Posted on 03/18/2002 8:50:49 AM PST by VanNay
How can you honestly say that? The press did not give Clinton a free ride. However, they (the press) always have a pro-abortion spokesman on. They give more airtime to right wing conservatives like George Will, Keyes, and Buchanan. Can you name 1 real left wing spokesman that has as much airtime as George Will? ...and by the way, Clinton is not a leftist; he is a moderate.
So did B-1 Bob. And he is gone too.
I have not read Bias, but I will. Lets say Dan Rather skews his reporting in a pro-Clinton way (which I see no evidence of). He is still one "Liberal" voice compared to the conservative talking head gallery on Meet the Press, This Week (in Washington), and anything on Fox. I am not suggesting that the Media is right wing; I am saying that it is a myth that the Media is control by (and skewed) "liberals". If anything, the media is corporate owned...and I do not believe corporations are liberal
Many people do -- those 20% middle-of-the-road morons whose votes we need.
They most certainly did, with regard to policy.
Are you high? Do you think the political spectrum is from Clinton (far left) to Hitler (far right)? What about Norm Chomsky and Ralph Nader? Now they are leftist...Or is it that you are so far right, Clinton is a communist?
What you said is very true. But if he had to move towards the center because of the pressure on the right, wasn't that a good thing? I am upset that in today’s political climate, moderates are skewered because they are not right enough...what kind of debate is that? ...Another thing that upsets me, is that bush is in the white house and he got most if not all of is conservative agenda passed...and the right still bitches that it needs more...
What you said is very true. But if he had to move towards the center because of the pressure on the right, wasn't that a good thing? I am upset that in today’s political climate, moderates are skewered because they are not right enough...what kind of debate is that? ...Another thing that upsets me, is that bush is in the white house and he got most if not all of is conservative agenda passed...and the right still bitches that it needs more...
What makes you think that? Generally speaking, corporations are profit oriented, so I can understand how corporations would not be far leftists, as having their corporation confiscated by the government/workers would be pretty stupid. However, an individual corporation could do quite well under a left-liberal economic regime.
Suppose you have an internet company that also owns a television network. That internet company might be able to destroy all of its competitors if a certain regulation is passed. Sure, the regulation would cost them as well, but the increased profits from their new monopolist position would more than make up for those losses. Is it not conceivable that the corporation's television network might not take a more pro-regulatory stance whenever the proposed regulation is being considered in Congress? (All of this assumes, of course, that the content and bias of a network is determined by the board of directors, which I'm not sure is true).
Even if we say that the corporations are never economic left-liberals, that still leaves them free to be social left-liberals. If a news broadcast is constantly airing anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-hunting, or anti-homschooling stories, that makes them liberally biased in my book, even if they're not calling for higher taxes or more government spending.
And a lot of the CEO's are social liberals. Good point, and then there's this: The corporations don't exercise a lot of control over news content, except for sometimes killing stories that put their businesses in a negative light. They tend to stay away from the purely political stuff.
Doesn't anyone know what planet Wexler is from anyway?
He's like a creature out of Greek mythology.
I am not sure if I get your point here. If an individual corporation could do quite well under a left-liberal economic regime, shouldn’t that be a good thing. But I do not see a majority or a minority of corporations advocating "left -liberal" economic policy
Suppose you have an internet company that also owns a television network. That internet company might be able to destroy all of its competitors if a certain regulation is passed. Sure, the regulation would cost them as well, but the increased profits from their new monopolist position would more than make up for those losses. Is it not conceivable that the corporation's television network might not take a more pro-regulatory stance whenever the proposed regulation is being considered in Congress? (All of this assumes, of course, that the content and bias of a network is determined by the board of directors, which I'm not sure is true).
But if corporations do own and pay for the advertising, then the editors and news people, will be more reluctant to do investigative stories that might harm the corporate sponsors, the news people and "analysts" then just become the mouthpieces of the corporations. We saw that with the analysts recommending Enron stock. The whole idea with the 4th Estate is to question and investigate the powers that be...do you think the mass media is still an independent voice?
Even if we say that the corporations are never economic left-liberals, that still leaves them free to be social left-liberals. If a news broadcast is constantly airing anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-hunting, or anti-homschooling stories, that makes them liberally biased in my book, even if they're not calling for higher taxes or more government spending.
I am sorry; I do not see a lot of anti-gun, anti-hunting, or anti-home schooling reports...even though I do see anti-smoking commercials. I now see pro-bush, pro-war, pro-corporations, and pro-Republican "news" stories...Can you honestly say that media is going after bush as they did Clinton?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.