The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

online.wsj.com

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

View Full Image

David Gothard
Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least

(visit the link for the full news article)

Although this is something we have all figured out, there is a site named that the media goes to collaborate on what we are allowed to see. Wouldn't it be nice if reporters just reported the news and allowed us to make up our own minds about any given subject. Is this a surprise to anyone?

Please read the article to see the whole story.



online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by network dude


So... do you honestly believe that there is no right wing bias in any of the media outlets/news channels???

This thread should be about the overall bias in the media... not just left wing bias because you do get it on both sides...

Sadly the news channels are often a joke that are more interested in stiring up emotions and sensationalising stories than reporting the "truth"
Kind of like a current affairs version Jerry Springer

If you think it is only left wing then that could show that you "may" have some bias of your own...

Peace


[edit on 22-7-2010 by Muckster]

The point of this was not to say that there is no right wing bias in some media outlets. Why the immediate "Oh my god?!?!??!!?!1?! Someone is saying there is a left wing bias we have to immediately attack the right!11!!1!"

Just re-read... I see you said there is a bias both ways. I will remind you that WSJ is generally right wing, which would be the reason for the left wing bias article.

edit: Added second section

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Y2KJMan]

Bias sells.

It is the 'sensational' crowning 'cherry-on-top' of those among the tens of thousands waving their flag yelling "Look at me first."

If we reflect on our own reactions when confronted with a list of new threads on ATS, say, after an overnight absence or some such scenario, and among them are cries of overt racism, institutionalized bias, are those not the one's many review first?

Racism is a disingenuous piece of emotional bait. Even reports of so-called news that 'prove' NO racism are disingenuous, because they perpetuate the notion that ignorance is a rule rather than an an exception. I see many instances here on our community which exemplify the perception that racism is everywhere and it's the scourge of civilization.

Mind you, there are rarely (if ever) focused on the inherent causes, and irrationality of it. Just the yellow bonfire pronouncing it's existence as if it renders and given situation as lost to ignorance.

There is no doubt that there is some conspiracy here, but in my book it is one overarching conspiracy to create and use emotional hooks to elevate grief and suspicion, to amplify caricatures of behavior for the 'theater' of politics.

Inevitably, bias exists wherever their is judgment - it is part of the mix. The true importance of it is served when it is recognized as such. Instead it is used by the ideological as the foundation of a straw-man.

I always wondered, were a person of an oppressed class of people, hanging by one hand over the edge of a cliff, and a known hateful bigoted repugnant person were to offer assistance.... would they refuse the help?

reply to post by network dude


Agreed that it's really not about the type of bias but that there is bias and that it's not going away anytime soon.

"Wouldn't it be nice if reporters just reported the news and allowed us to make up our own minds about any given subject?"

Yes! It would be lovely to go back to that grand old tradition. What are the odds of that happening though? Slim. Almost two generations (more?) have gone by now where this has been missing in journalism...and almost one where journalism has been AWOL altogether.

The way the media is funded , the way their "success" is measured, the sheer volume of information "out there," the numerous choices people have, and the way the media competes are simply not conducive to such silly things as fact checking, ethics, and objectivity, which are not only not encouraged but not wanted.

To even hope to regain even a semblance of objectivity and truth, we would need to teach an entire readership to either demand such or do it themselves. What are the odds of either of those two things happening? Slim.

for those who are worried about the right wing slanted news:

yes, it happens on both sides. I got this story from Drudge which is obviously on the right and I check out Fox News as well. I lean to the right. But I can see the blaring bias that Fox and Drudge show just as I see the same on CNN and MSNBC. I just think it's interesting that there is a sliver of proof to the conspiracy. I could care less about liberal vs. conservative. But anyone who watches the news will have no choice but to endure some bias. That of course being the whole point here.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by network dude

 

Agreed that it's really not about the type of bias but that there is bias and that it's not going away anytime soon.

"Wouldn't it be nice if reporters just reported the news and allowed us to make up our own minds about any given subject?"

Yes! It would be lovely to go back to that grand old tradition. What are the odds of that happening though? Slim. Almost two generations (more?) have gone by now where this has been missing in journalism...and almost one where journalism has been AWOL altogether.

The way the media is funded , the way their "success" is measured, the sheer volume of information "out there," the numerous choices people have, and the way the media competes are simply not conducive to such silly things as fact checking, ethics, and objectivity, which are not only not encouraged but not wanted.

To even hope to regain even a semblance of objectivity and truth, we would need to teach an entire readership to either demand such or do it themselves. What are the odds of either of those two things happening? Slim.

Pretty much on the nosie.
People who dont appreciate truth have no requirement or need for the truth and tend to seek out truth-free fellow travellers in life.
Liberal philosophy doesnt work in real life, anywhere on the planet, as promised. Liberalism isnt self supporting or productive because it is about dependency so where it gets its financial and moral support is really something of a puzzle officially.
Conservatism works and therefore is self supporting and as such needs no conspiracy to maintain it, because all of nature is conservative, and if successfully applied is how things grow on this planet

While I agree that sensationalism sells and all media adopts one political position or another, I think it is our responsibility to seek media outlets with more balanced views. They exist and we may even have to pay for some, but I believe most of us have an ability to see hype and filter out the nonsense.

When I say most of us, I am referring to the kinds of people who find there way to websites like ATS for alternate opinions. That isn't to say we are duped from time to time.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by network dude

 

This thread should be about the overall bias in the media... not just left wing bias because you do get it on both sides...

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Muckster]

No, this thread should be about what the article in the OP states - that after years of SCM (State Controlled Media) and liberal ATS members denials, the "smoking gun" proving the liberal media bias has been found and published.

The rather pitiful, "well, the other guys did it too" argument does not apply here because obama ran on "change" and was elected to make those changes. Quite clearly obama has failed to carry through on most if not all of his campaign promises - choosing to always blame Bush instead.

The liberal SCM was instrumental in getting obama elected. Now that the wheels are coming off for his administration (see my signature), the SCM needs to man up and admit their complicity in this disaster to the American people instead of scurrying for cover like the roaches they seem to be.



[edit on 7/22/2010 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


SInce it can abe shown that liberalaism is based on a lie about how life and nature work, the news is that a vast predominance of media is predicated on supporting a nonfunctional philosophy. That's where opinion transforms into bias, perpetuation and support of what you know is false at the expense of the truth. Conservatism works every time its actually tried, so there is no conservative bias in promoting what is successful in nature.

reply to post by centurion1211

The liberal SCM was instrumental in getting obama elected. Now that the wheels are coming off for his administration (see my signature), the SCM needs to man up and admit their complicity in this disaster to the American people instead of scurrying for cover like the roaches they seem to be.

Just as it could be argued that the corporate controlled media were instrumental in getting Bush elected... and where did that get you (an administration that the wheels also eventually came off of, just like they do on all administrations after the fan fair has finished)


My point is that it is just as silly as saying "Some white people are racist" and then going on to address all the problems regarding white racists...

Some Black people can be racist too! So would it not make more sense to address the overall issue of racism rather than focussing on one group which will inevitably isolate people and make some feel victimised...

That is one of my biggest gripes with the human race... this constant need to pick a side and approach everything from that angle...


There is bias in the media... full stop!!

Peace

SLOPPY SLOPPY SLOPPY THINKING.
By no measure is rational to suggest the mainstream media supported bush. Against WHO? Was there a better candidate that the party apparatus would support? All were demonaized. The party apparatus did chose, but parties are corrupt by design and intent and function for their own perpetuation,
No there was nothing remotely supportive of any repub candidate when compared to lies and lack of investigation or discussion of issues or history of any dem candidate,


As for any alleged 'large post' the only post copied was the post immediately above because my response is meaningless without knowing that was what I was replying to.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mordant1]

reply to post by Muckster


And my point is that YOU are trying to derail this thread from what was stated in the OP's article and make it about something else.

A clear T&C violation.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by centurion1211

 

The liberal SCM was instrumental in getting obama elected. Now that the wheels are coming off for his administration (see my signature), the SCM needs to man up and admit their complicity in this disaster to the American people instead of scurrying for cover like the roaches they seem to be.

Just as it could be argued that the corporate controlled media were instrumental in getting Bush elected... and where did that get you (an administration that the wheels also eventually came off of, just like they do on all administrations after the fan fair has finished)

The MSM never supported Bush.

Where did you get that from?

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by network dude

 

So... do you honestly believe that there is no right wing bias in any of the media outlets/news channels???

This thread should be about the overall bias in the media... not just left wing bias because you do get it on both sides...

Sadly the news channels are often a joke that are more interested in stiring up emotions and sensationalising stories than reporting the "truth"
Kind of like a current affairs version Jerry Springer

If you think it is only left wing then that could show that you "may" have some bias of your own...

Peace


[edit on 22-7-2010 by Muckster]

It's -mostly- "left wing" bias. Outside of Fox News...what right wing outlet is there? You're right about one thing though, the media knows how to stir up emotion.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Muckster

 

And my point is that YOU are trying to derail this thread from what was stated in the OP's article and make it about something else.

A clear T&C violation.

I am not attempting to derail... i am attempting to discuss... just because my opinions differ from yours... What would ATS be like if the only people who ever responded to a thread was those who agree with the OP???

Do you just want pages of "right on brother" and "hell yeah" type replies???

And besides... i do agree that there is left wing bias in the media, i was merely trying to add balance to the argument and give my opinion!!


If you believe this to be a clear T&C violation then report me to mods... they will take appropriate action if they agree with you...
However, i doubt that they will because i honestly cannot see any T&C violation in my replies which are clear and valid!!

Peace

Too many journalism students these days are coming out of journalism school thinking idealistically, that they are going to change the world.

Some with right wing views, many with left wing views.

It would be refreshing if they just reported the news, instead of pushing an agenda. Both Fox New and MSNBC (among many others) are guilty of this.

Shut your agenda pushing pieholes, and report the news. I am intelligent enough to decipher the news on my own without your slant on it.

reply to post by Darkrunner


Wouldn't it be nice if there was a collaborative group effort of real journalists reporting real news? You could find things like good news about the military, or some dirt on a local politician before it gets white washed. Journalistic integrity. What a concept.

reply to post by LarryLove

Do you have any particular sites in mind? Ones that you find factual, well researched, and well presented in perspective? It is very hard to find true journalism, never mind true investigative journalism, but it does still exist in pockets.