Liberal media!!!
October 17, 2004 5:09 PM Subscribe
Anchors Aweigh: The Refs Are Worked. Alterman: Network news is getting hit from all sides. Their corporate owners are squeezing them at every opportunity to increase profits by simultaneously skimping on costs, pushing for "tabloid" stories and dumbing down what's left. Viewership is declining both in numbers and demographic desirability. The future is clearly with narrow-cast networks, like Fox's right-wingers and Jon Stewart's fake-but-truer-than-the-real-thing news, and these dinosaurs are hanging on to the Cronkite/Sevareid tradition by their magnificently manicured fingernails. But they are doing so by offering surrender after surrender.
This post was deleted for the following reason: personal attacks ahoy! unproductive, personal bickering thread.
they're caving in to pressure from one side only
I'm sure all of these quotes are fabricated, amberglow.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:34 PM on October 17, 2004
I'm sure all of these quotes are fabricated, amberglow.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:34 PM on October 17, 2004
Fabricated? Probably not, but certainly cherrypicked. Cull through a few decades worth of quotes of anybody who speaks publicly on television for an hour or more a day, pull things out of context with no supporting background information and you could probably just as easily make them out to be anything you want.
But your link is a treasure, if only for this priceless gem:
O'REILLY: Well, I didn't lie to anybody's face on national television. I don't think you have. Have you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:54 PM on October 17, 2004
But your link is a treasure, if only for this priceless gem:
O'REILLY: Well, I didn't lie to anybody's face on national television. I don't think you have. Have you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:54 PM on October 17, 2004
Liberal:
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
I'm sorry, Kwantsar, but if you're saying journalism shouldn't be broad-minded, free from bigotry, and tolerant, then it becomes quite clear exactly what you expect from the media.
posted by Jimbob at 6:55 PM on October 17, 2004
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
I'm sorry, Kwantsar, but if you're saying journalism shouldn't be broad-minded, free from bigotry, and tolerant, then it becomes quite clear exactly what you expect from the media.
posted by Jimbob at 6:55 PM on October 17, 2004
Are you reading the same thread I'm reading, jimbob?
Did I use the word "liberal"? Does the article prominently speak of a "liberal bias"? Well, no. In fact, you're the first person to use the word "liberal" in this thread.
Even more interestingly, you choose to use a definition of liberal that conveniently sidesteps the essence of the word that would be relevant here (had anyone before you even used it).
I hesitate to use the phrase (here, where it is misused so often), but you have thoroughly eviscerated a straw man.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:08 PM on October 17, 2004
Did I use the word "liberal"? Does the article prominently speak of a "liberal bias"? Well, no. In fact, you're the first person to use the word "liberal" in this thread.
Even more interestingly, you choose to use a definition of liberal that conveniently sidesteps the essence of the word that would be relevant here (had anyone before you even used it).
I hesitate to use the phrase (here, where it is misused so often), but you have thoroughly eviscerated a straw man.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:08 PM on October 17, 2004
Also, refer to the page you linked to:
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal...we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it." --Walter Cronkite
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."--Walter Cronkite
It's clear that it was this "liberal bias" you were reacting against, saying that news networks are also "caving into" liberal pressure. I think a liberal is exactly how it should be - open to multiple points of view, diverse, tolerant.
What's your definition of liberal, then?
posted by Jimbob at 7:16 PM on October 17, 2004
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal...we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it." --Walter Cronkite
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."--Walter Cronkite
It's clear that it was this "liberal bias" you were reacting against, saying that news networks are also "caving into" liberal pressure. I think a liberal is exactly how it should be - open to multiple points of view, diverse, tolerant.
What's your definition of liberal, then?
posted by Jimbob at 7:16 PM on October 17, 2004
Okay, jimbob. You got me. I didn't see that.
Now, you've debunked my claim that you were the first one to use the word. skallas used it first, putting on display his oh-so-clever grasp of sarcasm.
Now, maybe you can tell me what your definition of "liberal" has to do with my challenge to amberglow's claim that "hey're caving in to pressure from one side only".
Because I seriously don't know. Pretend I'm a student in a remedial logic class, if you need to. Just tell me.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:24 PM on October 17, 2004
Now, you've debunked my claim that you were the first one to use the word. skallas used it first, putting on display his oh-so-clever grasp of sarcasm.
Now, maybe you can tell me what your definition of "liberal" has to do with my challenge to amberglow's claim that "hey're caving in to pressure from one side only".
Because I seriously don't know. Pretend I'm a student in a remedial logic class, if you need to. Just tell me.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:24 PM on October 17, 2004
Kwanstar, did you read the linked article? They admit it.
posted by amberglow at 7:29 PM on October 17, 2004
posted by amberglow at 7:29 PM on October 17, 2004
Like I said above - you linked to a page in an effort to show "Look, these guys are liberal biased". For a start, you showed no evidence that they were pressured to be liberal biased - indeed, that page makes it clear that some of them are proud to be liberal and feel it is a positive thing in a journalist. It's probably a positive thing to be conservative if you're an investment banker or a soldier.
Do you object to "liberal" bias in the media? If so, what do you mean by "liberal" - do you mean "tolerant and broad minded", or do you envision a team of Stalinists in an underground bunker telling Dan Rather what to say?
posted by Jimbob at 7:32 PM on October 17, 2004
Do you object to "liberal" bias in the media? If so, what do you mean by "liberal" - do you mean "tolerant and broad minded", or do you envision a team of Stalinists in an underground bunker telling Dan Rather what to say?
posted by Jimbob at 7:32 PM on October 17, 2004
i would just like to point out that i am not Kwantsar.
posted by quonsar at 7:54 PM on October 17, 2004
posted by quonsar at 7:54 PM on October 17, 2004
the post above me has as much relevance as this post.
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:11 PM on October 17, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:11 PM on October 17, 2004
Here's the wikipedia definition of liberal, which ought to illustrate how meaningless and self-contradictory the word has become.
The Left (specifically, the American Left) has successfully co-opted the word, in my opinion-- and it's an opinion that I think few would disagree with. In common parlance, especially in the US (the subject of this post), "liberal" generally means "left-wing".
The article I linked contains more than 6,000 words. Outside of the brief "Rather Versus His CBS Colleagues" section, the word appears exactly once.
So, let me try this again:
1. amberglow stated that the networks are "caving in to pressure from one side only".
2. I made the assumption that the pressure about which amberglow was writing was coming from the Right.
3. I produced a link containing a litany of anecdotal evidence that Rather favors the Left in his coverage.
4. You, like Cronkite and Rather (and Okrent) use a particular definition of liberal that manages to obfuscate the issue entirely.
5. You then point out that the networks admit being pressured by the Right.
Well, duh. Would they admit to being pressured by those with whom they agree?
If it's your point that Rather and the big-three Network News organizations don't cave to the Left, because it's impossible to cave to people with whom one lies in agreement, well, that's a novel way of thinking. If that's your claim, you may very well be correct. If that's your claim, I humbly submit that I misread you (your game of semantics was nonetheless an unnecessary obfuscation).
skallas, did you miss the part where jimbob instructed me to look at the page title bar? You wrote that title bar, right? OMG Has someone hijacked your fingers?!! Or maybe I can't read!!!
posted by Kwantsar at 8:17 PM on October 17, 2004
The Left (specifically, the American Left) has successfully co-opted the word, in my opinion-- and it's an opinion that I think few would disagree with. In common parlance, especially in the US (the subject of this post), "liberal" generally means "left-wing".
The article I linked contains more than 6,000 words. Outside of the brief "Rather Versus His CBS Colleagues" section, the word appears exactly once.
So, let me try this again:
1. amberglow stated that the networks are "caving in to pressure from one side only".
2. I made the assumption that the pressure about which amberglow was writing was coming from the Right.
3. I produced a link containing a litany of anecdotal evidence that Rather favors the Left in his coverage.
4. You, like Cronkite and Rather (and Okrent) use a particular definition of liberal that manages to obfuscate the issue entirely.
5. You then point out that the networks admit being pressured by the Right.
Well, duh. Would they admit to being pressured by those with whom they agree?
If it's your point that Rather and the big-three Network News organizations don't cave to the Left, because it's impossible to cave to people with whom one lies in agreement, well, that's a novel way of thinking. If that's your claim, you may very well be correct. If that's your claim, I humbly submit that I misread you (your game of semantics was nonetheless an unnecessary obfuscation).
skallas, did you miss the part where jimbob instructed me to look at the page title bar? You wrote that title bar, right? OMG Has someone hijacked your fingers?!! Or maybe I can't read!!!
posted by Kwantsar at 8:17 PM on October 17, 2004
Your assumption was correct, and the anchors admitted that it was in the linked piece.
Liberals are not driving the coverage. It's not their mass email and phone call campaigns that are stopping the factual coverage of events. It's not their talking points that are on the nightly news each night. It's not their liberal blastfaxes that get anchors and producers scared, and advertisers putting pressure on them.
It's right there in the article.
posted by amberglow at 8:29 PM on October 17, 2004
Liberals are not driving the coverage. It's not their mass email and phone call campaigns that are stopping the factual coverage of events. It's not their talking points that are on the nightly news each night. It's not their liberal blastfaxes that get anchors and producers scared, and advertisers putting pressure on them.
It's right there in the article.
posted by amberglow at 8:29 PM on October 17, 2004
Okay skallas, you didn't write it. You "typed" it after omitting the article and added three exclamation points!!! Or maybe you pasted it.
So you did use it, as I first claimed-- a claim that you denied. Unless you gave Eric Alterman your MeFi account.
Which would also be very clever.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:56 PM on October 17, 2004
So you did use it, as I first claimed-- a claim that you denied. Unless you gave Eric Alterman your MeFi account.
Which would also be very clever.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:56 PM on October 17, 2004
Well, if you can't understand why the injection of the word "liberal" is material to the discussion (or, more particularly, my discussion with jimbob), you're just not very bright.
I'll try to be more courteous to you, though. I'd hate to be invoiced.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:09 PM on October 17, 2004
I'll try to be more courteous to you, though. I'd hate to be invoiced.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:09 PM on October 17, 2004
Kwantsar: Who is that in the picture? And after you answered that question, why are you acting like a fucking douche by including it when you mention Skallas?
(And if that is actually you Skallas... hahahahahahahaha that is so sad)
posted by Keyser Soze at 10:49 PM on October 17, 2004
(And if that is actually you Skallas... hahahahahahahaha that is so sad)
posted by Keyser Soze at 10:49 PM on October 17, 2004
It's always fun to joust on the theme of the word "liberal". It's certainly a word that has been hijacked - especially when it's so frequently used as a term of abuse by the so-called "liberal" media. If you take issue with the standard definition, you only have to look at other words with that root. Liberation. Liberty. When those ideas are used as a term of abuse, I doubt the bias in the media is swinging strongly in the "liberal" direction.
In any case - where's the evidence of pressure being applied in order to make the media left-wing? I'm just trying to argue that journalists may be naturally "left-wing" without any pressure having to be applied. The topic was not whether or not various news outlets are biased one way or the other - we know they are so your first link was pointless - but whether that bias has been the result of outside interference.
posted by Jimbob at 11:00 PM on October 17, 2004
In any case - where's the evidence of pressure being applied in order to make the media left-wing? I'm just trying to argue that journalists may be naturally "left-wing" without any pressure having to be applied. The topic was not whether or not various news outlets are biased one way or the other - we know they are so your first link was pointless - but whether that bias has been the result of outside interference.
posted by Jimbob at 11:00 PM on October 17, 2004
Does anyone even care about the main point? As in, the actual facts of what's going on out there are being obscured? That the huge percentage of non-Mefite people in the US who get their news from the TV and don't dig around for stuff like we do are getting the most diluted, devoid-of-substance information that the network news machines can spew? Not to mention that what gets reported is dependent on who's got the most cash or muscle to pay for/force the spin?
Or are you just going to flame each other for another 30 posts? Feh.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:14 PM on October 17, 2004
Or are you just going to flame each other for another 30 posts? Feh.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:14 PM on October 17, 2004
« Older Sick of Bush? Try a tree! | When The Barbie House is a Rockin'... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by amberglow at 5:58 PM on October 17, 2004