The so-called "liberal Media" has been the CONSEVATIVE PRESS all along

[Baltimike]

Follow *their* money. Seriously. Take a gander at opensecrets, or any of the others and see where the parent companies donate their cash.

Look at how many reporters (and even government officials) who have kowtowed to the notion of "liberal media" and gone further to the right to compensate for this made up slight.

But if none of that works, consider this: every time you've heard someone say "liberal media" as an impetus to explain away this or that, it was most likely a right winger saying it.

[Fullduplexxx]

1. And the dems, if they take the house , need to go after the media as well

[brooklynite]

5. "Congress Shall Make No Law....."

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Congress did make laws regarding ohio bell and broke them up

The dems have gone to the media and pressed them about progressive voices and because of it we had jerry springer who was doing a progressive radio show on ruby red 1100 wtam . At least until the next election then it was gone

[brooklynite]

7. Ohio Bell didn't generate media content.

Do you want a situation where the Trump Administration imposes policy regulations on media outlets?

[Fullduplexxx]

8. I want the media to do a better job of doing it's job and if they wont then break them up

Constrict ownership . Im not talking about writing policy . Have a discussion with them anout changing their policies

[Tarc]

2. This kind of crap is unhelpful. It isn't the job of the government to regulate or watchdog the media

The media isn't perfect, they at times go too far down the rabbit hole covering absurd conservative-fueled conspiracies (Clinton's emails, Saddam and 9/11, Benghazi) to "prove" to everyone that they're neutral. Overall, they have been highly critical of the Trump regime; the more they prod, the angrier he gets, and that is a good thing.

This kind of nonsense is either shilling for the far right or for the Susan Sarandon nutty extreme left. Neither side is welcome here.

[still_one]

3. The bulk of the media today is not news, and far from journalism. It isn't who they are "highly

critical" of, whether it is the Democrats, republicans, or trump, it is that their direction is not news, it is sensationalism and yellow-journalism, without too much regard to accuarcy


Their mandate is do whatever it takes to create viewers, and the more outrageous the guest the better for ratings

In the last years of Walter Cronkite's life what concerned him the most about the fourth estate was the collapse of journalistic quality and responsibility that was happening as a result of the mass mergers and increasing dominance of newsgathering by a handful of media corporations.

[Whiskeytide]

10. That's exactly it. The major networks ...

... use to do the news more as a public service than anything else - and did not really view it as a profit center. I think a lot of things happened - but not the least of it all was Vietnam Nam coverage and watergate coverage in the 70s. That demonstrated the power of television and the ability of news coverage to captivate the viewers. CNN came along, and 24 hour news became THE thing. But with that investment, ratings and profit became crucial. Thus, we moved to infotainment, and the creation of news to bring in viewers.

Not sure if we can ever go back.

[still_one]

14. infotainment is exactly right

[Baltimike]

12. every word of this. EVERY. LASDT. WORD. spot on. nt

[Caliman73]

4. The journalists are typically liberal, the owners of media are typically conservative.

There is a tension and as the owners have more power, they typically direct the level to which journalists can go after a story and call out the powerful.

It isn't as easy as saying that the press is "liberal" or "conservative". The reality is that many of the media companies are for profit enterprises and they rely on a few things to generate revenue:

Advertising which results from the highest viewership/readership which is generated by:
Stories in the public interest
Being the first to cover a story
Having the "best" coverage
Access to powerful people

At times those things are in conflict with each other and while many journalists work hard to maintain their integrity, they are under immense pressure by the profit motive to keep the revenue flowing into their employers.

The existence of a committed right wing media has created the further pressure to appear "balanced" which was not as difficult when journalists were only competing with other news outlets to be the "first" and "best" and all were operating under the same facts. Right wing radio, television, and internet have made it so that anything that is not directly promoting their agenda is considered "liberal" and thus biased and not following journalistic integrity.

You are certainly correct that the charge of "liberal media" is almost exclusive to right wingers. That is what they have done in a systematic and coordinated way to shift the conversation. The owners are probably more agnostic and don't care as much about the politics as long as money keep flowing. They do however, draw the line when progressive positions are focused on because that means that they would have to pay their fair share of taxes and their workers would have more protections.

[malaise]

9. Off to the greatest page for thee

The media reflects the views of their owners- it's that simple

[Baltimike]

15. succinct. apt. cogent. perfect. nt

Brevity can be a tidy thing. lol

[malaise]

16. In a book called Power and Ideology in American Sport, George Sage

has a Chapter on Media, Sport and Ideology.
It is stunning in both its simplicity and its accuracy.

[Baltimike]

17. I should check that out. Thanks. nt

[malaise]

18. Added the Media

LOL

It's an excellent book.

[lame54]

11. The corporate liberal media

[Baltimike]

13. ...is a myth nt

[lame54]

19. It's an oxymoron...

Believed by morons