The W
Views: 100027220
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 0450
The W - Current Events & Politics - Interesting interview with Al Franken
This thread has 143 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1978 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#1 Posted on
Don't know if you heard, but a few weeks ago he and O'Reilly got into a shouting match at a C-SPAN event (I think the transcript is available somewhere at C-SPAN's website). Here's a follow up interview with him.

He makes some good points, although I don't really agree with his seperation of Right wing Media and mainstream media. I do, however, like the way he characterizes mainstream media, and says its problems are more than just a right wing bias.

Also, mathematical evidence that O'Reilly is neither fair nor balanced.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I still don't get this "right-wing bias" in the media. There is a noted liberal bias in the media. Case in point. On the front page of the Baltimore Sun's Maryland section yesterday was this story about Gov. Ehrlich having the audacity to appoint his supporters to administration posts. It's there and oh so bloody apparent.



"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
It was bound to happen sooner or later




What do you mean by "noted liberal bias"? To me, that word "noted" used in that way implies that what you're refering to is fact, or at least an opinion generally supported by both sides, and I dont think that is the case here.

And couldnt someone (not me) could come up with just as many articles/news stories supporting a "left-wing bias" theory as there are to support a "right-wing bias" theory?

Or maybe you believe that there is the same amount of media bias on both sides on the fence? if this is the case, please disregard my entire post.



We're all alright
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreeze
    Or maybe you believe that there is the same amount of media bias on both sides on the fence? if this is the case, please disregard my entire post.

I would argue that rather than saying that all is one or the other. Fox is conservative and CNN is liberal(for example). The problem is that most conservatives will acknowledge this bias as opposed to msot liberals(though most liberals on this board will at least admit some level of liberal bias I'm sure...)



"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 414 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
I've seen very few conservatives admit a conservative bias in the mainstream news.

But yes, the mainstream news does have a bias both ways, depending on what you read. However, somehow one of Franken's main points got lost.

To make the argument that the media has a left- or right-wing, or a liberal or a conservative bias, is like asking if the problem with Al-Qaeda is do they use too much oil in their hummus. And sometimes they do use too much oil, and sometimes they don't use enough. But the real problem with Al-Qaeda is they want to kill us. And the real problem with the press is all the other biases that they have. Those include: get the story fast; scandal; negativity; sexiness you know, ratings will be up if we go to war. It's an establishment bias a bias for the "new," which sounds contradictory to the establishment bias, but I think it helped Bush and hurt Gore in 2000. And so they're all these biases in all the media.


But in the right-wing media, they do have a right-wing bias. And they also have an agenda. So their agenda is: We're an adjunct of the Republican Party, and we're going push that agenda every day, and, as you say, brand these stories that help further the right-wing cause.

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on
I am pretty concious of the fact that Fox News has a heavy right-wing bias. This is a relatively new thing though. For years conservatives were SCREAMING about the liberal bias in the media, and the response always was "your imagining it."

There is still a vast liberal bias in the media, just nowadays there are some outlets with a conservative bias. And now all of the liberal heads are screaming about that bias. That leaves people like me to wonder why I should even care about those complaints. Liberals scoffed at the notion of a bias when it was all slanted towards them.

I think Franken is right that the bias is not the problem, it is the integrity of journalism today that is the real issue. As long as that issue is still out there, if there is going to be slants in the media, I'd just assume they go both ways. That way people like me can watch Fox, and those with a more Liberal ideology can continue to enjoy CNN. We are all happy.





Still on the Shelf #13 - Bargain Bin Love: Part 1
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#7 Posted on
So you guys know what a liberal is? CNN is not liberal at all. Mainstream media has a corporate bias, or, as I think Franken put it, a status quo bias. They are not about to go out and endorse any sweeping changes to the country, and especially not report on anything that would cost their owners any money. The "liberal bias" is a lie.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
The media - more or less - reflects the "biases" of their producers. They generally have a more socially liberal outlook than mainstream America, as well as a more economically conservative outlook than mainstream America.

Comapring FoxNews and CNN is ridiculous though. CNN has a liberal bias like the Wall Street Journal has a conservative bias. FoxNews has a conservative bias like the Village Voice has a liberal bias.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    They generally have a more socially liberal outlook than mainstream America, as well as a more economically conservative outlook than mainstream America.

More economically conservative? Everytime I turn around I hear another story from CNN, or from the Baltimore Sun or New York Times talking about the need to spend more money and raise taxes. That's not what I would call conservative.


    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81

    CNN is not liberal at all.
True, they're leftist...



"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
cactuspete
Blutwurst








Since: 22.9.02
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4134 days
Last activity: 4133 days
#10 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    The media - more or less - reflects the "biases" of their producers. They generally have a more socially liberal outlook than mainstream America, as well as a more economically conservative outlook than mainstream America.




Also, there is is the basic fact that the vast majority of REPORTERS themselves are Democrats. There is an adversarial relationship between the press and the GOP. The watergate scandal had something to do with that.

Last year, Hbo had a documentary called "journeys with George". It was produced by a twenty-something female what was followed g-dub throughut the 2000 campaign. It became clear that the press corp covering g-dub did not want ot see him win. Throughout the movie, she takes little shots at g-dub, but he does not retaliate. So it was like Bill Oreiley, Rush Limbaugh, and George Will covering the Gore camapign.

The vast majority of the mainstream press is about 60/40 liberal. Fox News is about 80/20 conservative. From an overall perspective, its still more liberal than conservative.

As far as Franken goes, my favorite moment was when he went on weekend update and admitted that although most people shift to the political/economical right when they get older, he can stay liberal because he's so unbelievably rich.




messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 414 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on
Many of the editors are fiscally conservative, because most of the media is now part of the huge corporate conglomerate.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#12 Posted on
It doesn't matter what the reporters believe. It's the editors who take orders from the bosses who don't want anything to button pushing to be covered. the whole "reporters are democrats" thing is based on a 20 year old poll of reporters in the D.C. area, which is a democratic area. However, a newer poll (maybe a year or two old at this point) showed that most reporters are slightly liberal on social issues, and slightly conservative on economic issues, much like the majority of America (I believer they were a little more liberal on the social issues, though).

"Throughout the movie, she takes little shots at g-dub, but he does not retaliate"

Like what, calling him boring, or running stories that present him as a buffon tyring desperately to find some "manly" image that will lead him to victory? The press, rather than cover actual issues, picks up on stupid little quirks of candidates and tends to make them the focus of presidential elections. Bush was stupid and Gore was a boring wimp. Now vote.

I would think it didn't need ot be said, but Bill Clinton is not a liberal. People to the left of Ashcroft are not necesarrily liberals. CNN is not liberal. If they were, they would probably have not bent over backwards to support the President for the past two years. The press wants to maintain the status quo. They are not advocating any sort of socialist state. If so, please let me know.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Many of the editors are fiscally conservative, because most of the media is now part of the huge corporate conglomerate.

Do you have anything else other than the Eric Alterman argument? The fact of the matter is that the media is liberal. 92 percent of the reporters voted for Clinton in 1996(haven't seen the 2000 numbers, but I would bet it would be similar). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the liberal tint to the news. Ever notice the fact that stories about the homeless disappeared when Clinton took office and reappeared after Clinton left? What did all of the homeless live in the land of beer and sugar during Clinton? I think not. And the liberal bias goes well beyond that, to racial, tax, and a score of other issues.



"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 249 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by cactuspete
    Fox News is about 80/20 conservative.


Who's the 20? Alan Colmes isn't so much of a "liberal" as he is the pundit equivalent of the Washington Generals -- paid to sit there, put up a token effort, lose all the arguments, and make Hannity seem coherent and intelligent by comparison. (Not that the last job isn't a Herculean effort at times...)



"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
cactuspete
Blutwurst








Since: 22.9.02
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4134 days
Last activity: 4133 days
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    It doesn't matter what the reporters believe. It's the editors who take orders from the bosses who don't want anything to button pushing to be covered. the whole "reporters are democrats" thing is based on a 20 year old poll of reporters in the D.C. area, which is a democratic area.


No, its actually based on more recent info, like the 1996 poll that Grimis referenced, as well as my personal experience. I used to work as a reporter for a small town newspaper, and Ive recently taken grad classes alongside local TV reporters. During my under-grad work, I also had an ultra-liberal PolySci prof that was a "political analyst" for a local NPR station. (When I say "ultra-liberal", that means he proudly admitted to voting Demoacrat 100%, regardless of candidates.) Needless to say, his analysis was neither fair nor balanced. These people regard Reagan, the Bush's and the rest of the GOP the same way that Bill O'reilly regards Clinton and other Dems.

If you need more evidence, compare the press role during watergate vs lewinsky-gate. Or compare the press coverage of Anita Hill vs Paula Jones.




Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2546 days
Last activity: 649 days
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by cactuspete

      (When I say "ultra-liberal", that means he proudly admitted to voting Demoacrat 100%, regardless of candidates.)


    See, this is where it would be useful to have more than two major parties in the US. I hardly think that voting Democrat 100% of the time makes one an 'ultraliberal'; someone who is actually ultraliberal would be to the left of the Democratic party, and never vote for them. [Around these parts, they would vote Green, or for the Working Families Party - I'm sure it's different in different parts of the country.]

    Really, the Democrats aren't extremely liberal. And the Republicans aren't extremely conservative. They both crowd towards the middle, which is why the house, the senate, and the presidential vote have all been hovering around 50/50. Both party establishments have very similar policies, which is why political arguments are always over minutia.

    Case in point, the prescription drug benefit "debate". Both sides are touting essentially the same thing, with slight differences. A true conservative party would have nothing to do with a prescription drug benefit, and a true liberal party would be advocating government covering 100% of all necessary medication for all Americans, or something along those lines. This doesn't happen - all public debate takes place in a very narrow swath, cutting out both ends of the spectrum. Sure, there's wackjobs in each party, but they don't set the agenda in either.

    The way that 'liberal' and 'conservative' get thrown around like they are insults is just part of the parties trying to paint their opposition as being far more extreme than either really are. Now, tying this back to the topic: the media is just as centerist as the parties - they have no interest in playing to the extremes either. Any bias one way or the other is tiny, and near inconsequential, compared to the possible spectrum of opinion.

    [Now, the center in the US is far to the right of the center in other countries, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.]

    My 2 cents.



    -MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
link to the 92% Clinton Voters please.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2989 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#18 Posted on
you guys keep saying democrat = liberal. Would a liberal try to dismantle the welfare system? Would liberals keep ties with Big business? Yes, there may be some liberals in the Democratic party, but the democratic party is not liberal. Especially Bill Clinton.

And to compare the coverage of Watergate to the coverage of the Lewisnky affair is ridiculous. One involved illegal entry of the opposition party's office, the other involved lying about an affair. On top of that, Watergate was the first big scandal to be covered in the media, while the Lewinsky affair came after several other large scandals, so it's impact wasn't as strong.

If 92% of the reporters voted for Clinton (I believe that number comes from the DC area anyway, which would explain it anyway) then that says to me that 80% of them are probably middle of the road. Clinton is not liberal. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that. Furthermore, why use more than the "Eric Alterman" argument when all you have is a poll of how a small group of reporters voted and saying "but it is liberaly biased!"? Do you really believe that Reagan got bad media coverage? That the War in Iraq was in any way hindered by the media's coverage? That the status quo is being challenged at all by the media?



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    you guys keep saying democrat = liberal. Would a liberal try to dismantle the welfare system? Would liberals keep ties with Big business? Yes, there may be some liberals in the Democratic party, but the democratic party is not liberal. Especially Bill Clinton.

Using Clinton as an example to show the Democratic Party is liberal is pretty bad, considering that Clinton triangulated the welfare reform position away from the Gingrich-ites. It was a great political decision no doubt, but Clinton was a liberal who would get behind anything if he had political gain to it.

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    link to the 92% Clinton Voters please

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html
(And befoer you poo-poo this as a Media Research link, I'm still looking for the original source documents from US News and the Freedom Forum)

Incidentally:
61% identify themselves as Democrats
and The American Society of Newspaper Editors77 percent believe newspapers pay lots more attention to stories that support their own point of view and 78 percent of U.S. adults agree with the assessment that there is bias in the news media.

Noted one news editor at a large daily paper: "I think people realize the press has its own agenda - a middle-class, white suburban or hip urban, college-educated, somewhat liberal vision of how the world should be."





(edited by Grimis on 25.6.03 0706)


"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3035 days
Last activity: 249 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
A quick question to all concerned:

Is it still possible for someone to be neither a raving liberal NOR a staunch conservative, or do we have to pigeonhole every (politician | reporter | pundit | voter | human being in general) as belonging to one side or the other?






"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Here's something to be worried about
Next thread: Kennedy Clan Strikes Again
Previous thread: Well I'll be
(1978 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_bi_ge/hong_kong_us_greenspan Cheerful thought for a Monday morning when the former most powerful man in the world says the U.S. economy is poised to take a negative turn later this year.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Interesting interview with Al FrankenRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.193 seconds.