Liberal media is already making execuse for Obama

[Fox Mulder]

I agree. Just give him a chance

That's the whole point actually--the media didn't give the prior Administration a chance--started the hatchet job before they even took office. They are doing the same thing now except in reverse--they are already making excuses.

What should be troubling to you people is biased the information is you are receiving from the media. We are supposed to be living in a democracy where the job of the press is to present unbiased information and keep the public informed. Well the main stream media DOES NOT DO THAT--they provide very biased information and the help for the opinions of the public because most people don't have the wilingness or in some cases the ability to seek the truth on their own.

 

[Fox Mulder]

If the media is so liberal, then why would the conservative be so scared of the fairness doctrine that has the goal of balanced media viewpoints?

LOL!!!! The Fairness doctrine would eliminate and stamp out the only source of news that provides a different viewpoint--talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine was a violation of the 1st Amendment (which is why it was done away with by the Supreme Court) and anyone that actually values Freedom of Speech should be vigorously oppossed to the Fairness Doctrine. What that would do is return us to a time when the only source of information is the mainstream media. You really think that's fair? You really think that we should all get our information from one source only?

Seriously, you need to do some reasearch and find out what the "Fairness Doctrine" is. The name is a joke--it does not seek Fairness, it seeks to silence any viewpoint that's different from the left wing media viewpoint.

 

[Fox Mulder]

If you want to read about why the Fairness Doctrine is anything BUT fair, read this:

Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair

We don't need beuracrats determining what's fair--what a fucking joke. I should be able to read and listen to any source of news I want to. Liberals want this doctrine instituted because they want to be able to get people like Rush Limbaugh off the air. Do you really believe that's fair? That's Freedom of Speech?

I don't listen to Limbaugh, but the way, but he or anyone else regardless of their viewpoint should be allowed to broadcast their viewpoints.

 

[Tim]

That's the whole point actually--the media didn't give the prior Administration a chance--started the hatchet job before they even took office. They are doing the same thing now except in reverse--they are already making excuses.

What should be troubling to you people is biased the information is you are receiving from the media. We are supposed to be living in a democracy where the job of the press is to present unbiased information and keep the public informed. Well the main stream media DOES NOT DO THAT--they provide very biased information and the help for the opinions of the public because most people don't have the wilingness or in some cases the ability to seek the truth on their own.

I think you have short term memory... Bush could have been hurt much more by the press if they actually reported about his failed businesses, drunk driving, his attendance record in the guard, etc... they covered it half assed.

And it was the corporations that killed media. The media no longer belongs to the people, they have no reason or motivation to serve us by giving us unbiased news and reporting.
This is not a liberal or conservative problem, it's the fact that media has been consolidated under three major corporations in the US. When you own the airways, you own the content.

I believe that the control of the airways needs to be broken up between MANY companies. At least you would have more of an opportunity to change the channel and hear a differing viewpoint.

 

[Minor Axis]

You mean the way you liberals gave Bush a chance?

I want Obama to succeed--I hope he succeeds (unlike you liberals who did everything you could to lose the war in Iraq). However, I also want fair reporting--I don't want excuses being made already to hedge bets. If he's doing a good job, fine, but if he's not, that should be fairly reported.

I gave Bush a huge chance to be the Compassionate Conservative and the Bipartisan People Person he claimed to be, except he was a BIG LIER.

What exactly is your definition of winning the war in Iraq? Anything accomplished there?

 

[Fox Mulder]

I think you have short term memory... Bush could have been hurt much more by the press if they actually reported about his failed businesses, drunk driving, his attendance record in the guard, etc... they covered it half assed.

They reported all of that. They even lied about it (i.e., the Dan Rather report).

And it was the corporations that killed media. The media no longer belongs to the people, they have no reason or motivation to serve us by giving us unbiased news and reporting.
This is not a liberal or conservative problem, it's the fact that media has been consolidated under three major corporations in the US. When you own the airways, you own the content.

I believe that the control of the airways needs to be broken up between MANY companies. At least you would have more of an opportunity to change the channel and hear a differing viewpoint.

Funny, because I don't see how that's had any effect on the news coverage. In fact, what you argue for may very well result in the opposite effect. Moreover, with today's Internet and thousands of sources for news, the main stream media is anything but the monopoly it used to be back in the 60s in the dinosaur age of journalism. Back then you were basically stuck with 3 major networks for your news and your local paper. You REALLY think it was better then than it is now?

 

[Tim]

Moreover, with today's Internet and thousands of sources for news, the main stream media is anything but the monopoly it used to be back in the 60s in the dinosaur age of journalism. Back then you were basically stuck with 3 major networks for your news and your local paper. You REALLY think it was better then than it is now?

Do you even know what you are talking about? Back in the 60's media was controlled by over 1000 individual companies. In 1983 it was down to about 50 corporations and today it is 5. Who is it that had the monopoly in the 60's? Television was not the number 1 source of news in America at that point, it was actually newsprint. And what you call the dinosaur age of journalism, was actually the time where reporters actually went out and did the hard work of getting the story instead of just pulling it off of Reuters website and throwing some garnish on it. You were much more likely to get "news" in the 60's than you are today. Today you have to sift through the sea of pundits and Op-Eds just to piece together the real news. Sure we have one hell of an advantage with instant worldwide news coverage today and more information than we can ever hope to digest on the internet, but that doesn't make up for the lack of news in the papers and on tv.
A media monopoly in the 60's? You have to be kidding me...

When one company owns the local paper, TV stations and air waves in the same town, that's not good for anyone. Your chance of getting opposing points of view are next to nil.

 

[dt3]

When one company owns the local paper, TV stations and air waves in the same town, that's not good for anyone. Your chance of getting opposing points of view are next to nil.

It's good for whoever they agree with

 

[Fox Mulder]

Do you even know what you are talking about? Back in the 60's media was controlled by over 1000 individual companies. In 1983 it was down to about 50 corporations and today it is 5. Who is it that had the monopoly in the 60's?

Totally irrelevant--who gives a rats ass that one small company owned a newspaper in Bumfuck Idaho (which accounts for you thousands companies--many just very small very local media)??? The point is that the MAJOR NEWS MEDIA was controlled by three companies--ABC, NBC, and CBS and you had your local paper (and perhaps you subscribed to a large city newspaper). The point is that your news was filtered through a very very very very small prism of influence. You were stuck with what the major news media wanted you to hear and if you were lucky, you had a local newspaper that actually had some conservatives working for it (unlikely).

I honestly cannot believe that you or anyone would argue that news sources today are not far more diverse and muhc more easily obtainable than in the 1960s. I have literally thousands of different and diverse viewpoints at my finger tips INCLUDING THIS SITE just a click away. People here are getting to read my viewpoint and BBW and DT3--they are not stuck being spoon fed their news from a small monopoly.

You were much more likely to get "news" in the 60's than you are today.

Yes-you were likely to get a "version" of the news--a "slant" of the news--you got what Cronkite wanted you to get, right, left, wrong or indifferent.

Today you have to sift through the sea of pundits and Op-Eds just to piece together the real news.

And thank God we have a sea of information rather than one stream of bullshit.

A media monopoly in the 60's? You have to be kidding me...

Seriously Tim--you are not thinking this through. I don't think you'd get one person (other than Minor) to agree with you that what we had in the 1960s did not constitute a "relative" monopoly on news--seriously that is must plain nonsense. Even if I were to agree that the news was more fair and balanced then (and I think it was), it nevetheless was a monopoly by the major networks. You one small local town newspaper did not fucking counter that and that's assuming that newspaper wasn't compeltely biased.

When one company owns the local paper, TV stations and air waves in the same town, that's not good for anyone. Your chance of getting opposing points of view are next to nil.

Tim you are simply regurgitating left wing bullshit because they want support to shut down oppossing viewpoints. But no way was it better in the 1960s than it is now.

 

[SgtSpike]

I gave Bush a huge chance to be the Compassionate Conservative and the Bipartisan People Person he claimed to be, except he was a BIG LIER.

What exactly is your definition of winning the war in Iraq? Anything accomplished there?

What did Bush lie about, specifically?

And I'd say victory in Iraq comes when there's no more people left who want to (and will try to) nuke the US, or hurt any of the civilians there. Anyone who is willing to destroy other people for no good reason other than what they believe should be destroyed themselves.

 

[dt3]

Anyone who is willing to destroy other people for no good reason other than what they believe should be destroyed themselves.

First off, let me preface my comment with this: You won't find a bigger supporter of the war than me. I spent a year of my life over there and would go back tomorrow.

BUT to say we should destroy people for their beliefs isn't worded very well. Because then our only justification for destroying them would be our belief that they are wrong, which would in turn say that we should be destroyed. See what I mean?

 

[SgtSpike]

First off, let me preface my comment with this: You won't find a bigger supporter of the war than me. I spent a year of my life over there and would go back tomorrow.

BUT to say we should destroy people for their beliefs isn't worded very well. Because then our only justification for destroying them would be our belief that they are wrong, which would in turn say that we should be destroyed. See what I mean?

Yeah, I knew that would be taken funny the moment I posted it. Not sure how else to put it though... if there's people out there who are plotting to destroy us, what other choice do we have but to eliminate that threat?

 

[dt3]

Yeah, I knew that would be taken funny the moment I posted it. Not sure how else to put it though... if there's people out there who are plotting to destroy us, what other choice do we have but to eliminate that threat?

:dunno But in your scenario, we aren't destroying them for our beliefs, we're doing it in self-defense. Anybody can sit around and bash America, it's the ones that are going to act on it that we need to stop.

 

[Tim]

Totally irrelevant--who gives a rats ass that one small company owned a newspaper in Bumfuck Idaho (which accounts for you thousands companies--many just very small very local media)??? The point is that the MAJOR NEWS MEDIA was controlled by three companies--ABC, NBC, and CBS and you had your local paper (and perhaps you subscribed to a large city newspaper). The point is that your news was filtered through a very very very very small prism of influence. You were stuck with what the major news media wanted you to hear and if you were lucky, you had a local newspaper that actually had some conservatives working for it (unlikely).

I honestly cannot believe that you or anyone would argue that news sources today are not far more diverse and muhc more easily obtainable than in the 1960s. I have literally thousands of different and diverse viewpoints at my finger tips INCLUDING THIS SITE just a click away. People here are getting to read my viewpoint and BBW and DT3--they are not stuck being spoon fed their news from a small monopoly.



Yes-you were likely to get a "version" of the news--a "slant" of the news--you got what Cronkite wanted you to get, right, left, wrong or indifferent.



And thank God we have a sea of information rather than one stream of bullshit.



Seriously Tim--you are not thinking this through. I don't think you'd get one person (other than Minor) to agree with you that what we had in the 1960s did not constitute a "relative" monopoly on news--seriously that is must plain nonsense. Even if I were to agree that the news was more fair and balanced then (and I think it was), it nevetheless was a monopoly by the major networks. You one small local town newspaper did not fucking counter that and that's assuming that newspaper wasn't compeltely biased.



Tim you are simply regurgitating left wing bullshit because they want support to shut down oppossing viewpoints. But no way was it better in the 1960s than it is now.

At no point did I say that we had more sources of news in the 60's than we do today. I actually acknowledged that in my post. But we were talking about media monopolies and then you started in about the media monopolies of the 60's. Well let's just go back 25 years and see who controlled the media...

Now how can you call numerous corporations controlling media a monopoly? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that when these companies are all bought up and controlled by 3 corporations in the US that it's a monopoly?

left wing bullshit? You're right, the media is liberal and I want all conservative talk shut down. Hail to the fairness doctrine!!!

Do you ever stop and listen to yourself? I'm not standing up for liberal or conservative media and I'm not railing against either as well. I am talking about corporate controlled media. And if you of all people cannot admit that having 1 corporation in charge of presenting all points of view in a given area is bad, then you are being intellectually dishonest. I don't care if it's the left, the right or corporate giants, I don't want any one person controlling the media.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

At no point did I say that we had more sources of news in the 60's than we do today. I actually acknowledged that in my post. But we were talking about media monopolies and then you started in about the media monopolies of the 60's. Well let's just go back 25 years and see who controlled the media...

Now how can you call numerous corporations controlling media a monopoly? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that when these companies are all bought up and controlled by 3 corporations in the US that it's a monopoly?

left wing bullshit? You're right, the media is liberal and I want all conservative talk shut down. Hail to the fairness doctrine!!!

Do you ever stop and listen to yourself? I'm not standing up for liberal or conservative media and I'm not railing against either as well. I am talking about corporate controlled media. And if you of all people cannot admit that having 1 corporation in charge of presenting all points of view in a given area is bad, then you are being intellectually dishonest. I don't care if it's the left, the right or corporate giants, I don't want any one person controlling the media.

That I totally agree with:clap

 

[Tim]

That I totally agree with:clap

Some people just cannot get it...

Hell, If I can't listen to both sides of the argument, then I will never know the truth. I would have to rely on other people deciding what's right for me and trusting in their conclusions. No thank you.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Some people just cannot get it...

Hell, If I can't listen to both sides of the argument, then I will never know the truth. I would have to rely on other people deciding what's right for me and trusting in their conclusions. No thank you.

I guess the real question Timbo, is how do you sift the bullshit on the news on either end?

I mean IS there a really reliable source of public media anymore? Regardless of leanings

 

[Tim]

I guess the real question Timbo, is how do you sift the bullshit on the news on either end?

I mean IS there a really reliable source of public media anymore? Regardless of leanings

I really don't think there is... and I don't think there is a good way of fixing it.

I think a start would be to break up some of the stangle holds that the corporations have on the news media. Get the media into many diverse hands, let them battle it out in the market place and have the people decide where they want to go to get their news. But you can't give a broadcasting license for tv and radio to the same company that owns the local newspaper. It's not in the public's best interest to have one company controll all three. The public airways belong to the people, not the corporations.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I really don't think there is... and I don't think there is a good way of fixing it.

I think a start would be to break up some of the stangle holds that the corporations have on the news media. Get the media into many diverse hands, let them battle it out in the market place and have the people decide where they want to go to get their news. But you can't give a broadcasting license for tv and radio to the same company that owns the local newspaper. It's not in the public's best interest to have one company controll all three. The public airways belong to the people, not the corporations.

My thoughts exacarry.

Here, Clear Channel owns all of the radio stations practically, it's homogenized, sterile crap now. No personality.

All the "real" news and people I enjoyed listening to had to go to AM to have an opinion...

 

[Alien Allen]

That I totally agree with:clap

me too

nothing is good when there is too much control of anything. be it political or the media or whatever

we used to have laws that prevented this from happening to the media. when did that stop??