15 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1772
The day the music died?

I feel your frustration at the media, I really do. That is how I felt for the last eight years as I watched them gladly and eagerly help the current Admin. push what I saw as deception after deception and get 'W' re-elected.

Just seems like there's always an excuse when someone's losing from the other side, I guess we both do it. Seems like it's just hard to say a great many Americans are pissed off and don't like the direction our country is currently headed in.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
The day the music died?

Are you kidding me? Trying to use the 2000 election as evidence of pro-Bush coverage? I beg to differ. They played the same game then, as well, complete with flattering pictures of Gore in print, and every Bush photo looking ridiculous. They were in the tank for Gore, and were downright complicit in the recount issue.

Mr."Every Vote Must Count" Gore was throwing out military absentee ballots, which were statistically heavily Republican. Meanwhile, he wasn't interested in counting every vote -- he only wanted to count the votes in heavily democratic precincts.

It's quite simple. Find a precinct of, say, 100,000 people who vote 80 percent Democrat. If you can look at enough chads to get one percent more votes to count (both Democrat and Republican), then statistically Democrats will gain 800 votes, and the Republicans will gain 200. That's a big deal when the margin is only a few hundred votes to begin with. Gore was selectively picking precincts to recount to gain advantage, and using a process that wasn't even in Florida law to do it.. The Republicans argued it wasn't fair and got it stopped through the court system. If Gore had wanted to recount the whole state, I might buy it -- but that's not the case. He only wanted to count areas that would help him.

And the media? They made it look like Gore was trying to help disenfranchised voters and the Republicans were trying to stop the vote. The mainstream media just repeated Gore rhetoric, rather than actually explain what was going on, because if they did it would devastate his case. Thank goodness the judicial system doesn't rely on the media for its information. No...Bush won in spite of the media, not because of them.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
The day the music died?
csumerall wrote:
My point was that because these media outlets are no longer balanced they are losing viewers and subscribers.

That is entirely possible.

When I read accounts of the media slant, generally folks seem insulted that the "truth was not told" as if some sort of right has been violated. (I've posted such accusations myself in the past on this forum).

I tend to think that with freedom of press the founding fathers understood that anyone media outlet was by and large biased. Rather the hope was that by not allowing the government to abridge private speech (thus controlling it) that a flourishing media market would on the sum get the story right. In other words a critical reader could view several stories from several outlets and decide for themselves what the truth in the story is. (A tangent to this would be the importance of having a literate, critical thinking populace).

The problem is this system is contingent on a flourishing market for media. Lots of journalists, lots of media outlets, all independently owned. However the last twenty years has seen heavy consolidation in the major media outlets where there are not a large pool of independent reports and journalists. This has generated more bias because the tv, print, and radio news we consume is controlled by fewer and fewer entities.

Running opposite of this trend has been the explosion of the information provided by the Internet, much of which is not controlled by the major media companies. Therefore I think it is still possible to get the truth or at least different perspectives on a news story. There are some publications I still respect to give a fairly unbiased account of the stories they choose to cover, one of which is the WSJ, although it is now owned by News Corp as well...

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
The day the music died?

I agree with all of that, Bit, which is why I get the heebie jeebies when the Democrats start talking about imposing limits on the internet, or reimposing the "fairness doctrine" to rein in conservative talk radio.

The web is becoming the great equalizer that challenges big media's control of information. For example, it was the internet, not big media, that destroyed Dan Rather's National Guard story by showing the documents that the media was just talking about. It's a lot harder to stifle opposing points of view, and a lot more likely that chicanery will be exposed.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
The day the music died?
Quote:
There are some publications I still respect to give a fairly unbiased account of the stories they choose to cover, one of which is the WSJ, although it is now owned by News Corp as well...

I used to enjoy the Journal more. I don't like what Gigot has done to the Editorial page since he got there in (2000?), and I'm certainly no fan of Murdoch. He promised to leave the paper to it's own devices after buying it but a lot of people left. Still, best source by far for the conservative view, they try to play fair, and keep the editorializing on the correct page.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Music- What's Your Taste??Billii1402/02/2004 23:51 pm
Dog huntin man by David CoolerJTapia012/20/2008 12:46 pm
West Nile virus2506deerslayer309/01/2003 09:32 am
HelloCountrybowhuner18503/09/2014 19:25 pm
Hunter died of trauma after fall from muleAlpine_Archer410/22/2009 06:43 am