PDA

View Full Version : Air American Failure Predicts Limbaugh Failure.



Gingersnap
04-13-2009, 01:07 PM
Vanity Fair Projects Limbaugh Audience Will Crumble -- Based on Air America Exec's Expertise?
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
April 11, 2009 - 19:06 ET

If you want to argue that Rush Limbaugh the radio sensation will soon crumble and fail, that he's headed for a "last hurrah," would you sign up as your expert....an Air America executive? That’s what media critic Michael Wolff did in a Vanity Fair article on Limbaugh, "the man who ate the GOP." Rush has power now, but soon he won’t:


Arguably no message apparatus like it exists in the nation, except, perhaps, at the White House (or in Oprah—whose position with American women is curiously analogous to Rush’s position with American conservatives). It is concentrated and extraordinary power.

Except that this power ought to be ending. It ought to all be on the wane. It is not just the Obama victory and the magnitude of his approval ratings. It is not just that the gravity of the economic crisis, with historic unemployment rates, means it’s a lot harder to get people excited about Reagan-and-Rush-esque hands-off government.

It is, rather, a crueler demographic point. The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to [former Air America guru Jon] Sinton—the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: "What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out?"

You can begin to make plausibly large statements about the end of—or at least a crisis in—conservative media. "There are fewer advertisers, fewer listeners, shrinking networks, shallower penetration," says Sinton. "A lowering tide lowers all ships."

What’s more, it’s the Internet that is the fast-growing and arguably more powerful political medium—and it is the province of the young and liberal. The only sensible market view of conservative talk is that it will contract and be reduced, in the coming years, to a much more rarefied format.

If Sinton were such an expert, wouldn't he still be "growing" Air America past Limbaugh's audience? Barack Obama telling Republicans not to listen to that Rush junk put a crimp in liberal expectations, as even Wolff admitted:


And yet, by the end of Rush Limbaugh’s fractious month of calculated outrage, his audience was back up to 20 million.

Wolff lamented how his E-mail server was downed by a Limbaugh wave: "Shortly after the war in Iraq began, when I was reporting from CentCom headquarters in Qatar, I asked an intemperate question of one of the military briefers in the daily televised news conference and, dissed by Rush for my lack of patriotism, got the full effect: more than 20,000 e-mails in 48 hours, shutting down my mail server."

We'll see.

News busters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/04/11/vanity-fair-projects-limbaugh-audience-will-crumble-based-air-america-ex)

megimoo
04-13-2009, 01:27 PM
We'll see.

News busters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/04/11/vanity-fair-projects-limbaugh-audience-will-crumble-based-air-america-ex)
That boob is smoking old grass.Has he looked at Obama's ratings of late? He has fallen into the sewer with most conservatives. Even those 'swishy' ones in the center of His base are very spongy of late.

He hasn't deliver on his promises to take America apart fast enough and they are impatient.Rush isn't going anywhere just yet and if they challenge him his ratings will go through the roof.

These 'Tea Party's' are spreading and they are talking about the day after of late.Obama will have to 'clamp down' if he expects to be even partially effective and if this Tea Party stuff expands and keeps spreading Pelosi and Reid will have to move into the bomb shelters.

Lots of Americans have lost their jobs and homes and are getting very angry at the ineffective Congress and White House making massive mistakes and dragging America into the poor house.

Read about Boston during the late 1774 rebellions and see the parallels.

Rockntractor
04-13-2009, 01:33 PM
Here is part of an article about the print media.
The Newhouses also own Conde Nast, whose titles include Vogue, GQ and Vanity Fair, and has reportedly been losing money and reducing staff.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20090329/FREE/303299954/1069
I wonder who will be dancing on who's grave ?

PoliCon
04-13-2009, 01:36 PM
People deserve the right to listen to what they want to listen to.

ReaganForRus
04-13-2009, 02:07 PM
Interesting,Then why are Rush's actual Cume numbers are up dramatically since the attacks by the B.O. administration on Limbaugh being the head of the GOP?. His numbers are up across the board, ages 12 and up and are up in the number of women listening to EIB.

Like the opening post states, Why would an Err America executive be predicting the demise of Rush when his own network couldn't even compete in a stacked situation? Could it be professional jealousy?:eek:

Rush does four things well

(1.) He connects with his audience because of his beliefs are his and like minded individuals, people who value truth, family, honor, a strong belief in God, and a strong belief in America is a force for good, far outnumber those on the globalist side.,

(2.) Rush is entertaining. whether it is the satire of the Barack, The Magic Negro, or his own parodies of the absurd being absurd, Rush is entertaining.......remember all satire is rooted in the truth.,

(3.) Rush would go the way of Err America should he display the elitist attitude of Err America........you know the type........"We know more than you!.........Sit down, shut up and just do what we say, not as we do!", and

(4.) Americans aren't dumb when they are actually informed.

megimoo
04-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Interesting,Then why are Rush's actual Cume numbers are up dramatically since the attacks by the B.O. administration on Limbaugh being the head of the GOP?. His numbers are up across the board, ages 12 and up and are up in the number of women listening to EIB.

Like the opening post states, Why would an Err America executive be predicting the demise of Rush when his own network couldn't even compete in a stacked situation? Could it be professional jealousy?:eek:

Rush does four things well

(1.) He connects with his audience because of his beliefs are his and like minded individuals, people who value truth, family, honor, a strong belief in God, and a strong belief in America is a force for good, far outnumber those on the globalist side.,

(2.) Rush is entertaining. whether it is the satire of the Barack, The Magic Negro, or his own parodies of the absurd being absurd, Rush is entertaining.......remember all satire is rooted in the truth.,

(3.) Rush would go the way of Err America should he display the elitist attitude of Err America........you know the type........"We know more than you!.........Sit down, shut up and just do what we say, not as we do!", and

(4.) Americans aren't dumb when they are actually informed.
You hit it right on the head.an Informed America is a smart America but in order to break into the brainwashed Democrat base you would need some very effective truth.Something that 'an older Democrat for life like my father was before me' would be able to understand and that isn't happening !Rush appeals to the conservative base to some extent but he is less effective with the hard core conservative fringe.

The great uninformed American masses have to make a living and ignore politics until there is some great national tragedy that interrupts their lives like war,the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing or 9/11 .They are barley informed of the real issues during an elections and rely on their emotions,television news sources or friends when deciding how to vote.They simply don't care and follow along like sheep as their blindly elected party leads.

And when their elected officials explain to them how their life savings went up in smoke they accept the lies told by Dodd,Frank and the rest of the Democrat Congressional leadership that they are innocent of Any involvement and that the conservatives did it even when the real truth is available for all to see on readily available on line videos.

Water Closet
04-13-2009, 03:55 PM
Interesting analysis. While the age demographics are working strongly against conservatives and the Republicans, I would think that Limbaugh would actually increase his listenership during a period of opposition. For the Bush years, all he had to go after were Reid and Pelosi, and most Americans probably don't know who Reid is. With Obama, Limbaugh has an identifiable target who has very low approval amongst conservatives.

What will be interesting is to observe what demographic is added to his audience. With Clinton, he was able to exploit the large group of moralists who were outraged that Clinton was having sex (of a sort) with a twenty year old intern. Early indications are that Limbaugh will go after gun advocates, as Obama doesn't seem to suffer from the same "failings" as Clinton in regard to sexual proclivities.

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 02:37 PM
IMO, the media continues to report on what I see as a non-existent 'war' or 'feud' between Obama and Limbaugh. It was Dem strategists who floated and pushed that "Rush as the de-facto Party Leader" notion.

Obama mentioned him once in a remark during a meeting with House republicans back in Jan.--not scathing or confrontational. I think the press secretary may have made some remarks, but nothing that qualifies as a counter-punch or a direct reply.

This ongoing "confrontation" between the President and Rush Limbaugh really only exists in the minds of Limbaugh fans and the media who continue to run the 'Feud' angle.--and the DNC strategists goading Rush's ego.

When Limbaugh challenged the President to a debate-- I'm not sure why some people think that means anything or has any merit whatsoever. It's almost as if Limbaugh doesn't really understand his role or his place--for example, if Al Frankin or Keith Olbermann challenged Bush to debate--it would just be seen as pundits ego and posturing. Why would a sitting President debate a media personality?

After an election, the debate is over. The President gets to run the country for four years. We watch, debate amongst ourselves, keep score of broken promises, be critical of anything and everything we think appropriate, offer dissenting opinion, but the only person who gets to debate a president is the next candidate for that office. That's how a Republic works. We have to respect that.

Ridicule, mockery, and excessive criticism might make us feel better, might lesson the disappointment and frustration--should the next President be a Republican, then Rush Limbaugh is empowering the left to act in the same manner. To really be better than them, you must act as such.

Go to a Tea Party, write a thoughtful op-ed piece, write your senator, make a contribution, but the minute you start singing the 'magic negro' song--you lower yourself by disrespecting the office and therefore the entire process we have. The same system that created JFK, Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

I remember John Stewart saying that he wouldn't want Bush to come on his show because he wouldn't really be able to be himself--he would have to respect the office.

There was tremendous negativity and fallout from the left after the 2000 elections and Bush still won re-election in 2004. IMO, overzealous partisanship does not strengthen your case or win support.

Gingersnap
04-14-2009, 03:48 PM
When Limbaugh challenged the President to a debate-- I'm not sure why some people think that means anything or has any merit whatsoever. It's almost as if Limbaugh doesn't really understand his role or his place--for example, if Al Frankin or Keith Olbermann challenged Bush to debate--it would just be seen as pundits ego and posturing. Why would a sitting President debate a media personality?

Why indeed? Which is why Limbaugh had no trouble making the offer. It's all theater and he and his fans are well aware of that.

It's demeaning for the President to take note of what any entertainer has to say to about politics. Obama lost some style points for following his advisors on that one.

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 05:14 PM
Why indeed? Which is why Limbaugh had no trouble making the offer. It's all theater and he and his fans are well aware of that.

It's demeaning for the President to take note of what any entertainer has to say to about politics. Obama lost some style points for following his advisors on that one.

I agree with your point, and I think Obama has paid him little or no mind.--Except the one comment back in January at the WH meeting with house GOP leaders. I don't think there was a transcript, but if I remember, Obama was more or less using Limbaugh's name as an example of post-election partisan negativity. It was the day after Limbaugh was on Hannity's show, so maybe there was more to it than that.

It's hard to say since the quote was hearsay. But since then it's been all Limbaugh and the media talking about the 'Feud.' Limbaugh certainly got a lot of mileage off the one comment.

There may have been one other comment by Obama that I'm forgetting--it's been while.

ReaganForRus
04-14-2009, 05:33 PM
Hazel,

Then why does the White House have Chief of Staff, Emanuel, ABC News Chris Stephanopolis, James Carville, and one other individual whose name escape me at this time have daily meetings on shaping the President's message to the public? That should be the sole province of the office of the White House Press Secretary. Remember, it was these individuals who floated the notion of Limbaugh being the head of the Republican Party. Notice also how Newsweek followed up with a cover and an extensive article on Limbaugh.

You may think that this is minute, however it comes directly from Saul Alinsky's doctrine to isolate the opposition and to marginalize them. You can state that the President is elected and that there should be a loyal opposition to the policies of an Administration, which is what Mr Limbaugh has and continues to do.

Mr Limbaugh presents a coherent and cogent argument on a myriad of subjects, most are political, some are social, but he does it in a lucid manner and yes, he does use satire and humor.:D

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 06:14 PM
Then why does the White House have Chief of Staff, Emanuel, ABC News Chris Stephanopolis, James Carville, and one other individual whose name escape me at this time have daily meetings on shaping the President's message to the public? That should be the sole province of the office of the White House Press Secretary. Remember, it was these individuals who floated the notion of Limbaugh being the head of the Republican Party. Notice also how Newsweek followed up with a cover and an extensive article on Limbaugh.

No, the press secretary holds and moderates daily briefings. He has little to say about the overall 'message' except to suggest how it's worded and presented.

Emanuel absolutely has daily meetings on shaping the message. (under Bush this was more of Rove's job)


You can state that the President is elected and that there should be a loyal opposition to the policies of an Administration, which is what Mr Limbaugh has and continues to do.

Mr Limbaugh presents a coherent and cogent argument on a myriad of subjects, most are political, some are social, but he does it in a lucid manner and yes, he does use satire and humor.:D

I would disagree with you on that. Limbaugh's rhetoric, IMO, is pretty far out there. To be fair, I don't listen to him on a regular basis, I'm basing my opinion on recent quotes and clips that I've heard. (as well as his past controversial statements)

And I would not even say one needed to be "Loyal Opposition" just base your opinions in reality and facts on record.

I'm probably going to step on some toes here, so I'll apologize in advance, but, honestly, every time I hear Rush Limbaugh speak in public or on the radio, it is very obvious to me that he flunked out of college after one year. IMO, he is not intelligent or coherent at all in his arguments. He stumbled onto an untapped market in talk radio some years back and, to his credit, has been able to capitalized on it in a huge way.

But the notion of Limbaugh thinking he's capable of debating President Obama, (or Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr.) is laughable. It tells me that his ego is way out of touch with reality if he thinks he has even a shred of the critical thinking ability and intelligence it takes to even make it into the candidacy for that office.

Limbaugh's statements are broad and overgeneralized propaganda--sometimes revealing a complete lack of understanding about the complexity of a certain issue. I heard a segment where he was proposing his solutions for the economy and it seemed clear that he lacked even a basic knowledge of economic principles and theories. He could pronounce the key words but didn't really understand their meanings.

I am more of Bill O'Reilly and Denis Praegor fan as far as talk radio goes.

ReaganForRus
04-14-2009, 06:36 PM
Did Rove hold daily briefings with the anchors of major news channels as to what specific "talking points" are to be hit hard in the 24 hour news cycle?

Hazel, not to be confrontational, you state you hardly listen to Rush yet state with vague statements about Rush and his knowledge on economic issues. Can you please elaborate as what Rush stated that is not the basis of the current United States business model?

Rush is in the news simply because his speech in D.C. ignited a smoldering fire among people who value the American experience and it's imperfect history, warts and all. Since he has a bully pulpit three hours a day, five days a week that makes him ""dangerous" in the eyes of his opposition.

Rush would never debate Obama, simply because Obama wouldn't debate him in an open forum (much less without the TOTUS). If Rush did debate Obama, I want the pay per view rights:D

ReaganForRus
04-14-2009, 06:40 PM
Hazel, also, what exactly does Rush state in the course of his radio show is considered "way out there?":confused:

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 07:25 PM
Did Rove hold daily briefings with the anchors of major news channels as to what specific "talking points" are to be hit hard in the 24 hour news cycle?

My understanding is that Rove faxed talking points directly to Roger Avery. In fact, wasn't there just story where FNC was caught re-printing congressional GOP talking points?

I have not come across any credible source that Emanuel has that kind of influence over CNN or the networks. I wouldn't call what MSNBC does 'influenced'--they are just knowingly catering directly to a left-leaning audience.


Hazel, not to be confrontational, you state you hardly listen to Rush yet state with vague statements about Rush and his knowledge on economic issues. Can you please elaborate as what Rush stated that is not the basis of the current United States business model?

You're right, to be fair, in total, I've probably only listened to about an hour of Limbaugh content. But what I did hear was so far removed what I know as factual reality. I should have backed up my criticism with an actual quote or transcript. I don't want to just go copy-paste something off some blog or left-leaning site, so give me a day to track down the actual show where he presented his economic plan. I believe it was just after the stimulus package--it might have been the show where he challenged the President to a debate. Do you know that date?

I have stated my thoughts on the mis-use of the word 'socialism' by many including Rush Limbaugh. My overall point is that extreme rhetoric can backfire.

wilbur
04-14-2009, 07:53 PM
My understanding is that Rove faxed talking points directly to Roger Avery. In fact, wasn't there just story where FNC was caught re-printing congressional GOP talking points?

I have not come across any credible source that Emanuel has that kind of influence over CNN or the networks. I wouldn't call what MSNBC does 'influenced'--they are just knowingly catering directly to a left-leaning audience.



You're right, to be fair, in total, I've probably only listened to about an hour of Limbaugh content. But what I did hear was so far removed what I know as factual reality. I should have backed up my criticism with an actual quote or transcript. I don't want to just go copy-paste something off some blog or left-leaning site, so give me a day to track down the actual show where he presented his economic plan. I believe it was just after the stimulus package--it might have been the show where he challenged the President to a debate. Do you know that date?

I have stated my thoughts on the mis-use of the word 'socialism' by many including Rush Limbaugh. My overall point is that extreme rhetoric can backfire.


If you've listened to 1 hour of Rush, you've pretty much listened to all he's had to say for his entire career of political radio broadcast.

marinejcksn
04-14-2009, 08:06 PM
While I personally prefer Beck, Boortz, Levin and Hannity over ELRushbo, Reagan makes an incredibly valid point: the man knows how to entertain. You don't build the number 1 radio program in America by being boring. Rush wont falter or fail and neither will the others I mentioned above....unless the Censorship Doctrine passes.

Put it this way: "RIGHT WING" talk radio has given us people like:

Rush
Glenn Beck
Levin
Hannity
Boortz
Jerry Doyle
Larry Elder
Penn Jillette
Fred Thompson
Michael Medved
Dennis Prager
Dennis Miller

"LEFT WING" talk radio gave us:

Ron Reagan
Randi Rhodes
Rachel Maddow
Al Franken

:rolleyes:

Check, meet Mate.:D

Odysseus
04-14-2009, 08:09 PM
When Limbaugh challenged the President to a debate-- I'm not sure why some people think that means anything or has any merit whatsoever. It's almost as if Limbaugh doesn't really understand his role or his place--for example, if Al Frankin or Keith Olbermann challenged Bush to debate--it would just be seen as pundits ego and posturing. Why would a sitting President debate a media personality?
Exactly when did any other sitting president attack a pundit by name? If Bush had made a point to single out Franken or Olbermann for criticism, they'd have been perfectly within their rights to request an opportunity to rebut him face to face. Of course, that would have presumed that Bush knew who Olbermann was, which, given his ratings, is unlikely. Besides, it's not just Obama. Remember Harry Reid's viciously dishonest attack on Rush last year, when he claimed that he'd attacked troops who criticized the war as phonies? It was obvious that this wasn't the case if you listened to the show or read the transcript, but Reid got the entire Democratic senate caucus to sign on to a letter to Clear Channel demanding that Rush be taken off of the air. This isn't simply an Obama vs. Rush thing, it's a Democrats vs. free speech and dissent thing.


I remember John Stewart saying that he wouldn't want Bush to come on his show because he wouldn't really be able to be himself--he would have to respect the office.
Yeah, we all saw how much respect he gave Bush for eight years. :rolleyes:


Did Rove hold daily briefings with the anchors of major news channels as to what specific "talking points" are to be hit hard in the 24 hour news cycle?
If Rove had even tried to hold a press briefing, the media would have screamed bloody murder about Republicans trying to muzzle them.

If you've listened to 1 hour of Rush, you've pretty much listened to all he's had to say for his entire career of political radio broadcast.
It's certainly one hour more than you've ever listened to.

wilbur
04-14-2009, 08:48 PM
It's certainly one hour more than you've ever listened to.

Actually, I listen quite often... which is why I can say with authority that if one actually finds oneself agreeing with Rush most of the time... one is an idiot.

ReaganForRus
04-14-2009, 09:28 PM
Actually, I listen quite often... which is why I can say with authority that if one actually finds oneself agreeing with Rush most of the time... one is an idiot.

So agreeing with Rush that the United States is a sovereign nation with a distinct Constitution and that the nation and it's duly elected leaders should abide by that Constitution makes a person an idiot?:confused:

ReaganForRus
04-14-2009, 09:33 PM
While I personally prefer Beck, Boortz, Levin and Hannity over ELRushbo, Reagan makes an incredibly valid point: the man knows how to entertain. You don't build the number 1 radio program in America by being boring. Rush wont falter or fail and neither will the others I mentioned above....unless the Censorship Doctrine passes.

Put it this way: "RIGHT WING" talk radio has given us people like:

Rush
Glenn Beck
Levin
Hannity
Boortz
Jerry Doyle
Larry Elder
Penn Jillette
Fred Thompson
Michael Medved
Dennis Prager
Dennis Miller

"LEFT WING" talk radio gave us:

Ron Reagan
Randi Rhodes
Rachel Maddow
Al Franken

:rolleyes:

Check, meet Mate.:D

er, nice..........now where is the rest of the "Left Wing" media..NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Atlanta Constitutional and a plethora of liberal mainstream magazines, Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report et al?:D

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 10:34 PM
Exactly when did any other sitting president attack a pundit by name? If Bush had made a point to single out Franken or Olbermann for criticism, they'd have been perfectly within their rights to request an opportunity to rebut him face to face.

You illustrate my point about how the media has spun this whole thing into a 'feud' or confrontation.

When did the President attack Limbaugh? He referenced him in a comment made at a meeting. The meeting happened to take place the day after Limbaugh appeared on Hannity.

The comment was reported as hearsay, so no one knows for sure what the exact quote was.

Didn't I type all this earlier today? Should I just say see earlier post for rest of response to your post...?

hazlnut
04-14-2009, 10:38 PM
er, nice..........now where is the rest of the "Left Wing" media..NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Atlanta Constitutional and a plethora of liberal mainstream magazines, Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report et al?:D

So everything other than Fox News is liberal? PBS?? US News and World Report?? CNN!!?

I challenge anyone to show a continuous and deliberate left-leaning bias in any of those three.

Logic people, not hot-headed narrow minded spite will win over independents.

PoliCon
04-14-2009, 10:52 PM
Actually, I listen quite often... liar liar pants on fire. :rolleyes:

hazlnut
04-15-2009, 12:11 PM
As I can no longer read PoliCon's brilliant responses-- And I know how articulate she was on my last challenge... I can only imagine the inspired words she wrote... my loss...

However...

Upon further consideration, PBS may be leftist...

I noticed Mr. Rogers only had 1 seater in his closet -- SOCIALIST!

And, get this, the Boston Pops... they all wear the same uniform when they perform -- COMMUNISTS!

Burt and Ernie... Don't get me started. PoliCon knows where the rubber duckie really goes when Ernie's in the tub... And Kermit is the most biased reporter ever, the way he covers the letter of day. Oh, and the Count? Another Immigrant taking our jobs!

Yeah, a real bunch of liberals over there on Public Television... New York!!

marinejcksn
04-15-2009, 08:09 PM
Yeah, a real bunch of liberals over there on Public Television...

Charlie Rose and Bill Moyers. Checkmate.

hazlnut
04-15-2009, 08:20 PM
Charlie Rose and Bill Moyers. Checkmate.

My friend, do you understand the rules of chess?

2 hours out of the week does not define an entire network as biased in any sense of the word. And BTW, Charlie Rose does an interview format.

Sorry, not even Check...

In fact, you've just exposed your Bishop. Careful or PoliCon might make a grab for it.

Gingersnap
04-15-2009, 09:08 PM
What we see is how the press fairly systematically choses stories and points of view that support a generally left-leaning opinion. PBS simply never runs stories that show the environmental devastation done by illegal aliens during border crossings. CNN never runs a story about a home-schooled kid who does well but isn't "funny". MSNBC never interviews crime victims who have saved their own lives because they had a gun at the right time.

I don't think anybody here would actually object to idealogical "news". They do it in Europe all the time. What we dislike is the pretense that news outlets really are unbiased and scrupulously fair to all sides. They generally aren't outside of some small local outlets.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy; it's the natural outcome of like-minded people working in a supportive environment. Most newsies today are college-educated from journalism schools. They share the same general education and background and they've been influenced by the same thinkers and teachers. The days are long gone when journalists were self-educated renegades who believed the story (whatever it was) was more important than the spin. Most of these people are no longer independent mavericks who are willing to chase down news wherever it leads them.

marinejcksn
04-15-2009, 09:42 PM
PBS only presented a conservative viewpoint when they had Firing Line.

Although I can't hate PBS, I do enjoy the Ken Burns documentaries. :D

PoliCon
04-15-2009, 10:21 PM
My friend, do you understand the rules of chess?

2 hours out of the week does not define an entire network as biased in any sense of the word. And BTW, Charlie Rose does an interview format.

Sorry, not even Check...

In fact, you've just exposed your Bishop. Careful or PoliCon might make a grab for it.

Are you going to bitch up every thread here or come back to the dome and finish what you started troll?

hazlnut
04-15-2009, 11:00 PM
What we see is how the press fairly systematically choses stories and points of view that support a generally left-leaning opinion. PBS simply never runs stories that show the environmental devastation done by illegal aliens during border crossings. CNN never runs a story about a home-schooled kid who does well but isn't "funny". MSNBC never interviews crime victims who have saved their own lives because they had a gun at the right time.

I don't think anybody here would actually object to idealogical "news". They do it in Europe all the time. What we dislike is the pretense that news outlets really are unbiased and scrupulously fair to all sides. They generally aren't outside of some small local outlets.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy; it's the natural outcome of like-minded people working in a supportive environment. Most newsies today are college-educated from journalism schools. They share the same general education and background and they've been influenced by the same thinkers and teachers. The days are long gone when journalists were self-educated renegades who believed the story (whatever it was) was more important than the spin. Most of these people are no longer independent mavericks who are willing to chase down news wherever it leads them.

I hear what you're saying, especially about the general attitude at a media 'workplace' -- that I can speak about first hand. Also, I've been thinking about the notion: Is there something about the method of teaching journalism the lends itself to a more left-leaning perspective -- or -- does the nature of questioning who, what, where, and why imply a liberal perspective--(just something I've been thinking about and you had some similar thoughts on that.)

However, I do think CNN and PBS run programs and segments of programs that attempt to cover stories objectively, asking questions that would be raised by both sides of an issue and calling on a broad spectrum of commentators to speak on issues. If you watch The News Hour on PBS--it's very dry, no graphics, no commentary, just Jim Lehrer very straight forward interviews and reporting. You can debate their story selection--what they cover and what they ignore. It is an hour and they do have to make choices. The New Hours does more international--non-U.S. stories than most.

A fair amount PBS adult programing covers the fine arts. I'd like to think that endeavor is non-partisan. When you look at the list of corporations that sponsor these public tv shows, there's a lot of conservative minded support for this type of programming.

Also I couldn't agree with you more about the lack of 'investigative' reporting in today's media. At CNN there has been a small amount of fact-checking on election promises, but they mostly just quote info from factcheck.org or a similar nonpartisan fact check outfit.