toldailytopic: Why does the mainstream media lean so far to the left? What's the root

[aCultureWarrior]

Yeah, he likely means in the objectively measurable sense of the word and not in the self authenticating and subjectively vested sense. lain:

Does anyone know what was just said?

As to the subject at hand, I don't see that it matters given how few people trust the media to begin with. Left, right, Fox, MSNBC, they're all corporate shills anyway, whatever the rhetoric.

Trust has nothing to do with it counselor, either the prostitute mainstream media is biased and tells bold faced lies, or they don't.

But the lemmings of the left trust the media, those that know the truth don't.

Evidence is aplenty that they're biased (boy is it ever).

 

[Town Heretic]

Does anyone know what was just said?

They do if they're reasonably well educated.

Trust has nothing to do with it counselor, either the prostitute mainstream media is biased and tells bold faced lies, or they don't.

Trust has everything to do with how we process and respond to media. If some slick talking pointy head walks up to you with a smooth spiel about the joys of collectivism you're not going to fall for it, are you? Even if he or she is just oozing charisma. Well, there you go.

But the lemmings of the left trust the media, those that know the truth don't.

No more or less than the lemmings of the right trust their outlets, like Fox. Because all you're saying is that if the media slants left those who similarly slant left will tend to agree with the bias. Of course they will.

Evidence is aplenty that they're biased (boy is it ever).

I know. There's evidence for bias in either direction, depending on the specific outlet. And who believes any of them?

Only people who want to. lain:

 

[zoo22]

If it were really about profit, they would put folks like rush limbaugh and shaun hannity and other big name conservatives on the air more often and not in a negative harassing light.

No. Those folks are driven through controversy. Rush, Hannity thrive on negative light. It's a part of their bread and butter. What do you think has really been the best thing for Rush in the past year? The "negative harassing light" in his calling a woman speaking in front of a congressional committee a slut. Yes, his ratings immediately went down following, but that's just a part in a larger picture of him remaining a household word.

Better yet. let someone like rush take over cnn. It would immediately start bringing in a huge profit.

No it wouldn't. Or maybe it would and then it would quickly drop off the face of networkdom into failure. Rush's success is as a personality. And he's niche (granted a large niche). Elvis might have been a great entertainer, raking in immense profit, but he couldn't have headed a vast entertainment network.

As it stands now, left wing media outlets like the New York Times are struggling and are shrinking in readership. I could cite many other examples. Clearly, profits are not what is driving these media companies; ideology is.

The NYT is struggling because it's specifically a newspaper, and they haven't adapted well. "Readership" is a key word in your comment (on a few levels). Any newspaper, left or right or in-between, is struggling, and working to find a new model. The Washington Post is in exactly the same situation as NYT, but TWP is a conservative-leaning paper. Both papers certainly hold ideals of journalism. That they should. That's what they're built on. I, for one, hope that remains a part of what drives them.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The word is 'indoctrinated'.

amen

 

[voltaire]

No it wouldn't. Or maybe it would and then it would quickly drop off the face of networkdom into failure.

I would be willing to make a monetary bet against you on that point. Rush owning CNN would make it turn a huge profit and put it up there in the ratings with FOX news. The rest of the news programs would fade into obscurity with only diehard leftwingers like the horn and the barbarian and alateone to be there watching it.

 

[zoo22]

I would be willing to make a monetary bet against you on that point. Rush owning CNN would make it turn a huge profit and put it up there in the ratings with FOX news. The rest of the news programs would fade into obscurity with only diehard leftwingers like the horn and the barbarian and alateone to be there watching it.

Well, obviously, that "bet" is just an empty point. Though I'd imagine that if it were realistic in being such a simple huge profit-making opportunity that would conquer news as we know it, it'd be something not only that that folks who're in a position to make those decisions would be actively pursuing, but that we'd likely have heard a tweet or something about it.

Also, out of curiosity, do you think it'd be something good?

 

[Lighthouse]

Fox is far right when you consider the spread of mainstream media.

Compared to the rest of the news media? I'll give you that; as long as the spectrum of news media is your only parameter.

 

[Nick M]

The can't win a battle head on. It is a flanking manuver. It isn't just the press, it is the movies, education, entertainment, any place where they can spout off. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing kind of thing. And it isn't just bias any more. They are fully in the tank for liberal politicians.

 

[Delmar]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 5th, 2012 09:52 AM

toldailytopic: Why does the mainstream media lean so far to the left? What's the root cause?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Conservatives want to change the world by doing things. Liberals want to change the world by talking about it.

 

[Flipper]

If the mainstream media is leftist, how come Air America failed?

 

[Flipper]

Conservatives want to change the world by doing things. Liberals want to change the world by talking about it.

"Doing things" = cutting taxes and creating tax shelters for corporations and the super-rich, refusing to change laws on gay marriage and defunding local and federal government, except the military.

"talking about it" = pushing for human rights and equality, creating a more equitable health plan, restarting the search for Osama Bin Laden, and struggling to fix the gigantic mess left by two conservative terms.

Unless you're one of those TOLers that define republicans as liberals, in which case all conservatives do is talk about wanting to change the world, just like any hackysack-toting hippy.

 

[bybee]

"Doing things" = cutting taxes and creating tax shelters for corporations and the super-rich, refusing to change laws on gay marriage and defunding local and federal government, except the military.

"talking about it" = pushing for human rights and equality, creating a more equitable health plan, restarting the search for Osama Bin Laden, and struggling to fix the gigantic mess left by two conservative terms.

Unless you're one of those TOLers that define republicans as liberals, in which case all conservatives do is talk about wanting to change the world, just like any hackysack-toting hippy.

Perhaps there are conservatives too greedy for anyone's good. And perhaps there are liberals too generous with other people's money for anyone's good. There are also, conservatives who do a great deal of good with their resources, employing thousands of people for instance. And there are, no doubt, some, fiscally responsible liberals who genuinely wish to achieve some equitable way to help those who CANNOT help them selves and keep the public protected from harm.
We are now in the clutches of national politicians, many of whom have been educated by Communist/Socialist east coast elitist college professors. Their brains are filled with obsolete ideas of rob the rich to pay for the poor, along with the baby mammas and their papas, the lazy, the shiftless, the drug-addicted and so on.
American's are, by and large, some of the most generous people in the world. We jump in all over the globe when tragedy strikes.
But, jeepers kids! resources are finite.

 

[noguru]

Obviously you mean educated as in having a college degree, not educated as in having common sense.

And of course a person could not possibly have both, right?


I have seen people who have only one of these. I have seen people who have both. And I have seen people who have neither.

:rotfl:

Common sense is only common to common people. Anyone who is outside of that norm gets seen as not having common sense. And historically these people have been the innovators.

Education is only beneficial if the individual can apply it to real life.

 

[bybee]

And of course a person could not possibly have both, right?


I have seen people who have only one of these. I have seen people who have both. And I have seen people who have neither.

:rotfl:

Common sense is only common to common people. Anyone who is outside of that norm gets seen as not having common sense. And historically these people have been the innovators.

Education is only beneficial if the individual can apply it to real life.

And common sense is only useful when it is applied. Increasingly, laws are being written which fly in the face of reason as well as common sense, all in the interests of political correctness.
I am reminded of the fresh out of college social workers dictating to mothers how to raise their children, legislators tying the hands of teachers and police officers when dealing with dangerous or out of control students and citizens. As a nurse we were warned about restraining a patient, even when it was for the patient's safety or the safety of others (not to mention the assaults on nursing staff). We could be sued for false imprisonment.
We have Eric Holder ignoring the Black Panthers with billy-clubs outside a polling place but paying very close attention to the recall election in Wisconsin.
Then of course we have court cases being decided de facto by so called expert witnesses pontificating on both sides of an issue with entirely different conclusions.:doh:

 

[zoo22]

Conservatives want to change the world by doing things. Liberals want to change the world by talking about it.

Oh, come on. That's just silly, Delmar.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Conservatives want to change the world by doing things. Liberals want to change the world by talking about it.

If only liberals just talked about what they wanted to do, instead of legislating it, the US would be a much better place.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And of course a person could not possibly have both, right?

It happens. But college's have turned into indoctrination centers for the most part, so common sense isn't prevalent in higher academia circles any longer.

I have seen people who have only one of these. I have seen people who have both. And I have seen people who have neither.

Cool.

Common sense is only common to common people. Anyone who is outside of that norm gets seen as not having common sense. And historically these people have been the innovators.

Education is only beneficial if the individual can apply it to real life.

Innovators? What's so innovative about twisting the way one reports the news?

 

[noguru]

It happens. But college's have turned into indoctrination centers for the most part, so common sense isn't prevalent in higher academia circles any longer.

And you know this how?

Innovators? What's so innovative about twisting the way one reports the news?

I was bringing up a counter point regarding your criticism of those who might think outside the box of what is currently considered common sense. I was not talking about reporting news, I was talking about making history. Nikola Tessla is a prime example of my point, as well as the Wright brothers. They were not news reporters, they were inventors and innovators.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And you know this how?

Do you need proof?

I was bringing up a counter point regarding your criticism of those who might think outside the box of common sense. I was not talking about reporting news, I was talking about making history. Nikola Tessla is a prime example of my point, as well as the Wright brothers. They were not news reporters, they were inventors and innovators.

I think the Wright Brothers thread is down the block nog. We're talking about biased media reporting here. The last time I checked, journalists have to have college degrees, and liberal bias is prevalent in journalism school.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias

 

[Quincy]

Ugggh.

Centrist and Leftist out number the rightwing, so they have more money and can control more of the media. So you see more centrist and leftist slanted networks. It's not a complicated thing, for pete's sake.