It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the Media No Longer Controlled by the Left?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:56 PM
I think what you're looking at was unusually high numbers in the months preeceding the Presidential election, so yes he probably did get a bunch of new viewers around that time period that were lost, but that's understandable.

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
curme, do you think O'Reilly's the only one that uses a teleprompter??

It's not the teleprompter, it's the fact that he is reading exactly what is next to his head on the screen. Don't you find that a little weird? Why not just say it? Why do I need to see what you are reading?

Really? Who pulled the strings before 2000?

Oh, get get me wrong, I think every politician is crooked, Republican or Democrat, going all the way back to Washington! They all use their position to make illegal money, give their friends jobs, etc. It's the nature of the political process. I just think that this administration is is the worst in regard to graft and corruption since maybe President Grant. Clinton was corrupt? Sure. Influenced by corporations? You bet. But never in American history has an administration been so damaging, been so self-serving, and have such a blatant disregard for the people they are supposed to serve.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:34 AM
Fox news is much more entertaining than any other network, in my opinion. They cut from segment to segment quickly and their graphics are shiny and nice.

But don't forget, Fox News and Air America are COMPANIES. They exist to make money, not to serve the public. They have figured out that the best way to make money is to agree, placate, and almost patronize their core audiences. The most effective way is to make them believe and fear the dreaded "other"- a combination of all things feared.

For the lefties listening to Randi Roads/Ed Schultz/Al Franken you are meant to believe that there are book-burning, pro-life militia men preparing for the new Crusades.

For the righties listening to Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Ann Coulter you are meant to believe that there are hordes of pot-smoking tree-huggers preparing to recruit your children into the homosexual liberal elite.

I am prepared to tell both sides to jam these media outlets into their rectal cavities. DO NO GET NEWS FROM "INFOTAINMENT" SHOWS.

Most Americans are not on either extreme, but are forced to choose "left" or "right". Unfortunately, this illusion of a real choice meant to misdirect us or placate us into non-action seems to be working very well.

In closing, listen to Air America and watch Fox News. Take the average.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yes, your right, Zion.
It would seem that the American people are getting tired of the 'cycle of hate and blame' message coming out from the mouths of left-wing media outlets.

Certainly worthy of having a thumbs down on, isn't it?
[edit on 27-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Dude, would you give Foxnews a thumbs up, for being so greatly fair and balanced?!
as if the right-wing media is so great...

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 08:07 PM
Last year I wrote my AP US Government term paper on the role of media bias during elections and really, there is no substantiated research to prove a bias towards either side, left or right. There's no such thing as a "liberal media" just like there's no such thing as a "conspiracy of right wing nutjobs." I'll quote from my paper, as I'm a bit tired and probably explained it better there anyway.

While media undoubtedly has an effect on elections, this effect exists not because of domination by a single ideology. To state so simply that there is a bias in either direction would not be fair, as the media is “an aggregation of people and organizations that are subject to complicated pressures and prejudices.”(“Dealing with bias in the press”, Civilization, Feb/Mar 97, p24) The media’s market share is actually very much divided among several news organizations with opposing political viewpoints. Thus it is a heavily polarized business which is focused on running a profit, a goal which is achieved easiest by maintaining a strong base audience, something that often precedes providing objective news coverage.

This method of reporting news is clearly problematic – “preaching to the choir” seems to break all kinds of journalistic principles, as well as genuinely confuse the voters. In the 2004 election, tensions were incredibly high and competition for ratings was incredibly fierce. Both sides used the opportunity to hyperbolize and tell the story they thought would grab the greatest amount of viewers. The result was an incredibly confusing outpouring of information – the same story was never told the same way.
“If you watch Fox or read the New York Post…you might be led to understand that the insurgency in Iraq is comparable to post-Second World War reconstruction troubles in Europe. You also might learn that Kerry's testimony before the U.S. Senate after his return from Vietnam -- in which he discussed "atrocities" -- was tantamount to treason. Most importantly, you might conclude that the Bush administration's pre-emptive doctrine (shoot first, democracy later) is a sign of strength, while other models of foreign policy are irrelevant and weak-minded.
But if you watch or read the more liberal New York Times, for instance, you might be led to believe that the insurgency in Iraq is escalating into a full-blown civil war, one over which the U.S. is rapidly losing control. You might decide that Kerry's testimony before the Senate was nothing short of heroic -- a painful confession meant to alter the course of the government's Vietnam policy. You also might believe that Bush's pre-emptive doctrine runs counter to all the lessons learned since the end of the Second World War, and that far from making the world more secure, the administration is tipping the balance in favour of terrorism.” (Durbin, Jonathan “Who’s Winning the News Wars?” Maclean’s, 10/4/2004, p28)

While Durbin certainly exaggerates here, the point is absolutely valid – there is no way for a voter to interpret the truth if the facts are presented in such a twisted manner. Then again, the media has become so focused on ratings and money, that it will often overlook the objectivity of their news reporting in order to please their fan base. The people in charge of the programming know that “many of the millions who watch "Fox News" at night… are not as interested in information as they are in hearing their opinions affirmed; likewise many of those who swear by what they read in The Nation.” In other words, the media will give people what they want to hear, which is not necessarily what they need to hear.

I think it's useless to argue about which side "dominates" the media. There's no such thing as "dominating" the media in this day - there are SO many different news sources (cable TV, network news, blogs, websites, forums, etc) that people can pick and choose where they get their information from. A "media bias" can't be in effect if each side of the media caters to it's base audience who already shares the viewpoint of said news source.

I think it's a lot more important to consider how the polarized media presents the news and how it influences the political and social atmosphere of the country. I understand that there's no such thing as objective reporting, but when you spin one story is so many different ways that it seems like six or seven different stories, it's absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, educated people will look at multiple sources of varying biases to try to determine what is the truth, and yes, many, if not most of the people here on ATS do so, but can the same thing be said of the majority of the 300 million people in the US? Is it fair to expect an average person with a full-time job and a family and loads of other responsibilities to keep up with 3 or 4 news sources just to get the truth, or as close to the truth as possible?

It is hard to even try to come up with a solution for this - after years of the media being a profitable, rather than an educational, medium, can it really be expected to change?

Regardless, I think arguing about an overwhelming bias in the media is a waste of time and deflects attention off of the effect of a polarized media, which is a confusing and unfair dissemination of news to the public.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in