The mainstream media

pecksniff

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Posts
22,077
Are run by MBAs in suits who sit on the boards of interlocking corporate directorates. Any bias they might have would not be in a leftward direction.
 
Are run by MBAs in suits who sit on the boards of interlocking corporate directorates. Any bias they might have would not be in a leftward direction.
This is absolutely correct...also, they hold much less sway over what individual anchors do than what folks realize. It's more about market share(ratings and audience size) than anything else.

Let's not forget...Anderson Cooper could easy present information from a conservative slant as as a liberal one. Shepard has moved from a conservative vent to now a more moderate liberal one....these are all trained journalist who studied at Universities where they were thoroughly trained in presenting information from multiple slants.

Folks actually believe that these journalist believe(dogmatically) in what they say....this is not, often not the case.

They like money just like anyone else.
 
Mainstream media's shitty reporting facilitates illegal wars leading to the deaths of millions of innocents and gives millions of dollars in free advertising to moron/racist/grifter game show hosts to run for president. They are grossly incompetent at best and fascist propaganda peddlers at worst. I lean towards the latter.


Did the media support the Iraq war?

A University of Maryland study on American public opinion found that: Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War



Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: “It May Not Be Good for America, but It’s Damn Good for CBS”​

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464/




amBLj3y_700b.jpg
 
Even at your average independent newspaper, say the advice columnist and the sports-writer are Democrats and the editor-in-chief is a Republican. That's a 2-1 liberal advantage, but you won't see that reflected on the editorial page, will you?
 
How about we all agree that there is a problem. Frankly, I think arguing over whether the problem is left leaning or right leaning is missing the point.

Does anyone agree that the media is propaganda that works on it's own agenda, and not in our best interests? Maybe if we find common ground on that point, we can focus some energy on the problem itself.
 
How about we all agree that there is a problem. Frankly, I think arguing over whether the problem is left leaning or right leaning is missing the point.

Does anyone agree that the media is propaganda that works on it's own agenda, and not in our best interests? Maybe if we find common ground on that point, we can focus some energy on the problem itself.
No, we have no reason to believe that. The only "agenda" the media has is attraction of eyeballs.
 
Have no reason to believe that the media is propaganda? Is that your position?
 
See the OP. If it were propaganda, it would be propaganda with whatever message favors big business.
See, you're trying to start a blame argument, but you're not willing to admit that there is a problem to begin with.

Is it propaganda or no?

If it is propaganda, then let's join together against it. If it isn't propaganda, then what is the point of this thread?

Is it propaganda or no?
 
See, you're trying to start a blame argument, but you're not willing to admit that there is a problem to begin with.

Is it propaganda or no?

If it is propaganda, then let's join together against it. If it isn't propaganda, then what is the point of this thread?

Is it propaganda or no?
No. What reason do we have to think that the MSM, as a whole, is propaganda? The MSM is a business.
 
So, you do not believe that there is any bias in the MSM.

Okay, what is the fucking point of this thread?
 
No. What reason do we have to think that the MSM, as a whole, is propaganda? The MSM is a business.

The MSM is a business and it's business is propaganda.



Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities. Propaganda is carefully curated information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread, usually to preserve the self-interest of a nation. It is used in advertising, radio, newspaper, posters, books, television and other media.

Shortly after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the organization Citizens for a Free Kuwait was formed in the US. It hired the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for about $11 million, paid by Kuwait's government.[23]

...the firm arranged for an appearance before a group of members of the US Congress in which a young woman identifying herself as a nurse working in the Kuwait City hospital described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor.[24]

The story helped tip both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq:
six Congressmen said the testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52–47 vote. However, a year after the war, this allegation was revealed to be a fabrication. The young woman who had testified was found to be a member of Kuwait's Royal Family and the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US.[24] She hadn't lived in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion.

In early 2002, the U.S. Department of Defense launched an information operation, colloquially referred to as the Pentagon military analyst program.[25] The goal of the operation is "to spread the administrations's talking points on Iraq by briefing retired commanders for network and cable television appearances," where they have been presented as independent analysts.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
 
How did this whole "liberal media bias" canard get started, anyway?
As with the Southern strategy and the sense that the good white Christians out there are the real victims, it goes back to Nixon.
 
How did this whole "liberal media bias" canard get started, anyway?
Years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that few people like to investigate other opinions (like I do). They want their opinions to be confirmed. The article said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about homosexuals and blacks. Those are issues where the mainstream media can take liberal stands in ways that do not challenge the economic interests of the people who own and run the United States.

If a white man kills a black man, even while the black man is committing a crime, that becomes national news. It is portrayed as evidence of how racist America is. If a black man kills a white man, usually while robbing that white man, this is often not reported in the local news. If it is, the race of the black man is rarely mentioned.
 
So, you're not saying that there actually is any media bias - you don't think that media is propaganda, but IF IT WAS, then it would be the other guy's fault and you want to complain about that even though you can't bring yourself to admit that the thing you're complaining about is actually happening.
 
Are run by MBAs in suits who sit on the boards of interlocking corporate directorates. Any bias they might have would not be in a leftward direction.
Utter bullshit.
Complete balderdash.

These companies bend over backwards to send inclusive messages to the Left,
to stack their management positions with rainbow types and to finance all sorts of progressive programs.

And there's one reason why they do that. The Left is hateful, vindictive and activist
and will do everything in their power to harm and diminish any company
which they deem as counterproductive to their aims and ambitions.

The right is simply just too passive to stand up to the thugs.
Bias has nothing to do with the bottom line of
business (profit) reality...
 
Utter bullshit.
Complete balderdash.

These companies bend over backwards to send inclusive messages to the Left,
to stack their management positions with rainbow types and to finance all sorts of progressive programs.

And there's one reason why they do that. The Left is hateful, vindictive and activist
and will do everything in their power to harm and diminish any company
which they deem as counterproductive to their aims and ambitions.

The right is simply just too passive to stand up to the thugs.
Bias has nothing to do with the bottom line of
business (profit) reality...
Does the OP remind you of anyone?

shut up ginger!
woof
 
An entire genre.

It has so permeated corporate culture,
that you cannot watch even sporting events without
being bombarded by the corporate indulgences of virtue signaling.

And this shit of looking the other way while men humiliate woman in sports.
Well, you've come a long way bay-bee...
 
It never ceases to amaze how Dixie can just twist things to mean whatever the fuck she wants whenever the fuck she wants for whatever reasons that she wants.
s.
 
Are run by MBAs in suits who sit on the boards of interlocking corporate directorates. Any bias they might have would not be in a leftward direction.
Peck's assumptions are almost always diametrically opposed to the truth.
 
Peck's assumptions are almost always diametrically opposed to the truth.
Who do you think runs these outlets? You think the fact that nearly every form of media is owned by 6 companies means the Democrats have full control of things?
 
Back
Top