It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jsobecky
curme, do you think O'Reilly's the only one that uses a teleprompter??
Really? Who pulled the strings before 2000?
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]
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.