Media: Pro-Bush, just lazy, or both?

[MallRat]

The more I think about it, the more I think the sad state of journalism today is more a function of laziness and a willingness to reprint spin verbatim, than it is a concerted effort by corporate media to help a Republican candidate win.

And since GOP talking heads are better coordinated, more assertive, and more likely to repeat the same thing over and over than Democratic operatives, it's the GOP message that ultimately comes through clearer.

Why are the Killian memos getting more scrutiny, more quickly than the Swiftboat Liars ever did? I think it's because journalists aren't thinking for themselves, and Republican spinmeisters are driving the story. It seems to me that genuine pro-Bush bias is secondary to all of this.

My take on the Media: 30% Pro-Bush, 70% Lazy.

How would you divvy up the pie?

-MR

[Beer Snob-50]

1. I think it is safe to say

that the republican spinmiesters are far better at their job than the democratic ones. They give their take louder, with more vigor, and say it more often than the democrats.

[UdoKier]

2. CORPORATE. That;s the beginning and end of the problem.

The media is only a handful of huge companies, all with the same corporate worldview. Little or nothing contrary to that worldview gets on TV. That's why "liberal" social issues like gay rights, etc. get some air time, they are not a real threat to the people in power.

Egalitarian economic theories, the labor movement, the unbridled spending on war machines, gets no attention, because they are a threat. So they use nonsense like Scott & Laci, JonBenet, Swiftboat Liars, etc. to distract us from any real issues, EVER.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. The media are corporations first & foremost.

And we know which party is the party of corporate power (vs people power).

[MallRat]

8. Economics, labor, and defense get no attention because they're COMPLEX.

Don't get me wrong- I think corporate consolidation of media is one of the most urgent problems we face today.

The bigger problem is that these stories aren't even being FOLLOWED or RESEARCHED. This entire campaign is the most insubstantial, issue-free election I may have ever witnessed, as far as the media is concerned. Everything is horserace, accusations, gotchas, and bullshit. Why? Because reporting that kind of crap is EASY TO DO.

Deconstructing and analyzing the candidates' positions is HARD. Political reporters have found the path of least resistance to gain maximum ratings and circulation.

-MR

[el_gato]

10. I can't believe your even asking this

Spewing right wing spin day after day after day is not an act of laziness. They are corporate propagandists and they will go as far
as they have to in order to control what you think.

Here's a good quote:

The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.

-Steven Biko

[MallRat]

14. Here's another quote: "Idle hands are the devil's tools."

I'll say it again- there are exceptions, where some anchors and reporters have pretty clear, deliberate, premeditated bias in favor of Bush.

But for the most part, I think the media is MINDLESSLY REGURGITATING right-wing spin. They PERPETUATE IT, but for the most part, they don't actually CREATE IT.

Here's an exercise:

Think about broadcast journalists, anchors, reporters, pundits, etc. Think about all the newspaper and magazine reporters covering the election. Don't count the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys of the world, although they certainly have a significant impact on public discourse. I'm talking about journalists who your average American turns to for "unbiased" campaign coverage.

Then grab a pad of paper and a pen, and make three columns. Label one column "Vapid, Incurious Dumbasses and Twits." Label the second column "Unabashed Tools of the Right-Wing Machine." Label the third column "People I Actually Trust."

Needless to say, column #3 is going to be pretty short. But I bet if you do this exercise and you're really being thorough and honest with yourself, Column #1 will be longer than #2.

And no, you cannot put the same name in both columns twice. :-)

-MR

[KurtNYC]

3. Honestly, I think it would be easier to do real journalism

My take is about 90% pro-Bush, 10% sloppy. If my job was to cover for all the damage and lies that come from the WH right now, I would look for another job. There can't be anything easy about keeping all of their lies "straight."

Matt Lauer told Kitty Kelly this morning that he never golfed with Bush Sr. The photos and video hit the net before Lauer could get the period on that sentence. I think he went to instinct in the heat of battle with Kelly and just lied because it has become habitual.

[Skinner]

4. I think it's all that, and a couple other things.

As a response to the constant claims that the media is liberal, they are trying to prove that they are not liberal by deliberately skewing to the right. Of course, they still get called liberal.

Also, the right wing has built their own private noise machine -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, FoxNews, FR, Newsmax, etc -- with the purpose of legitimizing their own stories, getting them out into the public consciousness, so that the mainstream media cannot ignore them. They are much better at this than we are.

[Cush]

5. both

[Eloriel]

16. PLUS pro-corporate as someone pointed out PLUS

intimidated by both the Bush administraion and the brownshirts who respond so viciously when things don't go their way in the media.

And I'd add another thing: they can't seem to think their way out of a paper box these days. Can't bother to use google (let alone Lexis/Nexis), can't bother to even research stories that appeared in their own publications, can't bother to think of appropriate follow-up questions, etc. Lazy doesn't come close to describing the braindead state of most so-called "journalists" these days.

And yet another thing: there's a tendency (actually more than tendency) to treat all sides of a story with the same moral equivalency, as if there is no objective truth on anything, or all sides to an issue are equally "true." I've even seen reporters and anchors on teevee operate under the premise that because the PUBLIC thinks something is true, that belief or opinion has more credibility, ignoring that said PUBLIC forms their opinions largely based on what they see on teevee and could hardly be considered "experts" on what the truth is.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

11. And then there is the truth

but you ain't gonna get it in the corporate media.

The whole right-to-left sprectrum is rather spurious at this point in history.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

19. No, that's not necessarily true

And it's dangerous to think that. Similarly, the old canard I see so often, and too often here: "And the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle."

There is a lot of "truth" available that isn't in any way slanted. If you purposely set out discounting ALL sides in what you read or hear, you're going to MISS the truth completely, at least sometimes.

[A Brand New World]

9. Plus threats!

The Bush's threats to the media of being pushed to the back of the room, not being called on when questions are being answered, etc. -that whole scenario - also figures into this. The media decides better "play nice" in order to be able to play at all.

[chelsea0011]

12. Not lazy.................scared

:scared: :scared: :scared:


I thought they were lazy but the networks have dumped all the National Guard stuff right on their laps and they still hardly cover it or when they do it is because it's obviously bogus stuff. They are scared. They simply won't take a stand, even when the evidence is overwhelming, less they be singled out as LIBERAL.

Remember the Hillary killed Foster thing? That crap festered for years and the media would talk it up even though it never, I mean never, should have ever made the news.

[RandomKoolzip]

13. Neither. They are pro-corporation.

They'll support anyone who loosens regulations on multinationals and helps make the rich richer. Consult David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine" for further information.

[greekspeak]

17. Your numbers of your percentages are correct but...

I would reverse the categories. 70% Pro-Shrub, 30% lazy. My defense here is this:

*They are pretty active, but with all their hearts and souls work to keep embarrassing stories out of the news. You know how hard you have to work to time everything just right, so no bad news comes forth?

*However, they don't do a very good job of coming up with new and convincing window dressing to cover up negative press for Shrub. In that one area they are lazy. The least they could do is cover their tracks.

*Even NPR, which is supposed to be the most liberal of the liberal press, whores for Shrub. Juan Williams Monday report did me in on NPR, as he sat and skewed and spun data till it screamed and bled in pain. There is CBS on a good day, and then there is CBS on bad days plus basically all other broadcast media.

*Some papers are still pretty liberal, a few more could be described as moderate. But the majority edit their papers as if they were piano tuners, using the broadcast media as a tuning fork. They, like their broadcast counterparts bury embarrassing stories and hook onto just the right garbage to plaster on the front page(s) as window dressing.

In short, the media is over 2/3 of the way pro-Bush, and they are not really lazy, just complicit.

[AlFrankenFan]

18. Lazy

There's a Bush support that's a friend of mine who hates the media...he also doesn't believe in the liberal media, which is surprising. Tells me my hate for the media is proof of it :eyes: