Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:59 AM
27 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,818 Year: 4,855/19,786 Month: 977/873 Week: 333/376 Day: 10/116 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Liberal Media Conspiracy?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19809
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 46 (246284)
09-25-2005 12:10 PM


Riiiight:
http://www.outfoxed.org/OutfoxedSummary.php
http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_trailer_wm.php

This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*29*2005 09:18 PM

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Funkaloyd, posted 09-25-2005 9:48 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 09-27-2005 9:25 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2005 4:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 46 (246394)
09-25-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-25-2005 12:10 PM


I was lucky enough to see this in a Media Studies class. Great documentary.

Though, it doesn't really do much to dismiss the allegations that the media's predominantly liberal. It certainly makes (more) evident the right-wing bias at FNC, but it doesn't go into detail with other networks, allowing "FOX Fans" to claim that the channel's bias is there to balance out the media.

I wish that they had compared CBS along with PBS and FNC when they showed some of the results of this study.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 12:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 7:34 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19809
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 46 (246649)
09-26-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Funkaloyd
09-25-2005 9:48 PM


yes, I've seen this or a similar study results before.

what it shows is not that PBS is more liberal but more correct.

big difference.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Funkaloyd, posted 09-25-2005 9:48 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2032 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 46 (246740)
09-27-2005 12:57 PM


haha. this country wouldn't know liberal if it bit her in the butt. the political spectrum here is so narrow that it's hardly worth mentioning. the only things we argue about are precise issues about which we keep changing our minds. so lame. we've been having the same arguments for the last 80 years. move on already.
  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 46 (246827)
09-27-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-25-2005 12:10 PM


I think that since we are talking about political bias in the news, it is fair to point out that this website you linked to as an information source on political bias in news, RAZD, is sponsored by MoveOn.Org and Center for American Progress, both of which are linked to at the bottom of the Outfoxed homepage.

http://www.moveon.org/

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.8473/

So if these left-wing orgs are paying for videos to undermine FOX viewership and bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" (effectively government regulation of the press) to legislate FOX into changing its content, is that not a "Left Wing Media Conspiracy" :) ? Further, I trust that MoveOn and Air America Radio are now providing a Conservative counter-viewpoint since they support Federally mandated requirements for 'balanced coverage'.

Here's the thing. That the Federal government can punish the media based on how they report (or what they report) is Constitutionally iffy ground. Further, the Fairness Clause (that's what Outfoxed is pushing) dates back to 1949--when you could count broadcasters on one hand and it was theoretically possible for one organization to dominate all news.

In 2005, you can get dozens of channels if you subscribe to cable, many more on satellite, dozens of radio stations for free, hundreds more if you want to pay for them, you have millions of Web sites and blogs, and Internet-based broadcasts. We live in sort of permanent information overload--there is more political commentary of every stripe than any reasonable person can digest in a day. If you are reading this, you have some level of internet access and can contribute to the madness too. Rather than creating a giant bureacracy over at the FCC to regulate the free flow of information, I think it makes more sense to change the channel when you hear or see commentary you don't like.

I thought the FOXBlocker being sold was kind of funny, in that it reminds me of the adult material blockers that can be purchased for home internet accounts. Is FOX like pornography, in that you can start watching it while meaning not to, and become addicted? Is there a need to protect people from it beyond telling them not to watch--hence making it necessary to cut it off before entering the home? Hmm...

This message has been edited by gene90, 09-27-2005 10:29 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 12:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 10:44 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 4:53 AM gene90 has responded
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2005 9:34 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 9:49 PM gene90 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 46 (246837)
09-27-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
09-27-2005 9:25 PM


In 2005, you can get dozens of channels if you subscribe to cable, many more on satellite

But most of those channels are owned by about five different companies. Same with your radio dial - over half of those stations are going to be Clear Channel-owned. Same with your newspapers; most of those are going to be owned by, or own, your local TV outlets.

True, the internet has ushered in an age of "information overload" - for the people that have their own access to the internet.

Rather than creating a giant bureacracy over at the FCC to regulate the free flow of information, I think it makes more sense to change the channel when you hear or see commentary you don't like.

Change it to a channel owned by the same company? How does that solve anything?

The "diversity" of media is deceptive; there's a lot less choice than there would appear to be. Information oveload, yes, but we also live in an age of media conglomeration, with significant barriers to access to all but a handful of media elites.

It's a strange quandary; I'm not certain that I know what to do about it, and I don't yet think that government-mandated "fairness" is the answer. At any rate I'm a lot less interested in "fairness" in the media than I am in accuracy or truthfulness in the media, which is in short supply these days.

Our Constitution puts us in a bit of a problem, I think. In 1776 the biggest threat to personal freedom was an overbearing, authoritarian government that had not even a token responsibility to its citizens, and the Constitution is designed to protect us from that. These days, the greatest threat to our personal freedom comes not from the government but from private enterprise, and the provisions of the Constitution make it very hard to defend ourselves from, essentially, ourselves.

I thought the FOXBlocker being sold was kind of funny

Somewhat off-topic - Thinkgeek.com sells a keychain widget that spams the IR codes for "power off" for about a bazillion different TV brands all in the space of a few seconds; you just point it at TVs in random locations and press the button to deactivate them. Ingenious, if you ask me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 09-27-2005 9:25 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 09-27-2005 10:49 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 46 (246841)
09-27-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
09-27-2005 10:44 PM


quote:
But most of those channels are owned by about five different companies. Same with your radio dial - over half of those stations are going to be Clear Channel-owned. Same with your newspapers; most of those are going to be owned by, or own, your local TV outlets.

That's an excellent point, and it does show that the public should be concerned about how the media operates.

This message has been edited by gene90, 09-27-2005 10:57 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 10:44 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 46 (246852)
09-27-2005 11:43 PM


The story continues every day
...at Newshounds:

We Watch Fox So You Don't Have To!

As stated in the site's manifesto, the investigation of bias at Fox News continues every day, and the findings are posted regularly by the Newshounds bloggers:

Like many projects, this one started out as something else. In early 2004, eight middle-aged citizens from different backgrounds and locations around the USA teamed up via MoveOn.org and the internet (thank you, Al Gore!) to volunteer our services for OUTFOXED, a documentary film by Robert Greenwald regarding Fox News Channel. For approximately three months, each of us watched FNC conscientiously for five or more hours a week and posted our findings regarding Fox's self-proclaimed mission of fair and balanced reporting.

Appalled by our results, we, who would not meet in person until months later, banded together in cyberspace in concern and outrage over the failure of American media, and Fox News in particular, to relate the news properly. Rather than serve as the public's eyes and ears, Fox and other media conglomerates have become echo chambers for the rich and powerful with whom they have become all too cozy. This blog is an attempt to counter that alarming condition. We believe that a viable democracy depends upon viable media. We invite you to join us in our efforts here and elsewhere to make a difference in the future of our country.

Bookmark the site. Outfoxed gives only a tiny piece of the story. To really understand what FNC does you either need to watch the channel yourself or read Newshounds every day.


"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005
  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 46 (246875)
09-28-2005 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
09-27-2005 9:25 PM


I'm not sure, but sort of assume that you are for as little gov't control over media as possible. Yet I find your defense of Fox, under this flag a bit odd.

Is FOX like pornography, in that you can start watching it while meaning not to, and become addicted? Is there a need to protect people from it beyond telling them not to watch--hence making it necessary to cut it off before entering the home? Hmm...

I can't tell if you actually believe porn is problematic, or are just riffing on the fact that those who would punk on FOX would likely not agree with that argument.

In any case you have brought up a potential defense of FOX, without noting that that argument is being used against porn. Right now the gov't does interfere with expression of graphic natures, most especially sexual depictions.

If the gov't is not in constitutionally iffy grounds by limiting communications through tools like the FCC, then how could they be on iffy ground with respect to FOX? And factual sources of news is arguably more important than entertainment, and so regulation of that at least makes sense (if one is about to regulate anything).

Crash has already raised another important point with regard to the false diversity of media, so I'll let him continue that angle though I agree completely. That is an issue which raises very interesting questions for libertarians/traditional conservatives.

I'll stick with the fact that we already have censorship of media.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 09-27-2005 9:25 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 7:44 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 09-28-2005 9:34 AM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 46 (246890)
09-28-2005 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
09-28-2005 4:53 AM


Crash has already raised another important point with regard to the false diversity of media, so I'll let him continue that angle though I agree completely.

Thanks. I guess I don't really have anywhere else to go with it, though - nobody's challenged the point or anything. I mean I guess I could try to work in an anti-Bush angle, referring to the decisions of former FCC chairman Michael Powell that facilitated further conglomeration of Big Media. But that's taking us off-topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by gene90, posted 09-28-2005 9:40 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 11:12 AM crashfrog has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 46 (246926)
09-28-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
09-28-2005 4:53 AM


quote:
I can't tell if you actually believe porn is problematic, or are just riffing on the fact that those who would punk on FOX would likely not agree with that argument.

My actual beliefs on porn are off-topic, but in this case I'm arguing the latter.

quote:
In any case you have brought up a potential defense of FOX, without noting that that argument is being used against porn. Right now the gov't does interfere with expression of graphic natures, most especially sexual depictions.

I didn't mention it but was aware of the fact. Censorship of such material, especially coming over subscription-based services like cable instead of over broadcast is also on Constitutionally shaky ground, though I think it begs to be pointed out that censorship of political speech is probably a lot more in line with what the Framers were worried about than censorship of anatomy at the Superbowl.

Having said that, yes, you have TV content ratings, yes you have chips inside those televisions, yes, you have a remote control, and yes you can block channels.

I agree that the same argument applies to porn, although censorship of a political message is more troubling because it brings the state into direct involvement with politics, and therefore a more grievous violation of the freedom of the press.

This message has been edited by gene90, 09-28-2005 09:36 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 11:25 AM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 12 of 46 (246927)
09-28-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
09-28-2005 7:44 AM


quote:

Thanks. I guess I don't really have anywhere else to go with it, though - nobody's challenged the point or anything. I mean I guess I could try to work in an anti-Bush angle, referring to the decisions of former FCC chairman Michael Powell that facilitated further conglomeration of Big Media. But that's taking us off-topic

I'm not opposed to anti-monopoly laws, I see utility in occasionally splitting up big conglomerations and I think this is one to think about.

However, in regards to the Fairness Clause, is there credible evidence of collusion among these corporations to try to only show one side of the political spectrum?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 7:44 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 5:54 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 46 (246940)
09-28-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
09-28-2005 7:44 AM


Thanks. I guess I don't really have anywhere else to go with it

No problem, I just meant if there was going to be an argument on that bit, I'd rather just watch you deal with it, than get into it myself, since you already started strong and I'd likely have little to add.

the decisions of former FCC chairman Michael Powell that facilitated further conglomeration of Big Media.

See, my feeling at this point is that we are on almost the same page regarding this issue. I'll just throw in my support.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 7:44 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 5:54 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 46 (246945)
09-28-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by gene90
09-28-2005 9:34 AM


though I think it begs to be pointed out that censorship of political speech is probably a lot more in line with what the Framers were worried about than censorship of anatomy at the Superbowl.

Well yes and no. They had no clue about mass media so you are correct that they'd not have worries about its censorship. But I don't think it's fair to say they cared more about the censorship of political speech than any other kind.

If anything that seems a bit self serving of an argument. Granted political speech plays a more critical role in every day life, if we are going to live in a democracy. However pursuit of happiness and general liberty was considered just as important for the individual even if it was less critical on a day to day basis.

If what you say is true then religious broadcasting, and things like holiday (esp secular) specials would be up in the air for censorship. Or what about any cooking show? Or sports programs?

If we get at critical only speech then politics, language, and math would be the only things protected. As soon as we range beyond that, porn becomes covered as much as anything else.

although censorship of a political message is more troubling because it brings the state into direct involvement with politics, and therefore a more grievous violation of the freedom of the press.

Again yes and no. When the thing that gov't is trying to address is the violation of the freedom of the press due to essential monopolies (whether actual or practical) by citizens, then there doesn't seem to be a conflict.

It is true that Congress is not supposed to violate it, but that does not mean that private citizens should be allowed to through other mechanisms.

And interestingly enough, along with obscenity (which is usually thrown at porn), there are other classes of speech not covered and they are commercial and libel/slander. It seems to me FOX could very well fit into both those categories.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 09-28-2005 9:34 AM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 09-28-2005 6:39 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 46 (247047)
09-28-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by gene90
09-28-2005 9:40 AM


However, in regards to the Fairness Clause, is there credible evidence of collusion among these corporations to try to only show one side of the political spectrum?

Probably not. I'm certainly not aware of any collusion to advance a specific agenda; it's certainly the case, though, that cable and broadcast networks are motivated by a need to sell advertising, not inform the public truthfully. That to my mind only represents a "conspiracy" in so far as there's a concerted effort by conservatives to ensure that the most attractive means of generating profit by Big Media is to move to the right and avoid challenging leading Republican figures.

I don't think there's much we can do about it except complain as loudly as possible, again and again and again, when Big Journalism abandons truth for the fake balance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by gene90, posted 09-28-2005 9:40 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019