From this mornings pokkie18 cartoon posting.
The press used to be locally owned and gave us multiple viewpoints. But now our press is owned by a few global corporations with only one viewpoint.
These corporations are in need of realignment they all pull to hard to the left.
You da man, shortstop!!!
"So we shouldn't worry too much about it. Our nation has flourished with a biased press, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to do so.
Because we've never taken it too seriously. Americans of every age have taken what the reporters say with a grain of salt."
Since the advent of TV, our society has been gradually dumbed down.
Too many of our "fellow citizens" are looking to be lead around, whether they know it or admit to it.
People want to be ENTERTAINED.
Todays news is as much, if not more, infotainment as it is information.
What we’re witnessing is way beyond bias,
We’re seeing in the MSM and in these NWO Globalists politicians in both parties and around the globe is what they and the evil they knowingly or unknowingly serve, what it looks like when that evil is being pushed back against by praying spirit filled believers,
This is not a battle against flesh and blood,
This is the spirit of anti-Christ rising up and being made visible even to sleeping Christians,
“With all the power of the American press arrayed against him, Donald Trump still won....That lets you know just how powerful the news media is — or isn’t.”
What it REALLY says is just how significant the Trump victory is.
THAT is something everyone overlooks entirely. The Democrats need to see that point... then get their act together. AND the GOP has a gargantuan blind spot on this fact as well.
The GOP is buying itself a one-way ticket to oblivion, if they refuse to ‘get it’.
I agree with “Of course the press is biased.” I agree it has always been that way.
What is different, of course, is that the press is owned by very few huge conglomerate corporations in our day, and these few very wealthy individuals/groups have similar interests and worldviews.
Therefore the news is 95% slanted in one direction.
In the America of yore, there were many news outlets with newspapers being the primary source of news. Most of these were in local hands. Even when they began consolidating, they did so regionally and not nationally/internationally, so various viewpoints were still available.
Except for the internet, we would be subject to the news as viewed through the eyes of the ultra-wealthy, and for some odd reason, they seem inclined toward a socialist world order. Baffles the hell out of me, but they are.
Perhaps they see power/money as being interchangeable.
The media is nothing but a propaganda machine for the left.
Newspaper printers were once fractiously independent. They reflected the opinions of their printers, which were all over the map. There were Republican newspapers, and Democrat newspapers.But newspapers always had a tendency to follow each other; even in the early days of the Republic, newspaper printers got other newspapers at subsidized postal rates, and used them as sources for their own papers. And then lightning struck. Well, electricity struck, in the form of the telegraph, which was officially demonstrated to the government by Samuel Morse in 1844. By 1848 the Associated Press was beginning, and now all major news outlets pay dearly for - and use its output as their input.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe AP constitutes a continual virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets, and it is only to be expected that this would homogenize journalism. Other wire services exist, of course - but their natural effect is not different from that of the AP.Journalism needs the assumption of “journalistic objectivity” because without it who is to vouch for anything in the AP? So even though the claim is fatuous, with no supporting evidence whatever, it is an axiom planted in our schools and in our society. Credulousness is a besetting problem in every society:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.At the same time that journalists claim objectivity, they know that they are systematically negative. They know that “If it bleeds, it leads.” And that “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” is a bias in favor of stories about violations of public trust and confidence. The trouble with that combination - actual negativity and claimed objectivity - is that it is the very definition of cynicism.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Journalism is systematically cynical about society - and concomitantly preaches naivete towards government. Which is IMHO the the definition of “socialism.”
And, now, with Faux Snooze going decidedly left under the Murdochalinsky boys and wives, we have very little. Conservative talk shows are our only hope!
Mark Twain
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”
The press is biased and always has been. For instance, the Tallahassee Democrat is not named that by accident or because the editors liked ‘democracy.’ But, once upon a time, there was diversity in the press - there was a whole spectrum of newspapers of every flavor. This is no longer the case.
The TV news was supposed to be objective, because the FCC was granting the TV stations a monopoly over bands of the ether. But they never were, and, thanks to cable, are largely irrelevant today.
Cable news is highly biased, and there are few or now right wing stations, and only a few shows.
Good post!
The press is to just report what is, not to make news.
The spirit of their job is to not make up, manipulate, or to falsely bare witness during the course of their work.
Since they so violate the fairness and unbiased nature of how their work is carried out, how are their protections of the press still intact?
At least they should announce they are reporting with a liberal view the way Hannity says who he is.
Tell us who and what you are. Do not claim unbiased open minded reporters or reporting when you are instead big advocates of the left.
From this mornings pokkie18 cartoon posting.
President Trump had an impressive victory. He beat Cankles, the DNC, the MSM, and RINOs.
Now all the Donald has to do is beat the Republican controlled Congress.
I’ll take Trump 8-5.
5.56mm
The author is ignorantly-avoiding the crux of the problem, perhaps intentionally.
Taken in total, the article is propaganda, far from an objective analysis.
Part of the problem is news pools such as AP and UPI. That doesn't have to be a deliberate bias (although with AP it is) but a natural consequence of only a small number of sources. Yet not every small-town daily can afford to keep stringers in Moscow or Adelaide. Something of the sort is going to be pretty much necessary or you won't have much in the way of international news.
But a 95% slant toward the Democrat party is not to be explained away quite so easily - that is an insane proportion and is indicative that some other dynamic is going on. What that dynamic is we can speculate all day over, but in fact, that dynamic has just changed.
It has changed because everyone with a cell phone camera and a tower connection is now a news stringer. A small-town paper doesn't have to pay a stringer in Caracas if they have a million volunteers already on site at the riots. That's a game changer.
It means, of course, that the filters used to make sense of it all are no longer in place, which can make the news impossibly confusing. It also means that control of those filters no longer confers the sort of political power it has in the past. And it's one reason so many political organizations are so desperate to apply their own controls to the Internet.
Bump