Jarett, when I first read your response I thought you were impersonating Ken.  I forgive you, but uh, I 1,000% disagree.  And I have 3 points to make:

1)-According to Media Matters, there is a 13 to 1 ratio of conservatives to progressives on TV.  Although in my experience, you'd hard pressed to find ONE other progressive other than Keith Olbermann, so I guess that means there are only 13 conservatives on tv.

2)-You want to argue the media isn't right wing (In fairness I'll say, right-of-center because maybe the "right wing" phrase it's what's creating this disagreement)? Overall it's true, but uh, not when it comes to Cable news. The obvious answer is to point to that small, lowly rated network called Fox News. That alone gives *some* validity to the argument, but why stop there? I'll raise you Olbermann, Williams and Cafferty and give you Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck (the same Glenn Beck whos' a political commentator for Good Morning America on ABC, the same ABC that employs kooky libertarian John Stossel.

Also, you can't just look at the reporters and commentators, you have to look at the people who *own* the corporations they write for, as well as the writers and editors who decide *sometimes to a large extent* what will be said and or what topics will be covered.

3)-With that said, overall the media isn't necessarily left wing or right wing, they are part of the ratings-wing, i.e. they "report" on watered down stories (or spend 30 seconds on real stories) and give watered down commentary.  They're terrified of appearing to be biased (this is aside from Fox and the others I've mentioned, including Olbermann, think CNN and regular network news along with Russert/George Steph, Couric, etc.) so they give equal merit to "both sides".

This despite the fact that sometimes the only "other side" is a group of 50 people with tin foil hats and drool coming out of their mouth.  But hey, if a new study comes out showing that fat people weigh more, they'll have the lead researcher as well as someone representing the fat people weight less group, and then let YOU decide.

What a crock of shit.  Let ME decide?  Who the fuck am I?  Well, I like to think I'm relatively well informed, but most of America isn't, and besides, aren't they supposed to report and sometimes even make a conclusion *based on the facts*?  If one group is supported by the facts/research and one isn't, how is telling the audience that "biased"? 

And we didn't even get into radio, where the bias is even worse (although admittedly the playing field has gotten better in the last few years, but there's still a huge gap in favor of conservatives).

by Tom Hanc on 02/16/2008 11:11:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I just don't expose myself to Fox News, Beck, or any of the other asshats.

by jarett on 02/16/2008 02:19:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and conclude that "the media" must be doing a great job of being relatively unbiased and centrist since they've managed to piss off BOTH the right wing AND the left wing!  If the government taxed everyone a penny for each blog or forum post that complained that the media was biased to the left or the right it could pay off the national debt within a few months! 

by alphasigmookie on 02/16/2008 02:39:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that again, people confuse the fact that they won't do real investigative reporting and tell us the *truth* (for fear of sounding biased toward one side or the other) with being "unbiased and centrist".

Most "news" is some pathetic variation of the following:

"The president today said X, Y and Z, but the Democrats disagree and claim that the president isn't telling the truth about X, Y and Z."

Sadly, a lot of people think that's "fair and balanced" instead of a bunch of bullshit.  REAL news would say "While X and Y are supported by facts, Z is called into question because..." etc. 

And vice versa, the truth could very well mean that the Dems are exaggerating or lying about some fact or figure.  But it's increasingly rare that you hear that, and if you DO hear that it's often on superficial bullshit issues.

I don't always agree with Wes Clark Jr, but he makes a brilliant point when he says the media covers these bullshit stories (about Brittany, candidate race and gender, did Obama turn his back on Hillary, etc.) because they require no real investigation or money.  And Cenk furthers the point when he rightly says these stories have the added advantage of being relatively politically neutral with respect to favoring any one political party.

As to your point that both extremes get angry, I'm not sure how relevant that is...aren't both extremes *always* angry about something?  If they weren't they wouldn't be called extremes.

Besides, starting in the 80's (technically maybe even the 70's) there was a big push from the right to demonize (correctly or incorrectly) the media as "liberally biased".  That movement grew and got louder and louder until today it actaully infects a lot of moderates and independents.  If it *was* true when the movement started, it sure as hell hasn't been true for a long time.

Again, the media is primarily (aside from the entire Fox network, Beck, Scarborough, Tucker, Stossel, Elizabeth Hasselbeck and whoever I left out) ratings/corporate driven, and out to not offend.  It just so happens that republicans are the party of big business and deregulation, which goes hand in hand with increasing profits and media monopolies.  Don't think that has no impact on what's covered and what's not.


Combine that with a media terrified of being labeled liberal and you end up with (generally) watered down centrists who lean right (even if in real life they're libreal) only because they avoid doing honest reporting on various issues that would make Republicans (especially this administration) look bad.

by Tom Hanc on 02/16/2008 03:33:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]