right-wing poster blaming it all on the "liberal media" & my response

http://p222.ezboard.com/fespguitarsmessageboardfrm12.showMessageRange?topicID=13272.topic&start=1&stop=20

"There is no such thing as a reporter anymore. All there are are political commentators. You may not have noticed if you live outside the US, but all they have are people that are somehow qualified to talk on the subject and tell the cameras what their news organization wants them to say. Most of the US news agencies are very liberal, oppose our president, Iraq, and anything "right-wing", or anything that teaches or supports a religious or moral ideology. As for the subliminal messaging, yes."

My response:

"Wow. Just, wow. So basically, when anything that's wrong or @#%$ up about any of your causes comes to light, you've given yourself a loophole.

A fundamentalist evangelical religious leader caught up in a fraud scandal? No way, it's the liberal media blowing it out of proportion.

A black conservative commentator's payment for writing propaganda pieces for a conservative administration exposed? It's just getting attention because liberals can't stand black conservatives.

The President saying weapons inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq, when they were actually there at the time of his speech? Liberals are twisting the news around.

But even though, at the end of the day, you've rationalized away all the bad things you may hear about your cause, by blaming it on a political minority in the US.

However, you still have a religious leader participating in fraud, a black conservative commentator writing propaganda, and a President who lied.




Is there anything the media can report on that's critical of the President, of the war in Iraq, or of religious groups that you'd believe?"





sorry, just had to post this here, to calm me down. I get a little too worked up over this crap.

...it is exhausting to argue with these creeps. I did it for a few years, and I nearly lost my mind.

I applaud you for getting in the ring with this wingnut.

You response was great. Very creative. You pointed out recent Republican "crimes" and highlighted the usual, right-wing rationalizations and blaming. You put it all together very nicely.

Good for you, for speaking out.

Did he have anything to say in reply or did he just run off like a coward when presented with a rational arguement?

Of course, our media barely even manages to report anything critical of the regime because it is in fact controlled by the RW, but I guess there's another time and place to argue that.

"Ummmm....no that's not what he says, He said the media is liberal. which it is according to Evan Thomas, editor of newsweek, 70% of reporters describe there political views as liberal."

And I replied:

"The loophole is saying the media is liberal.

And I've seen those polls, and they weren't strictly "liberal" or "conservative," it was who they voted for in the 2000 election; a number of them said Al Gore, who, any liberal would tell you, isn't really liberal at all.

Alot of people talk as though the Clinton/Gore administration was practically socialist, but DOMA, NAFTA, and the large amounts of deregulation they either initiated or signed off on really cast them as centrist with a pro-business economic policy."

while many reporters are liberal, editors and producers are NOT

it's the "management" of the media that decides what goes on the news or in the paper and those folks are (by a large margin) repubs

snip... The Democratic and unaffiliated tilt witnessed among the rank and file of newsrooms is not as prevalent when examining the political affiliation of publishers and top-level management. While no reporters at the local papers in Haywood, Jackson, Macon and Swain are registered as Republicans, that is not the case when it comes to their supervisors, who arguably have the final say in editorial news decisions.

The Smoky Mountain News’ analysis shows that 25 percent of the upper level management personnel at local papers are Republicans. Nationally, the corporate media owners, publishers and presidents are more likely to be Republicans, according to Engel. This trend undercuts claims of a “so-called” liberal media bias, she said.

Engel attributes the difference in political affiliations among reporters and management to their incomes — reporters are typically in the same pay scale as public school teachers, while editors and publishers are on par with corporate businessmen.

One question that is unclear is whether reporting jobs attract liberals or whether they become liberals once they get there. It’s some of both, according to those in the industry.

“If the media is already liberal and you’re hired there and you aren’t particularly committed to one affiliation, you quickly fall into place,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, an Arlington, Va., based organization that monitors the media for liberal bias.

But reporters are also molded by what they witness on the job. They frequently report on the hard-knocks of life — a single-mother laid off from a plant without healthcare, a family of four eating at a soup kitchen after the breadwinner is kicked off unemployment, school systems unable to afford computers.

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/11_04/11_03_04/fr_outing_media.html

been so sick about the way things are now my family thinks I am ripe for a stroke. All we can do is speak out every chance we get.

Read

Tearing Down the Press

(And this letter in response to the above article)

"What this all boils down to -- and I have yet to see it put quite this way anywhere in the media -- is that truth itself has what some would call a "liberal bias." Plain facts, reported clearly and without spin (as the BBC typically does in its international reportage), tend to present a liberal point of view without the writers or presenters even trying.

This is the root cause of the right's contempt for journalism. They cannot compete on the basis of the bare facts. This was what Suskind was referring to in his N.Y. Times article about the White House creating "its own reality." When arguing the facts as they exist -- which many liberals and moderates do -- conservatives almost always respond with ideologically driven answers, rather than facts or data that will hold up under independent analysis.

But in my opinion it isn't "liberal bias" that's the problem with the American media, but rather commercialism and emotionalism. News outlets must compete for market share in order to win lucrative advertising dollars. To fill all those hours in a 24-hour programming schedule, media outlets (on television, at least) opt to produce "spin segments" and "analysis roundtables" wherein voices from all sides are given airtime during which they do little more than further distort or confuse public perception. The news broadcaster, who in earlier times was entrusted with the solemn obligation to tell the truth, is now ceding his or her responsibility to pundits and radical talking heads from both sides of any argument, who proceed to scream at one another for 20 minutes. It is emotional controversy as entertainment. But when rogue outlets like Fox are willing to flaunt tradition and the truth to do it -- and in effect win market share -- what's a CNN or MSNBC to do but more of the same? -- Michael Borum"

It usually stops them right in their tracks. It happened recently with some Repug associates...the Gannon/GuckertGate thing... I mentioned it and asked if people had heard about it and got the usual response of "it's the liberal media" or "so you don't like gays, now" crap.

I just said that if this was Clinton who had a gay prostitute in the White House press room under dubious circumstances who got caught shilling and throwing softball questions to Clinton and his staff, this would be the BIGGEST story EVER...it would make MonicaGate look like a mild diversion. If someone like Guckert had been in the Clinton White House and HAD leads on SECRET CIA documents, you can bet that there would be stories about this plastered all over the MSM.

Those that are too knuckleheaded to see the obvious hypocrisy are not worth commenting on...but those Repugs that claim to have a brain certainly must take notice that the media is indeed NOT liberal.

Gannon/GuckertGate is just one case study in thousands of examples.

...don't say that Bush** lied - everyone knows that all politicians have to lie to one degree or another - say that Bush** "betrayed the trust of the American people." Much more damning.

NGU.