|
joether -> RE: Polarization of American Politics (4/18/2013 11:37:50 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The left has used media bias to "win" many political fights, both by editorial fiat, but more importantly by dictating coverage - what gets covered vs what doesn't. The price of these victories was bitterness and a loss of support of public institutions such as NPR, broadcast journalism, print and magazine.
Funny, I find many conservative oriented news media (for which there are many sources), that try to give the viewer as limited an idea on reality in a situation as possible. You blame the left in having used media to win political fights; yet completely ignore much of how the right has used media to ALSO win fights. How many people in this country have actually read the Affordable Care Act? Been on the law books for three years. Yet we have an enormous amount of folks on the right that wish to kill the bill even though its helping them directly and indirectly. They have been LIED to by the media on the right for almost four years on the facts. Than again, the right's media coverage serves the lowest common denominator of education in our country....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The left lambasts fox news - but doesn't realize that fox news achieved meteoric success because viewers on the right were utterly disgusted with news media and bias in mainstream TV, newspapers, and magazines.
Should we not 'lambast' a media source that routines published total lies as facts? That either they are 'George W. Bush' stupid not to get their facts right; or worst, knowing the facts changed the details because they knew their audience is to stupid and lazy to check the information? Media Matters got its start by simply reporting all the times FOX News stated one thing and than showed the facts of the issue. One viewing both sets of material could see just how badly FOX News changed things for an agenda.
Fact Checker is another site geared to how factual and truthful those in politics behave. During the run up to the election last November, the President has a handful of 'pants on fire' statements compared to 'tens of moments' with his opponent, Mr. Mitt Romney. Funny how the right, through conservative media overlooked the flat out lies of the candidate they voted on, to bash the guy whom was fairly consistent in giving out accurate and truthful information.
Still further is the whole issue around Benghazi. Yes, its tragedy that four people died a bit a thunder clash of events. And that EVERY conservative media site has been trying to publish stuff on it with attacks towards the White House and Democrats for months. Yet, the are completely silent on the number of civilians killed during the Iraq War under former President George W. Bush. Now why is that? Were there less civilian causalities in Iraq than Benghazi and therefore it was not mentioned? If conservative media was so angry at four people dying in that event, spending conservable amounts of time and money blasting Democrats; it would be reasonable they would blast their own party for killing a hundred times that amount, if not a thousand! Yet, years have gone by and not really much of a peep has come from the conservative media (in comparison to Benghazi) on the number of civilian dead during the Iraq War. Now why is that?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The reasons magazines and newspapers are failing is not merely a superior content delivery system - but that the message itself is discredited. The country does not need (and will not support) the simply innumerable number of magazines out there that push a liberal news format.
You must be believing everything those conservative media folks published. Magazines and newspaper has been failing not because they are discredited but due to technology. Which technology? You used it to get this message of ours out to the rest of us: The Internet! The Boston Globe is a very credible news sources. Yet, conservatives do not like it for its in-depth coverage, intelligent editorials, and its ability to report good journalistic quality (i.e. they publish the stuff that makes conservatives look bad). The internet has slowly been replacing magazines and newspapers as the favored source of information about the world, our nation and everything else. Hard to compete when your competitor can release information for practically free, when you must charge $3.95 for information that is already two or three days old. Why do you think Newsweek is no longer in publication?
I also find it amusing that you hate the 'liberal media'. Do you even know the origins of the world 'liberal'? Or the definition of the word liberal? The word itself is based on the Latin word, Liberalis. An that word means "Of or pertaining to freedom". So your against the liberalis media, or the FREE MEDIA. In other words, you favor conservative media as it behaves like 'state-run' media sources in that it filters information to push a viewpoint. However, the break down in your viewpoint is not just limited to that, but the silly belief that since conservative media lies on a daily basis all other sources must do the same. FOX News is simply the mouth piece of the GOP, plain and simple.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I formerly was a subscriber to time, newsweek, the NY times. I read the Miami Herald and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution. I used to watch NBC nightly news.
I actually read and watch FOX News, The Drudge Report, and a few other conservative materials. I've watched and read news sources that exist outside of the USA like the BBC. I do not just listen to MSNBC or CNN. I do not read the Boston Herald not because it filters stuff for a conservative viewpoint, but that the whole publication feels like a tabloid rather than a legitimate news publication.
If you wish to stop looking at the media sources you define as 'liberal' you are in effect shutting off about 90% of your information outlets. Since anything not conservative, must be liberal, right? No moderate style political viewpoints could ever be expressed in your viewpoint! I found that figure a few months ago that stated FOX News was so bad that someone who didn't listen or watch any news sources were better informed citizens! An when a media source later found their information to be untrue or incorrect, they have apologized to their viewership by explaining the process and exactly where the error occurred. FOX News and other conservative radio talk shows rarely ever do this. Why should they need to apologize when EVERYTHING they print is 100% 'truthful' and 'factual'. The run up to the election was a prime example. For the rest of the world beyond the conservative media and its followers, the race as 'in the bag' for the President. Many of the professional pollsters had performed months of calculations under a multitude of different possible situations and events. Yet, Carl Rov, a professional pollster seemed completely stunned on election night that the race would be won by the President; enough so as to charge FOX News itself with lying to its viewership that Mitt Romney had to win.....because....conservative media sources have been stating that for months leading up to the election.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I can't stand *any* of these organs any more, only occasionally picking up a NY times. Its not reporting any more - its opinion and commentary.
Yes, better for you to be told what to thing and act, rather then objectively study the information and be an informed citizen of the country. Are you one of those types that believe 9/11 was an inside job? That Iraq actually helped Al Qaeda with attacking the United States of America? That President Obama was not born in this nation? Because the factual evidence in all three cases is staggeringly against the notion. Its like stating your a Creationist and that science has not even 1/10th the amount of scientific knowledge studied as the Holy Bible does on how the planet got started.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I would posit that the key way to reverse the polarization starts at Journalism 101. Report evenly. Cover Gosnell, for example.
Have you ever taken a journalist course at the college level? Perhaps you should do that before stating what journalist should and shouldn't report on. Since much of your material is either silly, ignorant or both! If your waiting for the universe and all within it to conform to your viewpoint and belief; I hate to break it to you, but you'll be waiting a VERY LONG TIME before that happens.
|
|
|
|
