Liberal Biased Networks: The Guilty

Define "topic liberal".

 

Focus on topic, liberals

 

Well come on now whats positive about Bush? hardley anything, you can allways watch Fox (the most watched news channel in america) to keep you happy

 

Okay.

For starters, all three of those networks hardly ever ran anything postive about Clinton.

Also, there isn't anything postive to report about Bush - everything he's done has sucked and been bad for the country, and he's been big time liar and has proven he's only out to fatten the his wallet and the wallets of his financial backers.

Next, you want right wing propaganda - Fox news will fit that bill for you.

Next, talk radio is dominated by conservatives.

Next, many radio and TV stations are owned and controlled by conservative interests, such as Clear Channel (who banned the Dixie Chicks for criticising Bush).

Next, most major newspaper edtiors have endorsed Republican candidates. This was true to through the Clinton years.

Next, most media outlets follow the interests of their corporate advertisers, which favor Reeps over dems.

Next, most media outlets are owned by major conservative interests.

Finally, why do you keep an Avatar of a man who condones child molestation?

 

Look you. Either learn to play along, or get out.

 

ABC, NBC, and CBS are NOT liberals. So if it's a bias, it's rightwing bias, or corporation bias.

 

Uh, as much as I do not like ITN, the major networks do have a leftward slant. Doesn't necessarily mean Bush doesn't deserve all the negative news he's been getting. In fact, I can't for the life of me understand why this hasn't happened sooner.

Anyway back on topic :

"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world. Twould be a pity to damage yours."



What is something Phil Mickelson will never hear in his lifetime

 

Mahwige.

Mahwige is what bwings us twogether twoday

That Bwessed awangement

That Dweam within...a dweam

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

 

All hail me.

 

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

 

Every ship except your four fastest, that is. . .

 

you don't think that a president leading a country (and several others) into a messy unnecessary phony war with no end in sight, ranks slighly higher on the "bad news" scale than getting a blow job from an intern?

 

I smell a coup.

 

your friendly neighborhood FYP

 

And the answer is because he's never had better head since.

 

Alright, the dude wants to talk about liberal bias in media and all that so... let's break this down and look at it from a different angle.

The first question that I'm think of is "what incentive do the networks have to contain a liberal bias?".

They are owned by billionaires and huge parents corporations -- many of which benefit from Bush's policies. The obvious example is war and NBC's parent company GE. GE is a huge government contractor for war materials and stands to gain quite a bit by a war. In terms of Bush's economic policies I would think just about every billionaire would be all about paying less taxes while accepting greater amounts of corporate welfare then ever before. So clearly it would seem there is little economic gain for a news group to broadcast from a heavily liberal perspective.

The other thing is that some conservatives will generally insist (usually as naseum) that they represent the majority viewpoint in the United States (unless of course they are insisting the most persecuted people since the jews). Major networks do market research and such... all five of them or whatever are not going to tailor their programs to cater to a minority viewpoint -- that's not how you increase viewership.


---

really, what I see a lot in these criticisms is people being upset when they hear a viewpoint that contradicts or even challenges their own viewpoint. If you wanna hear only one viewpoint you can either plug your ears when something else comes up or consider re-locating to a country in which alternative viewpoints are supressed. I head Russia is nice and oppressive this time of year.

simply: I can't take people seriously when people accuse the incredibly wealthy owners of media of having an extreme liberal slant. They're slanted towards making tons of money which usually doesn't involve things like income-redistribution, free health care, union rights or an end to war.

 

Let them eat cake!

 

Right. Even if they truly wanted to lean left, the big advertisers (think automobile, telecommunication and pharmaceuticals) sure won't be happy with media outlets playing Robin Hood.

One might remember Sumner Redstone saying last year that his personal beliefs lean to wards Kerry's, but as president of Viacom, he had to vote for Bush.

 

Perfect. Your FYP is more accurate.

 

Ooops, sorry, need clarification here. Are you quoting from the movie or referring to ITN's use of the word "liberal"?















Oh wait, I get it, cleverly working both angles. Well played.