Skip to comments.
Media Bias Outrage of the Week - Did Voters Have a Message for the Mainstream Media?
Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media (CCRM) ^
| 11/11/2002
| Peacerose
Posted on 11/17/2002 11:13:37 AM PST by Peacerose
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: ctnoell
Sheesh! I forgot Rush - fortunately I'm able to work at home and I listen everyday!
21
posted on
11/17/2002 4:34:47 PM PST
by
maxwellp
To: backhoe
..... and the attempted morph to "What Did Bush Know?! And When Did He Know It?! failing the same way. Well, "60 Minutes" tonight is pimping Woodward's new book, in which Rove is alleged to mentally compare Pres. Bush's magnificent appearance to throw out the first pitch (a strike, by the way) to the Nazis.
But the media pimps for the Democrats will fail to disparage the President with this, also.
22
posted on
11/17/2002 4:44:53 PM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: maxwellp
Hell yeah! Fox News, Rush, and FRepublic all the way!
23
posted on
11/17/2002 6:04:36 PM PST
by
ctnoell
To: backhoe
The Truth Is Out There ...
And the Liberals cant stop us from spreading it.
I first saw this happen in the spring with the "President's picture & How Awful That Was" trying to get traction, and failing, and the attempted morph to "What Did Bush Know?! And When Did He Know It?! failing the same way. As soon as those stories were propagated by a compliant and complict media, the radio show switchboards lit up with angry callers who has stories countering the spin... which had to come off the web; it was too fast to be in print. Communications technologies overcomes dissent-suppression and censorship every time!
24
posted on
11/17/2002 6:14:23 PM PST
by
WOSG
To: WOSG
The whole Demonrat-socialist thing is collapsing like a house of cards. God Bless America!
To: Peacerose
Outstanding observations Peacerose. PREACH IT!!!
In the inimitable words of lizard head:
FGS
To: WOSG
Sidebar: This thread is documenting history. Technology has changed the news access and balance again. This change is an historic moment. Stop and savour the moment. We're on FR at the end of a chain of events starting with the Altair PC kits of the mid 1970's, CPM DOS, Apple, IBM/Intel XT, etc etc. [sigh] :)
But to make the issue clearer to any DNC/Green/Hollywood-big-nose-lurkers:
- explanatory preamble: as a given, we 'see' the bias attached to a particular talking head reporter (ie, one who is presented as not being a card carrying commentator) as over the longer term the little comments and snide remarks are remembered. Known opinionists of course trade on their bias (left and right) and thats fine.
- The point of the post: we notice which news is picked to be news and not picked to be news and so we have flipped channels. More: CNN and PBS can (objectively) claim to present stories in a balanced manner by talking over both the left side and the right side of a story. OK. ...But the story presented is usually a left wing point-scorer-story-issue. The right wing point-scorer-story-issue is nixed, ignored or put on page 99 because the news editor wants to push his favorites (applying "any publicity is good publicity" motive). A news editor's discrimination is a powerful political weapon. How often do the environazi, gaynazi, feminazi and multicultural stories dominate the media (even the item is a transparant and blatant stunt -eg fake and illegal abortion boat 'visits' Ireland whilst it does no such thing)? Meanwhile all manner of right wing stories are ignored: eg illegal immigration, family breakup, over taxation, vice, etc? The gatekeepers -the news editors- had a choke hold.
Had. The guys at Fox are on song, and Drudge, WND, etc...
To: Peacerose
Outstanding essay, Peacerose!
You speak eloquently for all of us who are sickened by the leftist bias in the media.
Kudos!
28
posted on
11/18/2002 5:12:49 AM PST
by
RottiBiz
To: Peacerose
Actually, I find this "media bias" hand-wringing kinda boring and pointless. No media outlet is completely "objective" in the strictest sense. Each step in the editorial process from deciding which story to tell to deciding how to tell it (and who) reflects an organization's worldview. Instead of bitching and moaning about it, we should open (or close) our wallets to whichever oultet we like and let the marketplace sort it out.
To: Peacerose
BTTT
To: Michael2001
I have a message for the "Mainstream" Media-- but the rules of the forum and common decorum prevent me from writing it here.
31
posted on
11/18/2002 6:09:07 PM PST
by
Lysandru
To: Peacerose
Good, solid, simple, clear statement. Anyone who can understand basic English and basic logic will understand what you wrote. Of course, those two criteria disqualify a good part of the lamestream media, included everyone at the New York Times except the janitorial staff. Thanls for the hard work and the good fight. And congratulations for holding yourself in check and not lambasting the SOBs with language that would make a sailor blush. I know you thought about it. I know they deserve it. Wise choice, though, not to say it that way.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Let's Hear It for Fraud -- And REAL Soon"
Click for "to Restore Trust in America"
To: CapedCrusader
You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as an "objective" media outlet. They all have their points of view. I've read most of the newspapers that survive in the Libray of Congress from the era when the First Amendment was written. My favorite quote is from the Aurora Advertiser in New York. It wrote, "If ever a man debauched a nation, George Washington debauched the United States of America." The press whose freedom was guaranteed, was a rock 'em, sock 'em group of opinionated editors and reporters. None pretended to objectivity.
But the whole point of the First Amendment was not that any particular media outlet would carry and reveal "the truth." It was that all of them as a group would get the word out in their own way. Then, with all those ideas on the table in what Jefferson called "the free market of ideas," the people themselves would sort it out.
The key charge against the NY Times and the other elitists is they don't believe in democracy -- either in the voting booth or in the communications industry. They believe the people are fools who must be protected from themselves. We believe the lamestream media are fools, and we need to protect ourselves from them. Looking at the numbers on readership and viewership, we're winning and they're losing.
Congressman Billybob
To: Peacerose
Very nice analysis.
Talk radio and Fox News let the hard right get its message out to its supporters...
That quote jumped out at me as well.
It reveals rather more than the writer intended...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson