Left Wing Media, PBS included, exposed!

[amicus]

Left Wing Media, PBS included, exposed!


A total of 167 news stories presented by ABC, CBS and NBC analyzed by an independent survey, noted that 88% provided negative or bad press for the Republicans and 77% positive, or good press, for the Democrats featuring news stories for the midterm elections.

That didn’t surprise me, I have known that for over thirty years, we have a left wing press.

Had they included PBS, the so-called, ‘Public Broadcasting System‘, the percentage would have been higher as PBS is almost 100% left wing.

I include PBS because I happened to watch a ‘Jim Lehrer’ news report, (which used to be McNeil/Lehrer News) during which yet another Ivy League (Kerry/Kennedy Country) Social Liberal was interviewed concerning future tactics and strategy in Iraq.

I was bemused that this Professor recommended that programs similar to FDR’s WPA and CCC, be instituted to revitalize Iraq; as those programs, this dopey professor announced, had brought America out of the Great Depression.

Any even superficial student of History will immediately recall, that many, if not most of Roosevelt’s socialist programs were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and failed to revive the economy or even ‘jump start’ it as was claimed.

Most of those WPA and CCC programs had people digging holes and filling them in again, just to give them a government salary, confiscated from legitimate producers by taxation. Those aware of history will know that only world war two and defense employment acted to finally bring the depression to an end.

Let us not even mention the greatest ‘Ponzi’ scheme ever perpetrated, that of Social Security, that drained a nation’s resources to enrich the Federal Government. You don’t know? Calculate what you are forced to pay into Social Security and the extrapolate that as an interest bearing investment. After 40 years of investment you could have accumulated millions, lived off the interest and left a boon for your children.

Yeah, I know, you can’t do the math.

To bring this little diatribe down to earth, I relate a personal experience of just a day or so ago that applies.

I was watching children for my daughter and she informed me a repairman would arrive to replace a kitchen range. He did, all by himself. I noticed a battery attached to a hand-truck, something I had never seen before, so I asked him about it and he demonstrated.

That damned battery powered hand truck, walked up two levels of stairs, with a kitchen range aboard, controlled by a pistol grip in the repairman’s hands. He said they had been around for a few years and there was also an ‘air sled’ which enabled one man to move heavy objects such as big freezers and pianos. It usually takes two or three men to accomplish such tasks.

I commented that the machinery permitted one man to do the work of two, which must piss off the Union folks. He also noted that it saved his back from heavy lifting and that if a Union were involved, they would still send along a second guy and charge double wages for it.

Labor intensive…was the gist of the Ivy League professor, that’s why the Unions and the Democrats (Unions vote 90 % for Dems) want to stifle innovation and progress, just to keep more people employed in manual labor. The reason? Blue collar workers can be controlled and guided, white collar workers develop a mind of their own.

To bring this all into focus, at least in my mind, taking into consideration my long term affair with politics and the prevalence of left wing media, after Goldwater, I never expected a rational Republican to take office ever again. Reagan surprised me, both Bush’s surprised me and renewed my faith in main street America. Once again, as the 2006 midterms approach I cannot see how the rational right can combat the subjective left and the left wing media blitz, but they must, somehow, if human liberty is to continue.

Go vote Republican!

Amicus…

 

[Explaura]

Dubious

Well..

I am skeptical of your independant survey. Are they reporting on all stories, or just some. How do they choose which ones? I wonder if it reported the incedence of positive press for the republicans and negative for the democrats. I don't think a partisan dialectic is really realistic on a great number of issues because you can have a story that is positive towards both republicans and democrats or negative towards both. For example, coverage of the polling preparations. Are they dealing with coverage of individuals in only political contexts? Where would they in that case draw the line between political and non-political contexts? Is there an adjustment for degree of positivity or negativity? I am also curious about the time frame of the stories surveyed. If it was recent, I wouldn't be surprised because things are not going very well for the republican party. If the media reports this, does it make them biased?

I'm not saying that PBS doesn't reflect more liberal veiws, however, it is my understanding that academic political culture tends in fact to be more liberal. If PBS decides that the voice of academia is the place to look for forward thinking commentary and opinions they wouldn't be the first. Does that make them maliciously biased? There are books out there that would make a strong case for the opposite, that the mainstream media are far more conservative than they should be based on the latest thought on politics and economics. In some areas I beleive it, although I personally am not a big Roosevelt/New Deal/Social Security fan.

As far as rational republicans being voted in on the basis of their potential and good ideas.. I don't have much faith that either Republicans or Democrats get a lot of credit from Mr. or Ms. Average American for their real strengths or potentials. I think a lot of people vote the party lines based on 1 or 2 issues, or listen to the advertisements that echo what they already think. And even then I don't think a majority fully understand both side of most issues. And I think its pretty hard for people to even get a clear political picture based on the editorializing and biases both ways from those who claim to want to help them decide, not to mention the incomplete information, intreague, and complexity of the issues. While WPA style programs might not be the best idea, if the best idea was super glaringly obvious, noone would be discussing the issue on TV at all.

 

[amicus]

Well, hello, Explaura and welcome to the forum as I do not recognize your name but I do appreciate your thoughts...

I should have said up front, I guess, that I noticed the 'Independent Poll' as a crawler at the bottom of both Fox and CNN news channels and have no further support of what was said.

I am gonna scroll sideways and re-read your post...

Okay...PBS was originally foundedand funded by government, in direct opposition to free market broadcasting, as an 'educational channel' on both radio and television. All other stations must compete in the market place for audience and advertising.

I have been around since PBS began, and I understood at the outset and understand now, that the social liberal elite figured that the public should be exposed to Masterpiece Theatre, Opera and stage and the intellectual elite of the nation, as a 'public service'. I disagree, totally, which may cause you chagrin, but nonetheless, that is not, I repeat, not, the function of the government we have, restrained by our constitution. There should be no such thing as tax supported public broadcasting...not in a free society.

Your other point, about the American Public in general...I suspect they may be somewhat wiser that you parse.

If you consider, over the past forty years, the onslaught of European social democracies, ( a cowardly form of Marxist socialism) and American intellectual elite wannabees, it is somewhat amazing that the grassroots have resisted European worldly sophistication and gone on to become the leader in just about all things, world wide.

I did not quite get the theme of your post if there was a central one, forgive me...


amicus....

 

[Tuomas]

What I found interesting about that survey was the amount of distrust people expressed in journalism and the mainstream media. In fact, people trusted politicians more than journalists....

 

[Pure]

hi ami, you're right, of course. in both senses. do you also protest the right-wing leanings of CNN and Fox news?

 

[Pure]

question:

ami European social democracies, ( a cowardly form of Marxist socialism)

'cowardly'--- hmmm. the European social democrats do use the term 'social democrat' and are upfront about their policies.

i don't suppose the fact that the people *democratically elected* --and RE-elected--these governments matters to you.

ami: why do you hate democracy, both in the US and abroad?

---
Note: it's because we favor democracy that we use the label 'social democrat' (=democratic socialist).

 

[Tuomas]

If CNN is considered "right wing"... I shudder at what you "Americans" would call "left wing press"

 

[Pure]

peking news service used to be pretty left wing.

 

[Somme]

peking news service used to be pretty left wing.

One's tongue being FIRMLY in one's cheek?

 

[Tuomas]

peking news service used to be pretty left wing.

But now that the Chinese have gone capitalist on us, Cuba remains the only bastion of the worker's paradise.

Still, there is Globovisión

 

[Lauren Hynde]

A total of 167 news stories presented by ABC, CBS and NBC analyzed by an independent survey, noted that 88% provided negative or bad press for the Republicans and 77% positive, or good press, for the Democrats featuring news stories for the midterm elections.

That would be relevant, if you could somehow back it up by showing that the number of newsworthy events that happened during the time period analised included a balanced percentage of positive or good events related to Republicans and Democrats.

Can you believe that an independent survey recently noted that even in Germany, 98% of all neo-Nazi movements-related stories provided bad or negative press for the neo-Nazis, and 83% of all Medecins Sans Frontieres-related stories provided positive or good press for MSF? This sort of bias is disgusting, I tell you.

 

[Liar]

If CNN is considered "right wing"... I shudder at what you "Americans" would call "left wing press"

There's not a left wing press in the entireness of the US. Let alone a major left wing party...

...if you look at it thru the eyes of a, say, european lefite (a social democrat or socialist).

It all depends on where you consider the middle to be.

But what's really sad is that we actally have to consider the news outlets so politically colored that we can't trust them to not skew facts anymore. Any news item except maybe from telegram bureaus must be read with the 'bias/propaganda filter' on.

 

[Liar]

But now that the Chinese have gone capitalist on us, Cuba remains the only bastion of the worker's paradise.

That, and North Korea. Oh, what a happy and prosperous bastion.

 

[Tuomas]

...and Bolivia is trying really hard to join them. As if they weren't poor enough already

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Maybe there is a different take on this. Could it possibly be that 88% of the bullshit pulled off by the Bush White House and 77% of the Democratic response is making it to the news?

 

[Liar]

By the way...

Of course the Republicans will get more criticized in genneral in the media. They're the ones in charge. It's always more interresting to scrutinize what the government is up to than the opposition.

 

[gauchecritic]

I commented that the machinery permitted one man to do the work of two, which must piss off the Union folks. He also noted that it saved his back from heavy lifting and that if a Union were involved, they would still send along a second guy and charge double wages for it.
Amicus…

did he happen to note that he was being paid more for doing the one job which kept his company strictly within the confines of handling and lifting guidelines fought for by his non-existant unions which also just happen to severely reduce his chances of chronic back pain thereby rapidly draining the coffers of his private medical insurance and keeping the company the hell away from lawsuits for compromising his health? No? Thought not.

Just in case you don't understand my left whinge gist: The company don't actually give a damn about his back and would happily employ three or four minimum wage lackeys to hump the cooker around if it wasn't for the potential (extra) costs involved plus the fact of union pressures to safeguard employees health.

Return to your 18th century freedom Mi Amico and leave us to live in the real world.

 

[Tuomas]

did he happen to note that he was being paid more for doing the one job which kept his company strictly within the confines of handling and lifting guidelines fought for by his non-existant unions which also just happen to severely reduce his chances of chronic back pain thereby rapidly draining the coffers of his private medical insurance and keeping the company the hell away from lawsuits for compromising his health? No? Thought not.

Just in case you don't understand my left whinge gist: The company don't actually give a damn about his back and would happily employ three or four minimum wage lackeys to hump the cooker around if it wasn't for the potential (extra) costs involved plus the fact of union pressures to safeguard employees health.

Return to your 18th century freedom Mi Amico and leave us to live in the real world.

Uh, no, actually, that is usually not the case. I say usually.

Companies need to be efficient to generate profit (unless it's one of those silly corporations that seem so popular in America), and having three guys do the job of one is not efficient.

Let's say that the company hired three guys at one third the original guy's salary (cheaper for them, because they didn't have to buy and maintain the machine). OK, now they've just tripled their workforce. Someone has to supervise these people, which means three times as many supervisors, which means three times as many managers, and there times as many execs. There is a higher security risk, as it it three times as likely to have a theif in the mess. People show up sick -unlike the machine- which means you have to hire more people to cover them. And several other conditions I'm forgetting.

So, to make it worth the company's while to not care about the employee, they will have to be paying him peanuts. Which is not possible: labor is a limited resource. There is only 5-6% unemployment (not up on the latest US employment figures), which is not going to cover all the companies suddenly having to hire three times as many people.

What really happened was probably along the lines of: the company had three guys to do the instalation. They payed each $X an hour, but, they discovered that the machine costs (spread over the total hours that it will be used) $X an hour, which means they could fire two guys, buy the machine and pay the remaining guy $1.5X, and still keep $0.5X for themselves. After that, they realized that the machine could actually work all the time, which means the same machine was available to both shifts (whereas the extra two guys were not), and that they could save an additional $0.5X.

Now, since their installation costs were cut by one third, they could offer their clients a discount -say, 20%- rake in new customers and make even more profit. That way, not only are the workers paid more, the company makes more profit AND the client gets a discount. What could be better than that?

We'll just ignore the two guys that lost their jobs, though

 

[JamesSD]

A total of 167 news stories presented by ABC, CBS and NBC analyzed by an independent survey, noted that 88% provided negative or bad press for the Republicans and 77% positive, or good press, for the Democrats featuring news stories for the midterm elections.

167 stories is a tiny sample.

Who was the "independant" survey done by?

 

[Pure]

Liar: There's not a left wing press in the entireness of the US. Let alone a major left wing party...

...if you look at it thru the eyes of a, say, european lefite (a social democrat or socialist).

It all depends on where you consider the middle to be.

I think the above is pretty accurate. The Toronto Star is/ was sometimes said to be the sole exception.

In magazines, the left is very little represented, ie. The Nation, and in a weird way, Harpers.

I consider the middle to be a bit right of Bill Clinton, and a bit left of the liberal Republicans (Chafee, Snowe, Schwartzeneggar).

According to CNN, twice as many people now call themselves 'conservatives' as call themselve 'liberal'-- so the center has shifted; a mainstream liberal like Ted Kennedy is now referred to as if he's Trotsky.

 

[Seattle Zack]

This seems to be the tone of a lot of conservatives lately, this kind of apologetic explanation of Bushie, that shrug and "we had no one better, but neither did you?" explanation.

It's very bizarre, this neo-cabal of fundamentalist Christians, Big Oil Money, and anti-porn feminists that has nothing to do with traditional conservatives, but it amazes me the nitwits that rally 'round it and still try to defend a "conserviative" agenda.

I realize, of course, that "amicus" is a right-wing parody, a comical character much like Stephen Colbert or Rush Limbaugh, constructed to draw criticism and attention without contributing anything. I keep waiting for CVIV's version of amicus2, which could be even more nonsensical and neurotic.

--Zack

 

[Oblimo]

amicus, you don't need to say the code word "left wing."

We know you mean "Jewish."

You're old enough to remember what this was all originally about.

 

[Tall_One]

Please

Left Wing Media, PBS included, exposed!


A total of 167 news stories presented by ABC, CBS and NBC analyzed by an independent survey, noted that 88% provided negative or bad press for the Republicans and 77% positive, or good press, for the Democrats featuring news stories for the midterm elections.

That didn’t surprise me, I have known that for over thirty years, we have a left wing press.

Had they included PBS, the so-called, ‘Public Broadcasting System‘, the percentage would have been higher as PBS is almost 100% left wing.

I include PBS because I happened to watch a ‘Jim Lehrer’ news report, (which used to be McNeil/Lehrer News) during which yet another Ivy League (Kerry/Kennedy Country) Social Liberal was interviewed concerning future tactics and strategy in Iraq.

I was bemused that this Professor recommended that programs similar to FDR’s WPA and CCC, be instituted to revitalize Iraq; as those programs, this dopey professor announced, had brought America out of the Great Depression.

Any even superficial student of History will immediately recall, that many, if not most of Roosevelt’s socialist programs were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and failed to revive the economy or even ‘jump start’ it as was claimed.

Most of those WPA and CCC programs had people digging holes and filling them in again, just to give them a government salary, confiscated from legitimate producers by taxation. Those aware of history will know that only world war two and defense employment acted to finally bring the depression to an end.

Let us not even mention the greatest ‘Ponzi’ scheme ever perpetrated, that of Social Security, that drained a nation’s resources to enrich the Federal Government. You don’t know? Calculate what you are forced to pay into Social Security and the extrapolate that as an interest bearing investment. After 40 years of investment you could have accumulated millions, lived off the interest and left a boon for your children.

Yeah, I know, you can’t do the math.

To bring this little diatribe down to earth, I relate a personal experience of just a day or so ago that applies.

I was watching children for my daughter and she informed me a repairman would arrive to replace a kitchen range. He did, all by himself. I noticed a battery attached to a hand-truck, something I had never seen before, so I asked him about it and he demonstrated.

That damned battery powered hand truck, walked up two levels of stairs, with a kitchen range aboard, controlled by a pistol grip in the repairman’s hands. He said they had been around for a few years and there was also an ‘air sled’ which enabled one man to move heavy objects such as big freezers and pianos. It usually takes two or three men to accomplish such tasks.

I commented that the machinery permitted one man to do the work of two, which must piss off the Union folks. He also noted that it saved his back from heavy lifting and that if a Union were involved, they would still send along a second guy and charge double wages for it.

Labor intensive…was the gist of the Ivy League professor, that’s why the Unions and the Democrats (Unions vote 90 % for Dems) want to stifle innovation and progress, just to keep more people employed in manual labor. The reason? Blue collar workers can be controlled and guided, white collar workers develop a mind of their own.

To bring this all into focus, at least in my mind, taking into consideration my long term affair with politics and the prevalence of left wing media, after Goldwater, I never expected a rational Republican to take office ever again. Reagan surprised me, both Bush’s surprised me and renewed my faith in main street America. Once again, as the 2006 midterms approach I cannot see how the rational right can combat the subjective left and the left wing media blitz, but they must, somehow, if human liberty is to continue.

Go vote Republican!

Amicus…

If the SSA was left alone to operate the way it was designed and not raided by the gov't every time they could not balance the budget it would be very strong and provide everything that was promised.

By the way over the last 100 year the Gop Admin's have out spent the Dem admin's. So much for the tax and spend party. If President Bush had any back bone he would have vetoed the biggest pork barrel project ever created (Homeland security).

Before 9-11 the United States was the most heavily policed state in the world, why did we need more? Oh yeah to keep us safe from the terrorist's.

If you think that the unions did nothing for the workers of the USA you are sniffing the same drugs your hero was (read Bush). The working conditions in the USA in the early 1900's were no better than they are in third world nations now.

Oh by the way I voted GOP in the State elections and McCain in the 2000 election. I vote for the man or women not the party.

I thought the party known as the GOP was conservative. They are spending money like we have it. We don't even have a properly trained work force to meet the future needs of America and we can afford to spread Democracy. That my friend is no way to run a country let alone a business.

Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Tall_One]If the SSA was left alone to operate the way it was designed and not raided by the gov't every time they could not balance the budget it would be very strong and provide everything that was promised.

Perhaps you have not done the math, my friend. The life span of the average American in 1936 when social security was made law, was approximately 49 years. Return on the confiscated funds accrues to the government, not the payee. Thus over one third of those forced to pay, do not benefit. Nor does the capital invested become the property of the investor, it defaults to government to be disposed of as chosen. Social Security is just another of the collectivist schemes to redistribute wealth in accordance with command econony desired. The final insult is the pittance disbursed after forty years of forced contribution and the controls exercised over the payee. You surely don't begin to understand the travesty that has been committed for well over a half century.

By the way over the last 100 year the Gop Admin's have out spent the Dem admin's. So much for the tax and spend party. If President Bush had any back bone he would have vetoed the biggest pork barrel project ever created (Homeland security).

You may have mistakenly identified increased protection of the population required after 9/11, but most people understand. You are just being silly here.

Before 9-11 the United States was the most heavily policed state in the world, why did we need more? Oh yeah to keep us safe from the terrorist's.

You should perhaps have visited Germany during the 1970's, as I did, to get a real feel for just what a 'police state' really is as obviously, you haven't a clue; another silly statement.

If you think that the unions did nothing for the workers of the USA you are sniffing the same drugs your hero was (read Bush). The working conditions in the USA in the early 1900's were no better than they are in third world nations now.

Unions are a carry over from the old European Guild system, that functioned to limit skilled artisans in any trade and maintain high prices for services. You perhaps need a dose of reality and context. Working conditions began to improve in the United States as a result of the Industrial Revolution which moved labor from the backs of men to machinery. It also benefited society in general as goods could be producted and distributed more efficiently and the per unit cost fell, enabling people to slowly improve their standard of life. Unions, if they did anything, hindered progress and kept more people in poverty to a greater degree than anything except organized religion which worshipped and still does, ignorance and obedience.

Oh by the way I voted GOP in the State elections and McCain in the 2000 election. I vote for the man or women not the party.

I thought the party known as the GOP was conservative. They are spending money like we have it. We don't even have a properly trained work force to meet the future needs of America and we can afford to spread Democracy. That my friend is no way to run a country let alone a business.

Of the two major parties, the GOP is 'conservative' to use your term, although conservative is a term that does not fully describe a political party that adheres to Constitutional principles and acts best to protect and preserve those unalienable rights you so easily discard. There is also the matter of the concept of a free market place functioning without coercion. One party, throughout its'existence has respected free exchanges by refraining from mandating behavior on the market place and diluted the impact of human ingenuity.

Confess it kid, you want a slave society, managed and directed by (insert your favorite dictator or system)



Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?[/QUOTE]

~~~~

My oh, my, the typical mantra...don't you folks ever get original?


regards...

amicus...

 

[TheOlderGuy]

Left Wing Media, PBS included, exposed!


A total of 167 news stories presented by ABC, CBS and NBC analyzed by an independent survey, noted that 88% provided negative or bad press for the Republicans and 77% positive, or good press, for the Democrats featuring news stories for the midterm elections.

…

so your point would be that reporting the truth about how bad the Republicans have become is biased reporting? what if the Republicans actually are 88% bad? not hard to believe from the vantage point of the average American trying to preserve a sliver of what they earn for themselves, while the national debt skyrockets, the international community recoils in horror from our barbaric colonialism, and the bill of rights is stripped of any real meaning.

lumping NBC in there is a real laugh. they wouldn't even run paid advertising for the new documentary that followed the Dixie Chicks thru the period when half the media and much of country music shunned them for speaking up. NBC thought it too disrespectful of Bush. they're owned by GE, in case you missed that. follow the money. you might learn something about the media, and about the "war".