Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Media Leanings
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 1 of 34 (198753)
04-12-2005 4:57 PM


In the Al Gore, the Internet, and the Gullibility of the Populace thread, it has been suggested that the news media in general and CNN in particular has begun a trend towards conservative or right wing viewpoints. In other words, organizations such as CNN are attempting to put forth an image that is more supportive of conservative viewpoints because they wish to improve their market share.
This has not always been the case. But due to the success of Fox News, which many consider (including myself) to be a conservative news outlet, the strategy is to move right. I disagree with this claim as it pertains to CNN and that CNN has an overall neutral approach to expressing political ideologies.
That is not so say CNN does not have journalist and commentators on staff who tend to support right wing viewpoints, they do. But I believe they also have sufficient left wing representation to balance out.
So my question is this:
Do you believe certain news media outlets are attempting to resolve their market share problem by appearing to support conservative or right leaning positions? If so, does this represent a true change in ideology or is it merely expediency for the sake of corporate profits?
There are numerous media watchdog groups who claim to expose bias in the news media.
Here are a few:
Media Research Center (conservative site which claims to expose liberal bias)
Accuracy in Media (conservative site which claims to expose liberal bias)
Pew Research Center For the People and the Press (non-partisan organization which studies attitudes towards the press)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal site which claims to expose conservative bias)
Media Matters for America (liberal site which claims to expose conservative bias)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 04-12-2005 5:33 PM Monk has replied
 Message 4 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 8:02 AM Monk has replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-13-2005 12:44 PM Monk has replied
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 04-13-2005 12:51 PM Monk has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 34 (198767)
04-12-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
04-12-2005 4:57 PM


quote:
Do you believe certain news media outlets are attempting to resolve their market share problem by appearing to support conservative or right leaning positions? If so, does this represent a true change in ideology or is it merely expediency for the sake of corporate profits?
I think CNN is trying to rewrite a formula that has worked on FOX, namely trying to make news interesting by making it controversial. Do you watch O'Reilly for news or for rhetoric? Hannity and Colmes? Or even the CNBC or MSNBC copycats? It is impossible to create this type of contentious debate without presenting rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. It is also impossible to create debate and entertainment without bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 4:57 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 13 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 8:29 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 3 of 34 (198773)
04-12-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
04-12-2005 5:33 PM


quote:
I think CNN is trying to rewrite a formula that has worked on FOX, namely trying to make news interesting by making it controversial.
Yes, but don't you think they can do that without necessarily moving towards the right? If anything, I would think they could create more controversy, (translate that to ratings), by replicating FOX's formula except with a more left wing slant.
FOX has already staked claim to the right wing, how can CNN hope to succeed by imulating a "me too" strategy? What will happen when everyone rushes to the right? Won't that leave a void that begs to be filled?
This message has been edited by Monk, Tue, 04-12-2005 03:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 04-12-2005 5:33 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 8:33 AM Monk has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 34 (198894)
04-13-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
04-12-2005 4:57 PM


quote:
That is not so say CNN does not have journalist and commentators on staff who tend to support right wing viewpoints, they do. But I believe they also have sufficient left wing representation to balance out.
I can confidently say I have never seen a leftwinger or a leftwing argument on CNN ever.
I think you mistaking soft conservatives with left wingers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 4:57 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Monk, posted 04-13-2005 7:47 PM contracycle has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 5 of 34 (198927)
04-13-2005 10:23 AM


the entirety of human culture has been making a steady shift toward the conservative for... oh since the last time the pope died? the last pope was very (relatively) liberal. what happened just 40 years ago in this country? huge liberal outpouring from all sides. then what happened? those hippies and their children grew up and got scared (of commies in the 70s especially) and 'found jesus'. not to mention the apathy of the youth (the expected source of levftist revolutionary thought) which prevents their influence on the government.
why did this happen? because liberalism (note. i use this in the new meaning which makes me cringe.) failed to give our parents the stability they thought they needed. it failed to solve all their problems all at once. so they made a huge shift to the right. where have we seen this before? the fall of the weimar republic and the rise of Nazi fascism. and yes i am calling our government fascist.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 34 (198965)
04-13-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
04-12-2005 4:57 PM


I think a bigger issue has to do with labeling. In the past, news reporting and editorial comment were clearly marked and deliniated. That has been dropped infavor of making news "Interesting". It is much harder to seperate reporting and editorial on ALL of the media.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 4:57 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Monk, posted 04-13-2005 7:44 PM jar has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 34 (198966)
04-13-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
04-12-2005 4:57 PM


quote:
That is not so say CNN does not have journalist and commentators on staff who tend to support right wing viewpoints, they do. But I believe they also have sufficient left wing representation to balance out.
I don't know about that. I don't ever recall Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, or Ward Churchill (before the recent controversy) ever having their opinions or analyses broadcast on CNN.
I have to ask the same question others are asking: just what do you consider "left wing"? Whenever I hear people complaining about "liberals" or "left wing" bias, it always seems to me that they are really complaining about moderate, even right-of-center opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 4:57 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Monk, posted 04-13-2005 7:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 8 of 34 (198967)
04-13-2005 12:57 PM


The news media aren't in the business of reporting the news, they are in the business of selling commercials. Period.
That means they are going to "lean" whichever way will give them ratings, thus helping them sell more commercials.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 9 of 34 (199055)
04-13-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
04-13-2005 12:51 PM


quote:
I have to ask the same question others are asking: just what do you consider "left wing"? Whenever I hear people complaining about "liberals" or "left wing" bias, it always seems to me that they are really complaining about moderate, even right-of-center opinions.
It is relative isn't it? It's true that labels are misleading. Many wrong assumptions are made when using labels that represent broad sterotypes.
In regards to CNN and the use of left wing or liberals, I would point out the show "Crosstalk" on CNN as an example. I believe the views of Paul Begala and James Carville to be from the "left". They describe themselves that way and I agree.
But again, it's all relative. Both of these gentlemen seem to be right wing in contrast to Ward Churchill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 04-13-2005 12:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 8:45 AM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 10 of 34 (199057)
04-13-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
04-13-2005 12:44 PM


quote:
I think a bigger issue has to do with labeling. In the past, news reporting and editorial comment were clearly marked and deliniated. That has been dropped infavor of making news "Interesting". It is much harder to seperate reporting and editorial on ALL of the media.
I agree and believe the format and success of FOX News coupled with the decline of the evening news on the "big 3" networks, (ABC,CBS,NBC) are the main reasons.
I wonder if the line between reporting and editorilizing has been permanently blurred. Print media is a different story though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-13-2005 12:44 PM jar has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 11 of 34 (199058)
04-13-2005 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by contracycle
04-13-2005 8:02 AM


contracycle writes:
I think you mistaking soft conservatives with left wingers.
Then give some examples that you consider to be "left wing". I'm curious because this ties into my other posts regarding labels as being relative.
This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 04-13-2005 09:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 8:02 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 9:00 AM Monk has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 34 (199174)
04-14-2005 7:33 AM


quote:
Noun: left wing left wing
1. Those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare
quote:
Equality, social justice, labor rights and trade unionism, concern for the poor, working-class solidarity and internationalism are the values typically associated with the left wing of the political spectrum. The left is against hierarchy and authority, strict adherence to tradition, monoculturalism, privilege for the wealthy, and other values commonly associated with the political right. Those on the left are sometimes self-described "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of (social) "progress". The term is often considered politically loaded, especially by non-Leftists
History of the term
The term "Left" was first used in the early days of French revolution. When the National Assembly first met, the reformers sat on the left side of the meeting hall, while supporters of monarchy and nobility sat on the right. Originally, it wasn't meant to be a political statement, but as the factions within the National Assembly formed, the label stuck.
Although it may seem ironic in terms of present-day usage, the original "leftists" during the French Revolution were the largely bourgeois supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. As the electorate expanded beyond property-holders, these relatively wealthy elites found themselves clearly victorious over the old aristocracy and the remnants of feudalism, but newly opposed by the growing and increasingly organized and politicized workers and wage-earners. The "left" of 1789 would, in some ways be part of the present-day "right", liberal with regard to the rights of property and intellect, but not embracing notions of distributive justice, rights for organized labor, etc.
The European left has traditionally shown a smooth continuum between non-communist and communist parties (including such hybrids as eurocommunism), which have sometimes allied with more moderate leftists to present a united front. In the United States, however, no avowedly socialist or communist party ever became a major player in national politics, although the Social Democratic Party of Eugene V. Debs and its successor Socialist Party of America (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) and the Communist Party of the United States of America (in the 1930s) made some inroads. While many American "liberals" would be "social democrats" in European terms, very few of them openly embrace the term "left"; in the United States, the term is mainly embraced by New Left activists, certain portions of the labor movement, and people who see their intellectual or political heritage as descending from 19th-century socialist movements.
The "New Left" has had varying degrees of unity since its rise in the 1960s, and can be seen as a coalition of numerous distinct movements, including (but not limited to) feminists, greens, some labor unions, some atheists, some gay rights activists, and some minority ethnic and racially oriented civil rights groups. Many Greens deny that green politics is "on the left"; nonetheless, their economic policies can generally be considered left-wing, and when they have formed political coalitions (most notably in Germany, but also in local governments elsewhere), it has almost always been with groups that would generally be classified as being on the left.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Left-wing

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 34 (199185)
04-14-2005 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
04-12-2005 5:33 PM


quote:
It is impossible to create this type of contentious debate without presenting rhetoric from both sides of the aisle.
Well...what do you mean by "both sides of the aisle?
Where is the very left-leaning "liberal" side of these debates?
I generally see very right-wing views represented on the right, and, at most, moderate to conservative left-leaning views on the left, if they are left-leaning at all. Often times it is not a debate between "left" and "right" even though it is presented that way. It is often a debate between "far right" and "moderate right", with the "moderate right" being painted as "liberal".
Hell, we have the NeoCons in congress gunning for Arlen-frigging-Specter because they view him as not being a "real Republican".
So, we see far right-wing Republicans represented all the time.
Where are the far left wing liberals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 04-12-2005 5:33 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 34 (199186)
04-14-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Monk
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


quote:
What will happen when everyone rushes to the right? Won't that leave a void that begs to be filled?
The "void" has been there for a long time already.
I think as the general populace has become less educated and spends it's time consuming corporate entertainment, including dumbed-down TV news, instead of really working to educate themselves on and understand complex issues, it has become more conservative.
Specifically, it has allowed the rise of the NeoCons.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-14-2005 07:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Monk, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 34 (199190)
04-14-2005 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Monk
04-13-2005 7:37 PM


quote:
But again, it's all relative.
And that is exactly the point, monk.
When you have a show where one side is presented as, let's say, "conservative Republican" that actually is, and the other side is persented as "Liberal" that actually does not represent many or any true liberal views, that is evidence of a large shift to the right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Monk, posted 04-13-2005 7:37 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 10:35 AM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024