All right. I'm going to explain this one last time...

[Hamletmaschine]

The media are not liberal. They are conservative to the core. Why? Because they are businesses, and businesses have only one motive, one Prime Directive: to earn profits.

Politics is just drama to them--no different from a soap opera or a cheesy movie-of-the-week. If people tune in, it's good--and one of the ways they can get people to tune is to appear to be "controversial." To say that the media are liberal because the words, images, and personalities appearing in the news seem to you to be left-of-center is the same thing as saying that Shakespeare was necessarily evil because he created Iago or Richard III.

Okay. Everybody got that? The media are ... repeat after me...

C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E!!!

Why?

Because they're money-grubbing scum, and money-grubbing scum are not into tearing down or criticizing a system that has made them one of its principal beneficiaries. That would be dumb. The media are money-grubbing scum, but they aren't that dumb. No, they want to conserve the system--see the connection?--so they can make more fucking money!

All right. Lesson over. Case closed. Let there be no more discussion of this matter.

 

[Guest]

CAPITALIST SCUM!

 

[kotori]

Now academics, on the other hand. They're Liberal. Big time.

 

[celiaKitten]

Damn, I love it when you get like this.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Now academics, on the other hand. They're Liberal. Big time.

Yes, of course. Goes without saying. Every last one of us. Even that toad Walter "No-neck" Williams Ishmael has the hots for.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Damn, I love it when you get like this.

Conservative may get all the money, but liberals get all the good-looking women.

 

[kotori]

Damn, I love it when you get like this.

He's pretty damned cute, ain't he?

 

[CoolidgEffect]

This might explain why I can never quite perfect Money Grubbing.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

It's genetic, CE.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Mass media is, by and large, owned by huge multi-national corporations. Huge multi-national corporations tend to be conservative.

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Yup. Good man, Thrillhouse.

 

[celiaKitten]

He's pretty damned cute, ain't he?

*sighs* you have no idea...

 

[SaucyWench]

What's wrong with being a money-grubbing capitalist?

 

[nitelite33]

My flaw with your argument is your rigid association of conservatism with capitalism.

Traditional conservative ethics keep that body from even approaching the full potential of a free market and true capitalism.

Capitalists go where the money is at plain and simple. While conservatives are concerned with industry and elements of the free-market, they are ultimately limited by their bourgeois sensibility.

 

[The Heretic]

I will agree that the various corporations that own news and mass media orgs are conservative themselves - especially at the top, I don't know that I will agree that the people who create the content are conservative themselves. I believe various polls of these people have found just the opposite.

But so what? If the content they provided were conservative biased instead of being "liberal" biased, then would that be better or worse? What I find harmful is any significant bias - because such bias tends to leave out opposing viewpoints, and stress compatible ones. Even more harmful is a bias of any sort towards the sensational, subjective and superficial - that is my main objection to the news media. Give me objective and substantive news reporting and I will be happy to leave the rest of the media (entertainment, etc.) to whomever wants it. As it is, I use the news media solely to let me sometimes know when something of consequence has happened or is going to happen so I can go elsewhere to find the real substance. Beyond that, they are of little real use.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I've told you the Truth, and you can accept it or not. But you cannot argue with the Truth.

 

[riff]

News is entertainment. Most people don't understand that the "product" of the media is not news, but viewership. By producing viewership they are able to sell ad-spots and generate a profit.

As harsh as that sounds, credibilty is a factor. So there is a delicate balance between selling "news" and being factual.

 

[Olivianna]

Many money-grubbing corporations/businesses support whole hog a large number of do-good non-profit organizations.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Objectivity is an 18th century fantasy. We're in the 21st century now. The lines between information and entertainment are gone. Get used to it.

 

[Thrillhouse]

I will agree that the various corporations that own news and mass media orgs are conservative themselves - especially at the top, I don't know that I will agree that the people who create the content are conservative themselves. I believe various polls of these people have found just the opposite.

But so what? If the content they provided were conservative biased instead of being "liberal" biased, then would that be better or worse? What I find harmful is any significant bias - because such bias tends to leave out opposing viewpoints, and stress compatible ones. Even more harmful is a bias of any sort towards the sensational, subjective and superficial - that is my main objection to the news media. Give me objective and substantive news reporting and I will be happy to leave the rest of the media (entertainment, etc.) to whomever wants it. As it is, I use the news media solely to let me sometimes know when something of consequence has happened or is going to happen so I can go elsewhere to find the real substance. Beyond that, they are of little real use.

Objectivity is certainly preferred, but, ultimately unrealistic. Journalists are people, and people have opinions. I tend to think people only (or primarily) notice bias in media when they disagree with what's being said. I have a very conservative co-worker who, just yesterday, told me that Fox News is the "fairest" news outlet around, unlike "liberal" CNN. We agreed to disagree.

 

[riff]

Objectivity is an 18th century fantasy. We're in the 21st century now. The lines between information and entertainment are gone. Get used to it.

Kundera defined this best with his "imagologues" in Unbearable Lightness Of Being, I think.

 

[pipercatt]

Leaving an apple on the desk and quietly walking out...

 

[celiaKitten]

Objectivity is an 18th century fantasy. We're in the 21st century now. The lines between information and entertainment are gone. Get used to it.

Careful .. this could break down to a *good old days* argument in a moment...

 

[Hamletmaschine]

LOL - true .. the good ol "Enlightenment" ... what did that give us?

Auschwitz and Hiroshima. The good ol' days.

 

[kotori]

LOL - true .. the good ol "Enlightenment" ... what did that give us?

Auschwitz and Hiroshima. The good ol' days.

You're this close to sounding like Harry Lime on the Prada Wheel.

Cuckoo.