DU and FR...who's on first?

I read this FreeRepublic thread below (posted on another DU discussion), and was struck at how similar it reads to our complaints here at DU, albeit from the other side.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519600/posts

**************************************************
Let's take a look and do some basic comparisons...
**************************************************

• "Stop the knee jerk reaction every time the liberal media write an article telling us that President Bush and the GOP are finished."
  
  An identical sentiment on DU would be:
  
  
• "Stop the knee jerk reaction every time the MSM write an article telling us that President Bush and the GOP are great."
  
  **************************************************
  Here's another one:
  **************************************************
  
  
• "Ask the White House to fight back the lies and distortions of liberal and their media whores."
  
  Would translate to:
  
  
• "Ask your Congress critter to fight back the lies and distortions of the WH and the MSM."
  
  
  
  My point here, specifically, is that both DU and FR see the media as being in the hands of the other. What this says to me is that the MSM a.k.a the 'liberal media' are actually in the hands of neither.
  
  The truth, I fear, is that we are in THEIR hands, which is a chilling thought.
  
  
  Just wanted to share that.
  
  
  Incidentally, I don't know how anyone can call broadcast news 'liberal'. :eyes:
  
  
  
  Original DU thread:
  
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5322382
  
  

but they have used the Liberal Media cannard since 1973, and it has been so effective that no evidence will ever convince them they are wrong... just a note

been apparent who the real masters were, IMO.

That is, they pretend, but behind the soft, fluffy 'liberal' front is just another ruthless band of executives.

Case in point: MTV, one of many.

there is nothing MAINSTREAM about our piece of shit CORPORATE MEDIA

as much as I wish they weren't.

proved it.

Faux proves it.

CNN proves it.

MSRNC proves it.

PBS---nearly proved it, but scumbag repuke CEO quit.

that the CMC is in the hands of the other.

I agree with you that it's all propaganda. I'm just saying that the propaganda is so effective that it's convinced both sides that it's simultaneously for and against both sides. :crazy:

I disagree.

They will say anything, do anything, support or oppose anything, in order to sell more SUVs, toothbrushes, or diet pills.

The "liberal" or "Rightwing" msm is nonsense. They put on whatever sells.

A line from a late, great tv show, Wiseguy.

You're absolutely right.

You actually heard a similar response from Fitz when a reporter asked him about his political bias. If I remember right, he said "For which party?"

Then there's responses I've heard many times from reporters, and TV commentators, where they say, "When I get reprimanded by both parties for being slanted, I know I must be doing something right!"

It doesn't apply to all in the MSM, but I do believe it applies to some!

is RW corporate GOP controlled and it shows in the news in broadcast and print.

Other countries do not fear saying to Gov official, "you have not answered my question and the answer you gave is called a lie by many people"

Only in the US does MSM "challenge" but only reprinting - on occasion - a Dem saying The GOP Gov fellow is a "liar", and in no other way.

Indeed BBC news is now considered biased and left wing by US MSM.

posted.

I just wonder why our society continues to tolerate it when it's so obviously NOT telling the truth.

every time the media speaks the truth and doesn't defend Ass Hat they believe it's liberal.

So the truth is Liberal! I don't know how they can continue to ignore the truth when its slapping their asses all over the country.


Fox.. spin and lies.. is conservative.

when i finally get time to put forward my Big Treatise on Politics it will be a big deal.

I did a survey on my blog a while ago stating the following:


The second half of the survey was to be the same questions but to start with "The other side thinks our side..."

There is something there. It's not everything... but it's something to start with in trying to get past the rhetorical deadlock we currently are in.

and I agree that it's the hinge pin that could resolve the deadlock.

Indeed that is the TRUTH of the Big Lie's ability to sway

The big lie is spoken, and because we all want to be fair we say the truth must be somewhere in between.

Meanwhile the big lie remains the big lie.

The ability to use the same vocabulary does indeed lessen the impact of the words and make it seem the TRUTH must be in some middle ground.

The "rhetorical deadlock" is broken not by trying to find a "middle", but rather demanding the media start to think that the TRUTH is an important part of any broadcast or writing. And indeed to run from the truth, either by spin or by just story selection to do on a given day, is not the proper response to someone yelling "bias".

A bully will push you around using whatever words that work. It is time for the media to put its brain cells together and bless a view as truth, and note the other view is wrong, but to be fair, if fairness requires it, to note that if "these unlikely events occurred" perhaps the rejected view might become correct.

Today the media is a tool of the right due to the media's predictable response to being called biased. This has got to change. It is not the job of the folks on the correct side of an issue to tone down the rhetoric just so we feel better about our quality of conversation, because this becomes tear down the rhetoric of the left, not tone down, as the RW runs over the TRUTH. Tone down implies truth on both sides - and until there really is a better likelihood that this is the case - until the RW stops going for extreme RW trophies like only ins co health care, drilling in ANWR, no taxes on the main part of a rich person's income (investments and dividends), killing the social safety net, destroying the power of workers to resist management exploitation via unions and court protected rights, there can be no reason for the left to back off because of a " rhetorical deadlock " :-)

I'm not saying the truth is somewhere in the middle AT ALL.
The truth may be completely on our side.

But I'm talking about breaking the deadlock in how we TALK about it. The fact is, even if the msm IS right-wing, SAYING it's right-wing is not a place to start. It's not even a place to hinge a sub-argument. Because it's one of those rhetorical dead ends.

You may know for sure that the banana in your ear keeps the alligators away, but you can't prove it by saying "Well, there are no alligators around!"

You say "The fact is, even if the msm IS right-wing, SAYING it's right-wing is not a place to start. It's not even a place to hinge a sub-argument. Because it's one of those rhetorical dead ends." but if the left stop saying the media is RW, which it is, we will have the situation we had up to 2004 where the majority of the voters hear only the RW saying the media is biased in favor of the left - and then the folks believe the BIG LIE.

Is there a workable way to change the rhetoric beyond the left unilaterally disarming and allowing the RW to spread the big lies and thereby sell those lies to the voter?

:-)

Remember, it IS a BIG lie. Nobody's going to be converted to the New Way of Talking overnight. The left won't stop saying the media is RW all at once, now will they? Consider my project as developing plans for a "phase-out" of the war of words. (And it is still developing. I have nothing concrete yet, just some ideas.)



Precisely.

I think that the starting point is to have SOME people... more reasonable people... on each side agree to those points. It won't reach Joe Sixpack and Henrietta Hippie immediately. We need to have patience. But if we can START with a few agreements then I think that we can in fact change the rhetoric. It just won't be instantaneous.

Liberals see the media as the corporate entities that they are.

Conservatives see the media as the liberal tools that the corporate media tells them that they are.

appointed or elected. A liberal media would have exposed his lies and told the true stories about his TANG service, his drug and alcohol abuse, his business failings, etc. He wouldn't have even been allowed to stand as a Presidential nominee if we had a liberal media.

That statement is true, but the facts also point to only DU being correct in our assessment. One simply need look at the utter lack of debate about going to war. Virtually no discussion of all of the info undermining the case for war. When did you hear about the CIA agent saying that if saddamn was trying to use those particular aluminum tubes to process uranium, then "I say we give them to him"? I read that in foreign media, not here. And do not get me started on the campaign, tearing at Kerry, all while covering for the chimp. Did you see the chimp, only 2 weeks before election day, say that he had no problem with gay marriage? I saw it...ONCE. But Kerry, and his supposed flip-flops? All over the news, some justified, most not. It has only become nice to watch the news media here again, in the last few weeks, now that more people can see that the emperor not only has no clothes, but the POS never had any on in the first place.

Your post fails miserably to illuminate the Freeper mind set accurately and completely. I am quite sure that many of the freeper quotes you used as examples went on to say that the US should torture, kill and destroy any and all dissenters, funny looking people, Democrats, dark skinned people, the poor, the French and God knows who else. Just because an idiot sees this issue the same way you do but from the opposite side doesn't mean one is incorrect in claiming that vast swaths of corporate media are controlled by and for the benefit of the extreme right wing and BushCo.

I was just pointing out an observation, but thanks.

After rereading my post I apologize for the strident tone. :)

:hi:

decries the "conservative media", actually on record as saying "There really isn't a 'conservative media' - but it sure rallies the troops."? (I forget the exact quote, but one of them did!)

I believe that our counterpart does . . .

not be a conservative media, but if there was how would you tell the difference from the media we have.

is neither left or right.It "cares" only for attracting advertising dollars.In a free market society it must remain marketable.The fact remains that both sides have their own media outlets(in droves)specially with so many now perusing internet news sources.The mainstream media(excluding Fox)news,will always err on the side of moderation.Where both sides converge is demonizing mainstream media as either "corporate fascists" or "communist rags"when it is actually too bland to be either.The fact that both can demonize the NYT and CNN is not proof that one side is right or wrong.It is frustration that media will not take a stand that either "approves"of.Mainstream media would rather be seen as impartial by the vast middle than right or wrong by the extremes.

In other countries it is a search for truth, or at least exposure of different views but WITH analysis and compare and contrast.

In the US is an avoidance of actually doing something that might make someone yell bias.

In effect it is yielding control of our media to the RW via responding to their cries of bias.

For the corp's controlling the US media - media control is worth more than ad dollars - as the tax cuts under Bush equate to about 20 years profits of the media division.

you choose to "buy"your news.Hence the popularity of CNN and NYT.They are media that is considered "objective" is this country.I agree that the RW has done much to intimidate journalism in this country and it should be pointed out.On the other hand,labeling the mainstream media right wing whores is an attempt to do the very same.News should be objective.You have a choice to show your objection to perceived bias by not buying the product.I would no more trust the left wing version of Fox than the right wing,there is a disturbing amount of noise being made by political ideologues to make the media beholden to one side or the other.Choose your media sources as you see fit,and support it with your dollar and let others do the same,that's how a free press works.

choice by voting with your purchase of media really work?

It would seem the answer is yes only if you vote for one of the start-ups.

But then the start-ups, like the free paper METRO, get some notice and are purchased by one of the 6 CEO's (in this case Metro was purchased by the Boston Globe which a sub of .....etc....)

Meanwhile the politics of the stock controller of the corporations, who treats media as a hobby that need not make money in huge amounts, is spinning RW and all that would be promoted, or these days just kept their job, are putting on a RW face in spin and in story selection.

Your faith in a "free press" working is nice, but I am afraid we are into the rich controlling of the US media, a media that needs a "fairness doctrine" to keep it honest.

I'm all for limits on how much media one corporation can own.The rich have always owned the media ,in any country .It's still silly to make the argument that major media giants like CNN or NYT are swarming with right wing conspirators and it takes away from making the same argument against FOX which has a real agenda.One need only look at the media from as far back as the 1950's to see that journalism has come a long way in this country in reporting news objectively instead of cheerleading for the government,it's no accident that the tables have turned on Bush and his war.Would you deny that this has happened because of the information people are gleaning from the mainstream media?

tied to ownership and removal of fairness doctrine.

Why do you pretend it is otherwise?

The only push back is the internet - and it took 5 years to reverse the honest straight shooter unchanging conviction to help the average guy image that major media sold.

If this is the mainstream media showing it's ability to be a truth teller, they failed.

We need/must have the fairness doctrine to control the rich and their control of the media (granted rich control of media has always been with us - but democratic progress occurs when they are controlled).

with me,is not proof that I'm "pretending"anything.There has been an explosion of media and a greater willingness to point out political agendas behind government actions in this country since the 50s and it did not come to a screeching standstill in the 70s.What affect do you think a fairness doctrine would have on the NYT or CNN?In what way do you imagine that their standards for journalism would change?

possible now.

Likewise network and cable media producers now feel free to earphone in censorship and indeed feel they are graded on such censorship.

You do not think this would change - or at least the parameters of what was "allowed" - under a fairness doctrine?

Indeed "pointing out political agendas behind" government actions or Dem party statements is a GOP censorship technique whereby the discussion moves from the effects, good and bad, of the item, to the motivation behind proposing the item.

Indeed the "pointing out political agendas" is one of the most effective GOP techniques for changing the subject - and the fact that it is referred to as a "super" good (it has always been a good thing to do) by today's media is yet another example of RW media control.

"Well, both sides do it so its a wash."

with its corollary:

"Oh, we get complaints from both sides so I guess we're perfectly balanced."

When Bush had over 50% ratings, the media was all about how wonderful and great he was. Now that his ratings have plummeted the media is all about how corrupt this administration is. (Not counting, of course, the individuals on both sides who will always be loyal to one side or the other). They have no morals or values. They don't believe in anything except $$$$. Where ever there is money to be made, that is the side the media will take.

It is not about ad sales, except we do not piss off our advertisers.

It is not about paid subscriptions - it is media exposure of RW ideas.