 18 of 135 FirstFirst ... 813141516171819202122232868118 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 2691

Thread: Role of the Media

  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    When you've got a community organizer on your hands, you surely turn your nose up at a successful executive, head of the Olympics committee and Governor of a blue state. Put yourself down for a win, here.
    The problem with Romney wasn't those things. It was that he had to go so far right to appease people like you.

  2. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog Deac View Post
    Pubs get to define what they want as media. And most of the time, they are just talking about TV, with the exception of, you know it, do I really have to type it?, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
    I know it's hard for some to believe, but Fox News has only been around for 20 years. Before that, you had the NYT, WaPo and sometimes the LA Times or Boston Globe as your primary newspapers. You know, back in the day when people didn't have the internet and actually read newspapers. That is where all the serious journalism came from, and where any big stories would break. The big stories would then be pushed on the big three networks-- NBC, ABC, and CBS. That presumes that the big networks didn't break their own stories. CNN was obviously in play too, and became a more serious player around 1990 with the Gulf War.

    When the GOP rails against the mainstream media, it pretty much means that, you know, mainstream media that existed prior to the advent of Fox News, which came about directly as a result of mainstream media bias and filled an enormous void for disgruntled conservatives fed up with biased reporting. The mainstream media continues to lean left (I would argue they are more left now than ever, as gloves are off in this election). The difference is that the mainstream media has a waning (but still powerful) influence due to the internet and availability of wide sources of information. The Pubs still haven't figured out social media very well, though, and that's where most influence will be felt if not now then shortly in the future.

  3. #343
    JHMD has gone full heel (and not just in his diploma mill alma mater way either).
    Mother So Dear '12

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    It's good thing that only Pubs complain about news channels they don't agree with. Could you even imagine if both parties did that? Bullet dodged.
    We aren't talking about complaining here. We are talking about the Republican candidate saying the media is throwing the election.

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    I know it's hard for some to believe, but Fox News has only been around for 20 years. Before that, you had the NYT, WaPo and sometimes the LA Times or Boston Globe as your primary newspapers. You know, back in the day when people didn't have the internet and actually read newspapers. That is where all the serious journalism came from, and where any big stories would break. The big stories would then be pushed on the big three networks-- NBC, ABC, and CBS. That presumes that the big networks didn't break their own stories. CNN was obviously in play too, and became a more serious player around 1990 with the Gulf War.

    When the GOP rails against the mainstream media, it pretty much means that, you know, mainstream media that existed prior to the advent of Fox News, which came about directly as a result of mainstream media bias and filled an enormous void for disgruntled conservatives fed up with biased reporting. The mainstream media continues to lean left (I would argue they are more left now than ever, as gloves are off in this election). The difference is that the mainstream media has a waning (but still powerful) influence due to the internet and availability of wide sources of information. The Pubs still haven't figured out social media very well, though, and that's where most influence will be felt if not now then shortly in the future.
    I will say this. I have never felt that the actual news that is reported at the top of every hour by NPR has had any kind of slant, but the last couple of months, they will report something that Trump says, then say that what he is saying has not been proven. Their job is just to report what he is saying. Not happy with this development and I hope they stop it.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog Deac View Post
    I will say this. I have never felt that the actual news that is reported at the top of every hour by NPR has had any kind of slant, but the last couple of months, they will report something that Trump says, then say that what he is saying has not been proven. Their job is just to report what he is saying. Not happy with this development and I hope they stop it.
    This gets us back on to the topic at hand.

    CNN has started doing the same thing with a statement and then something to the side that either says "false", or "not proven", or "untrue".

    Does it change when you have a candidate that lies 20+ times each day, each time provably incorrect?
    Mother So Dear '12

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    I know it's hard for some to believe, but Fox News has only been around for 20 years. Before that, you had the NYT, WaPo and sometimes the LA Times or Boston Globe as your primary newspapers. You know, back in the day when people didn't have the internet and actually read newspapers. That is where all the serious journalism came from, and where any big stories would break. The big stories would then be pushed on the big three networks-- NBC, ABC, and CBS. That presumes that the big networks didn't break their own stories. CNN was obviously in play too, and became a more serious player around 1990 with the Gulf War.

    When the GOP rails against the mainstream media, it pretty much means that, you know, mainstream media that existed prior to the advent of Fox News, which came about directly as a result of mainstream media bias and filled an enormous void for disgruntled conservatives fed up with biased reporting. The mainstream media continues to lean left (I would argue they are more left now than ever, as gloves are off in this election). The difference is that the mainstream media has a waning (but still powerful) influence due to the internet and availability of wide sources of information. The Pubs still haven't figured out social media very well, though, and that's where most influence will be felt if not now then shortly in the future.
    And again, why does the media lean left?

  8. #348
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    45,920
    Quote Originally Posted by MichDeac25 View Post
    And again, why does the media lean left?
    beyonce

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    I know it's hard for some to believe, but Fox News has only been around for 20 years. Before that, you had the NYT, WaPo and sometimes the LA Times or Boston Globe as your primary newspapers. You know, back in the day when people didn't have the internet and actually read newspapers. That is where all the serious journalism came from, and where any big stories would break. The big stories would then be pushed on the big three networks-- NBC, ABC, and CBS. That presumes that the big networks didn't break their own stories. CNN was obviously in play too, and became a more serious player around 1990 with the Gulf War.

    When the GOP rails against the mainstream media, it pretty much means that, you know, mainstream media that existed prior to the advent of Fox News, which came about directly as a result of mainstream media bias and filled an enormous void for disgruntled conservatives fed up with biased reporting. The mainstream media continues to lean left (I would argue they are more left now than ever, as gloves are off in this election). The difference is that the mainstream media has a waning (but still powerful) influence due to the internet and availability of wide sources of information. The Pubs still haven't figured out social media very well, though, and that's where most influence will be felt if not now then shortly in the future.
    so bitching about the way things were 20 year ago? that seems about right.

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog Deac View Post
    We aren't talking about complaining here. We are talking about the Republican candidate saying the media is throwing the election.
    Let's unpack this. He says "the media" has a leftward tilt. Just between us girls, do you seriously disagree with that? That some here won't willing concede this obvious point (which the numbers posted clearly corroborate) doesn't make it less true. If we can't even agree that the media prefers Democrats, we're going to have a very, very, very tough time explaining their donation patterns. To show that we're all capable, let's assume for the sake of this argument that the donations aren't out of body experiences and that they are consistent with their personal opinions.

    Is this fact enough to "throw" the election? Putting aside the issue of whether it is responsible to make that claim (spoiler: it isn't), would you be as willing to dismiss the effects of that bias in a year when the candidates were more closely matched? The campaigns (brand name and generic) spend billions dollars attempting to influence public opinion in 30 second bursts in between 22 minute news programs. Is the argument that Candy Crowley "fact-checking" Romney's opinion [by inserting her own as "fact"] on stage at the debate, to the point where the President was cheering on the so-called moderator, totally irrelevant? In 2000, before the Florida Secretary of State and SCOTUS rigged the election to steal it for W, we were talking about less than 1,000 votes between the candidates. The demonstrable bias of the people who "bring" the election to the American voter doesn't matter?

  11. #351
    Americans have an obligation to try and not be so easily brainwashed. Tall order for most

  12. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    **Entirely ignores the most widely circulated newspaper in the country**
    The WSJ had a largely economic focus. Op-Eds generally were right of center, issue reporting left of center or center. Might have changed when Rupert bought it. Don't know.

    I didn't ignore the WSJ. If you want to cry about it, feel free. I listed 4 major newspapers and 4 major networks that were largely controlling the media 20 years ago. If 1 of 9 primary media sources leans conservative, that doesn't really change my assessment.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog Deac View Post
    I will say this. I have never felt that the actual news that is reported at the top of every hour by NPR has had any kind of slant, but the last couple of months, they will report something that Trump says, then say that what he is saying has not been proven. Their job is just to report what he is saying. Not happy with this development and I hope they stop it.
    PBS's Frontline episode of HRC and Trump was amusing as well.

  14. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacsfan27 View Post
    This gets us back on to the topic at hand.

    CNN has started doing the same thing with a statement and then something to the side that either says "false", or "not proven", or "untrue".

    Does it change when you have a candidate that lies 20+ times each day, each time provably incorrect?

  15. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    luls
    I never pictured you as the type so quick to run from a dissenting point of view. If I'm wrong, you're smart enough to respond.

    We're just supposed to ignore the 27-1 donation ratio from members of the media between the campaigns? It doesn't exist if you don't want it to? Grow up.

  16. #356
    What do we think about shows that conclude an interview with one candidate or surrogate by saying "our invitation to Trump, Pence, or his surrogates to come on the show remains open, but multiple calls and offers have gone unreturned?"

    I hear that a lot on NPR shows, specifically heard it after a Kaine interview on the way home from work yesterday.

  17. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    You've repeatedly shown no interest in honest discussion. It's all jokes and deflections. I'll defer to my earlier comments, which are that labor tends to vote/donate Dem and management/ownership tends to vote/donate Pub, and that this is not shocking.

    The fact that this election cycle has been skewed so far to one direction is a reflection of just how bad Trump is. If there were a silver bullet that would bury Hillary, you'd better believe the media would have it front page, breaking news, top of the hour stuff.

    Clicks and cash over everything else.
    I didn't think that you were serious about characterizing the millionaires with the Ivy League degrees that make up the media elite as "labor."

  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    In much the same way that I consider professional athletes labor and the NFL owners to be management running an illicit cabal, yes.

    But in all seriousness, I don't think Ivy League millionaires make up the majority of "the media" or even a plurality. They may be elites in an upper middle class, highly educated sense, but the vast majority of journalists don't make a comfortable living.
    Agree to disagree.

  19. #359
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,786
    So are media outlets supposed to report the truth or what people say is the truth?

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    The WSJ was a very well-respected counterpoint to the NYT atop the print journalism pyramid. It hired some of the brightest conservative minds on its editorial board and as publisher. It's still highly respected today for its centrist and conservative credentials both. Ignoring it as "one of nine" would be one thing, but ignoring it as the actual literal leading circulation newspaper in the country just seems dumb. When conservative outlets have the largest (by plurality) market share of the media in their respective slots, the argument does start to get holes in it.
    Nonsense. USA Today has the highest circulation and thus is largest by plurality if you must know, but I didn't include it because it doesn't really drive news, but rather regurgitates it. The WSJ and NYT have roughly the same amount of circulation both now and 20 years ago. Here are the numbers from 1995. I won't include the Boston Globe since it's kind of down on the list.

    USA Today 1,979,092

    Wall Street Journal 1,823,207

    New York Times 1,770,504

    Los Angeles Times 1,457,583

    Washington Post 1,153,822

    That's 4,381,909 for the Big 3. So great. George Will conservatives had 29% of circulation among the total circulation between WaPo, NYT, LAT, and WSJ.

    And nevermind that 100% of the news viewership was on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.

    I get why Fox News is hated and mocked. What I don't get is when people act obtuse about its origins, why it was and remains successful, and why conservatives bitch about the media simply because they are allowed to eat some Fox News cake.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •