The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News

[Guest mz.]

Anyone who continuously bellyaches about how badly the media really skews left care to respond?

 

[Guest mz.]

Let's just say I've proven my hypothesis.

 

I get chided for obsessing over Palin etc., so I start a thread on a topic and of an intelligent person who genuinely intrigues me, and not a peep/response/belch/fart from any of my accusers.

 

Guess you do want me to bring Palin up at every turn. At least that's what my early results tell me.

[Mr. T]

Major media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX & so on are geared at bringing the news that the majority want to here, Im sorry i could care less for Entertainment News such as the E channel, And for all of the MJ News Crap I was glad when it went away.

 

They need the ratings for the Adv. $$$ while also trying to prop up those politicians that they have a stake in.

 

Then again if you have ever watched GMA the Obama worship will make you puke. I have never seen such a fallacy of misinformation on him and the promotion of his programs.

 

Propaganda at its best try I should say. Not Liberal Not Conservative Just pushing the Obama Machines Agenda which is Progressive Socialism.

 

[Guest mz.]

Not Liberal Not Conservative Just pushing the Obama Machines Agenda which is Progressive Socialism

 

Say what you want, but you guys do equate Liberalism to Socialism nowadays, a notion I clearly disagree with.

 

ANYWAY...the opponents of network/local/cable news claim they are against it due to the Liberal slant, which is untrue. It doesn't matter what the views of the talking heads are, because they merely read what's written. And you can be damn sure what's written is in accordance with the views of the advertisers/sponsors. Shows like Hannity and Olbermann are the exceptions, of course, because they are opinion-based. But the shows I'm referring to are, say, shit like Brian Williams. He shows no opinion whatsoever, because, frankly, he isn't given the opportunity.

 

How that stuff is labeled Liberal is beyond me, and what I take issue with.

[calfoxwc]

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, October 9th, 2008

 

Democratic Socialists Of US Back Obama

 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/democra...s-endorse-obama

 

As we and others have previously noted, Mr. Obama has a long personal history with the Democratic Socialists Of America, stretching back more than a decade.

 

So it should be of little surprise that they have endorsed him the current issue of their newsletter, the “Democratic Left” (a pdf file):

 

Resolution on the 2008 Presidential Election

The November presidential election, now less than three months away, will mark the welcome end of the Bush-Cheney regime – one of the worst administrations in U.S. history.

 

The corporate-dominated media tainted the primary season by once again treating the campaigns as a series of horse races – where voters are encouraged to vote not for the candidate who best represents their interests and values, but rather for the candidate the media says is most likely to win. For the media to judge a candidate as having a “winning trajectory,” he or she must be among those raising the most contributions from corporate-connected individuals.

 

We have little hope that over the next three months the media will focus on the policy differences between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. That is tragic, because there are major differences between the commitments of both candidates and their respective parties that need to be aired and understood, even if these differences are not as great as the democratic Left might like. Obama promises to restore to American workers the right to organize; to renegotiate international trade agreements so they enforce and do not Retard labor, environmental, and human rights; to re-regulate the financial sector and end speculative excess; to bring troops home from Iraq and invest the saved funds in domestic needs; and to move toward universal health care. That’s a program worth electing a president on – or fighting for in the event the president and his party renege.

 

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) holds a different view of electoral politics than that of the corporate media or even much of the Left. We see electoral politics as one means in a much broader struggle of grassroots democratic social movements to pressure the state to enact policies that address the needs of their constituencies and a wider public. The democratic reforms of both the New Deal (the Wagner Act, Social Security) and the Great Society (the civil rights acts, Medicare) did not derive from the beneficence of moderate presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. In the case of FDR, his modest programs were substitutes for more radical policies supported by numerous Congress members but deemed not winnable by the president and congressional leaders. The limited reforms of the New Deal and Great Society were enacted because Congress and the president were forced to respond at least minimally to the demands of the mass social movements of the CIO and the civil rights upsurge.

 

DSA has long recognized that the corporate, neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party is not an ally for radical democratic change. Its support for NAFTA, similar destructive trade legislation, and cuts in government aid to low-income citizens in the face of growing poverty and income inequality; its fronting for corporate power and “free market” ideology; its resistance to allowing the party to make a systemic critique of the war in Iraq, the “war on terror,” or the corporate stranglehold on civil society put it on the other side of a widening political divide. While Obama’s largest funders come from this wing of the party, the social forces fueling his campaign – people of color, union activists, and anti-war Democrats – have long opposed the neo-liberal stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

 

Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Marshall Plan to develop green technologies and green jobs.

 

Had the U.S. a genuine multiparty system, neo-liberal positions would be held by a centrist party, and DSA would be organizing as part of a left electoral force against it. Given the U.S.’s restrictive election laws, the only electoral fight possible against corporate domination has to happen in and around the Democratic Party, on the federal, state, and (allowing for the rare exception) county and city levels.

 

An Obama presidency will not on its own force legislation facilitating single-payer health care (at least at the federal level) or truly progressive taxation and major cuts in wasteful and unneeded defense spending. But if DSA and other democratic forces can work in the fall elections to increase the ranks of the Congressional Progressive and Black and Latino caucuses, progressive legislation (backed by strong social movement mobilization) might well pass the next Congress.

 

Senator Barack Obama has attracted considerable support as a presidential candidate who promises to end “politics as usual.” He has invigorated a significant youthful, multiracial cadre of supporters, as well as gained considerable support from liberal activists. The massive outpouring of small contributions in support of his campaign signals the potential power of his message, and his recent call for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is encouraging.

 

Yet his campaign has centered more around gestures and symbols than on concrete policy alternatives; and where he has been concrete, as in health care, his plan falls short of universal coverage. And he often employs pro-market rhetoric to defend his programs and their failure to cover everyone.

 

While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda. We know that a proactive and progressive government can come only on the heels of a broad coalition for social justice united against a reactionary Republicanism as well as a Democratic neo-liberalism. Such a movement will also have to fight for a public finance system that can limit the power of corporate fundraising and lobbyists over both major political parties. Thus, DSA offers its Economic Justice Agenda and its “four pillars” as a framework for such a progressive policy agenda. This program calls for:

 

1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

 

2. Enacting single-payer universal health insurance and expanding public initiatives in child care, elder care and pension security;

 

3. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market; and

 

4. Implementing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor, environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations.

 

True democracy is not about one woman or man promising change for the American public. That takes consistent pressure from below. Who holds the presidency does matter, if only as a more accessible target for pressure. A Democratic presidency and Congress would also create popular expectations that rising inequality and injustice will be curbed. If the Democrats frustrate those hopes (as they did in the early 1960s), mass mobilization is likely to grow rather than subside.

 

Nor should the Left be so involved in the national presidential campaign that it ignores the fall primaries and general election races for the U.S. House and Senate. We need more progressives in Congress as well as increased Democratic majorities.

 

The November election can’t be the end of a fight, but its beginning, and connections made on a local and national level leading up to November can position the Left to play a role in struggles to come.

 

Whether Mr. Obama is now or ever was a member of the DSA’s “New Party,” he is their candidate now.

 

And why not? Look at their agenda:

 

 

Thus, DSA offers its Economic Justice Agenda and its “four pillars” as a framework for such a progressive policy agenda. This program calls for:

 

1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

 

2. Enacting single-payer universal health insurance and expanding public initiatives in child care, elder care and pension security;

 

3. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market; and

 

4. Implementing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor, environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations.

 

Is that not Mr. Obama’s program in a nutshell?

 

Of course we should not be surprised that he would be endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He also has the endorsement of the Communist Party Of America (CPUSA).

 

And once again, Obama’s platform and the CPUSA’s are practically identical.

 

(For a refresher course on just what the DSA is up to, visit Discover The Networks.)

 

Related Articles:

 

•Obama's Socialist Vision For America

•SDS/Weathermen Support Barack Obama

•What ANSWER Demands From The Bailout

•The Left's $1 Trillion 'Housing' Shakedown

•CPUSA And Obama Platforms Are Identical

•Communist Party/CPUSA Endorses Obama

 

 

[calfoxwc]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1828309,00.html

 

Crushing on Obama

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Thursday, Jul. 31, 2008

Drew Friedman for TIME

 

In the closing days of the 1992 presidential campaign, President George H.W. Bush took to waving a bumper sticker with the slogan ANNOY THE MEDIA/RE-ELECT BUSH. Four years later, Senator Bob Dole asked voters to "rise up" against media that were trying to "steal this election." Complaining about the liberal media is a signature of losing Republican campaigns. It doesn't work because whining doesn't look presidential and because annoying the media tends to be pretty low on voters' to-do lists.

 

But now John McCain, who once enjoyed excellent relations with reporters, is criticizing the press. Frustrated by his inability to get attention amid the wall-to-wall coverage of Barack Obama's foreign tour, McCain released a Web ad accusing journalists of nursing crushes on the Democrat. Among the ad's highlights: a clip in which NBC reporter Lee Cowan confesses that "it's almost hard to remain objective" while covering Obama because the energy of his campaign is so "infectious." The ad is lighthearted, but the McCain team's frustration is obvious.

 

Journalists have put up several lines of self-defense. Obama is on more magazine covers in part, they note, because those issues sell better than McCain covers. McCain is a familiar figure who has been involved in presidential politics for nearly a decade, while Obama's rapid rise--from state senator to presidential nominee in four years--is part of what makes him a compelling story.

 

That McCain's complaint is sometimes overstated and imprudent, however, does not mean that it is wrong. The political press corps has a problem when Jon Stewart lampoons reporters for being even more in the tank for Obama than he is.

 

Why are the media so smitten with Obama? Journalists have an affinity for the Democratic nominee in part because he is a wordsmith and they make a living manipulating words and symbols, so they have a special appreciation for his gifts. But another part of the reason is, yes, plain old liberal bias. McCain was a press darling when he was a maverick dissenting from the Republican Party from points left. Obama has become one by succeeding as a down-the-line liberal. When McCain decided this time around to court conservative Republican voters as much as liberal reporters, the coverage of him became more critical. Notice a pattern?

 

At this point, denying that the press has a liberal tilt, particularly on social issues, is like denying that the universities have one. Surveys of reporters show that they have more liberal views than the public; surveys of the public show that readers and viewers pick up on it.

 

The silver lining for McCain is that the media's bias has sometimes backfired on liberals. One reason gun control and abortion have repeatedly been land mines for Democrats is that reporters never issued any warning signs. The press has long underestimated the political risks in liberalism. Obama's Reverend Wright fiasco was a case in point. Even though the two men had close ties, the press gave little scrutiny to the radical preacher for a year after Obama's campaign began. When attention finally came, Obama gave a speech that tried to shift the focus from their relationship to the rest of the country's racial wounds. He was rewarded with rapturous coverage. The next day, the New York Times ran a "news analysis" calling the speech "hopeful, patriotic [and] quintessentially American" and comparing him to John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. It took a few more weeks for Obama to realize that he had to take the final step and repudiate Wright.

 

Media bias poses only one serious danger to McCain. One of Obama's standard tactics has been to predict that McCain would "play on our fears," "exploit our differences" and stir up "fake controversy" to win this fall. It's a clever move; it simultaneously paints McCain as a brute while making him think twice about hitting back--the harder McCain hits, after all, the more it will look as though he is stirring up fake controversy. Too many reporters have bought that spin, and that's a problem. McCain doesn't need reporters to fall out of love with Obama. But he does need to be allowed to make the case against the Democrat.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

Say what you want, but you guys do equate Liberalism to Socialism nowadays, a notion I clearly disagree with.

 

 

Just a reminder, Communism is bad. Communism is not just another "ism." In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100 million people

[Westside Steve]

Just a reminder, Communism is bad. Communism is not just another "ism." In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100 million people

 

It isn't the communism that did that.

I don't see communism or socialism as either good or evil.

I personally don't think they'll work very well or very long but that's another issue.

 

It wasn't facism that slaughters millions.

It's just what happens when human nature comes into play.

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

 

 

 

Many have heard of Nazism's (fascism) and the Holocaust of 6 million who died,

 

But many haven't heard about this 17-times-bigger Communist holocaust.

 

It's documented in the Black Book of Communism,and the numbers are not really disputed, just ignored.

 

Communist countries like North Korea and Cuba kill citizens who simply try to leave the country - today.

 

Communism, along with Nazism and Fascism, represent one end of the political spectrum the one where government makes most of the decisions.

[Westside Steve]

Many have heard of Nazism's (fascism) and the Holocaust of 6 million who died,

 

But many haven't heard about this 17-times-bigger Communist holocaust.

 

It's documented in the Black Book of Communism,and the numbers are not really disputed, just ignored.

 

Communist countries like North Korea and Cuba kill citizens who simply try to leave the country - today.

 

Communism, along with Nazism and Fascism, represent one end of the political spectrum the one where government makes most of the decisions.

 

I don't think that's to the point.

I don't think there's a plank in the Communist Party Platform that supposes to commit genocide.

Genocide may be committed by communists but communists are not murderers because of that.

They can of course be both.

 

If we accept the concept that any war the US was involved in has been to promote democracy or freedom you will find hundreds of thousands along the way who were killed.

That does not mean that the or even a goal of democracy is mass killing.

 

Many have dies under the banner of Christianity yet I do not think that Christiqanity has at it's core the idea to kill all unbelievers.

 

One can most certailly have a benevolent facist or communist empire.

 

Humans, like most mammals will kill each other for reproduction, territory food and other resources regardless of political system.

WSS

 

 

[Chicopee John]

Let's just say I've proven my hypothesis.

 

I get chided for obsessing over Palin etc., so I start a thread on a topic and of an intelligent person who genuinely intrigues me, and not a peep/response/belch/fart from any of my accusers.

 

Guess you do want me to bring Palin up at every turn. At least that's what my early results tell me.

 

Might be only me, mz the pussy, but I cannot get your article / attachment here at work. Maybe later at home????

 

[Guest mz.]

That study has the oddest methodology I have ever seen. I have no idea how counting the number of times a source utters scorable code words counts as a valid measure of tendency. Perhaps that's why I've never heard of this study... Think about it. Any study employing a scoring system where Drudge or Hume scores as "centrist" needs to be, ahem, further investigated, no? I'd say the same thing if Olbermann scored there.

 

So if we were monitoring/measuring cal, for instance, he would be the most Liberal outlet of all, as all he talks about is "Obama" and "Acorn" and "Pelosi.". I would presumably score to the right for uttering "Palin" as

often as I ostensibly do. Code words are a terrible measure. What said outlet SAYS about said code words is a much better measure.

 

Oh and T, you've clearly lost your mind.

[Mr. T]

 

The Communist Revolution Going on in America - Recorded August of 2009

 

drink it up the kool-aid is good for U

[Guest mz.]

Fuck, T, can't you create another thread for all of this Communist shit? We're talking media bias here.

[Legacy Fan]

Good vid, mz the pussy.

 

I think both sides (of the media, not here) use the assertion tactic that Chomsky was discussing. The easiest way to invalidate an argument, is merely to assert that it is false. It now leaves it up to whom you deem the authority on the matter, after the asserting volley has subsided.

[Guest mz.]

It now leaves it up to whom you deem the authority on the matter, after the asserting volley has subsided.

 

And I trust guys like Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky and even guys like Andrew Sullivan because they are undoubtedly SMART guys who like to research politics and form opinions based on facts they can cite and intelligently discuss.

 

That assertion tactic is a staple of Fox News, and they have used it to absolute perfection. All they need do is merely make their assertion, which obviously comes in the form of an opinion (as guys like Glenn beck always seem to forget to include source materials, go figure), and clowns like cal eat that shit up lest they be labeled "unAmerican."

 

The notion that garbage like local news or the USA Today leans Liberal is a joke. How can something devoid of OPINION lean one way or another??? It's ridiculous.

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Good to see that mz the pussy and Legacy are still butt buddies. Keep it up! How pitiful you both are. Know it all wannabes. PATHETIC. Call me when you all learn something in REAL life.

[Guest mz.]

This is called "friendly conversation," Jeffro. Sorry if it offends you.

[Westside Steve]

So I respectfully disagree with Dr Chomsky.

(no surprise though I think he is brilliant)

Not because he's wrong in the cause/effect but because of the sheer numbers of positive to negative stories during the campaigns.

 

Also while the 90% of Democrats in journalism is only "the appearance of impropriety" I'd bet it carries over.

And I see edirtorial policy slanted left.

For ideology or pure profit?

 

And that "appearance" sure gets a lot of ink elsewhere, no?

 

You decide.

Does Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turners political slant affect their networks or is it just to sell to certain demographics?

WSS

[Guest mz.]

Also while the 90% of Democrats in journalism is only "the appearance of impropriety" I'd bet it carries over.

And I see edirtorial policy slanted left.

For ideology or pure profit?

 

Is it 90% Democratic or 90% Liberal? there is a difference.

 

Editorials and news are two different things. One is an opinion and one is (supposedly) a mere reporting of facts. Editorials I can agree with you upon. Policy is driven by profit, so I don't know what the answer is there.

 

And that "appearance" sure gets a lot of ink elsewhere, no?

 

WSS

 

The "appearance" gets ink exactly where you think it would...

 

[Westside Steve]

Is it 90% Democratic or 90% Liberal? there is a difference.

 

There is.

Still both liberals and democrats seem to dislike Bush and like Obama a lot.

 

Editorials and news are two different things. One is an opinion and one is (supposedly) a mere reporting of facts. Editorials I can agree with you upon. Policy is driven by profit, so I don't know what the answer is there.

 

The profit, as I see it is the same for the NYT as it is for Fox or CNN.

To appeal to an audience.

And as the readers of print diminish they play to the harder left readers they have.

And you don't have to lie to slant a story.

Not only that but you're free to report on whatever you wish.

 

 

 

 

The "appearance" gets ink exactly where you think it would...

 

 

Where is that?

 

WSS

[Guest mz.]

The profit, as I see it is the same for the NYT as it is for Fox or CNN.

To appeal to an audience.

WSS

 

Of course they both appeal to certain audiences. The difference: folks who read the NYT prefer things like "sources" and "facts" and "statistics" and "quotes from smart people/industry leaders," whereas FNC gets by on yelling, screaming, fabricating, lying and fearmongering, without actual facts to back anything up. I don't watch CNN, so I have no idea what goes on there.

 

For instance, cal "heard somewhere" (guess where? Has to be Fox, Rush, or some held-unaccountable blog) that 20M folks will LOSE healthcare under the new plan. I asked him for a source. He had none and told me to, and I quote, google it. That's information? He was told something somewhere and just chose to arbitrarily believe it because for some reason he trusted the head that spurted it out. Glenn Beck could tell him something outlandish, like, say, the President is a Nazi, and he'd believe it.

 

Wait.....

[Guest mz.]

I'm gonna keep raising that thread to the top until I get my answer.

[Kosar_For_President]

For instance, cal "heard somewhere" (guess where? Has to be Fox, Rush, or some held-unaccountable blog) that 20M folks will LOSE healthcare under the new plan. I asked him for a source. He had none and told me to, and I quote, google it. That's information? He was told something somewhere and just chose to arbitrarily believe it because for some reason he trusted the head that spurted it out. Glenn Beck could tell him something outlandish, like, say, the President is a Nazi, and he'd believe it.

 

Wait.....

 

Look at the last forum post from me, might explain why.

[Guest mz.]

I dug it.

[Guest mz.]

maybe, just maybe there wasn't a real need for that as liberal pundits already have other outlets

 

On the few times I listened to Air America, the product just kinda sucked. I truly think that's why it flopped.

 

[Mr. T]

I think it goes both ways, however the left doesn't have it's own news orginization like the right with Fox news. They are unabashedly a right wing news organization, the left cannot claim they have that.

 

Also one thing on these 24 hour news stations that bugs the shit out of me is their use of questions to make assertions. I think the daily show pointed this out a while back. Examples are.

 

 

Are the democrats and Obama leading the country towards all out socialism?

 

Or when Bush was in office.

 

Is George Bush and Dick Cheney planning on eating babies for their Christmas dinners?

 

 

See when they phrase it like a question they can get away without making absurd assertions, hey they are just asking questions!!!

 

Like...

 

Is your mother an ungrateful whore who cheated on your dad and did meth in a 7-11 bathroom?

 

See how that works? They didn't state that, they just asked a question that sounded a lot like a statement

 

 

The attacks do go both ways.

 

Many attack Fox news for being a conservative news outlet, hmm well how many liberal news outlets are there? CNN, MSNBC, ABC Etc.

[Guest mz.]

Bob, please show me proof on how, say, ABC is a Liberal outlet.

 

Could Noam have flown further over your head?

[Mr. T]

Bob, please show me proof on how, say, ABC is a Liberal outlet.

 

Could Noam have flown further over your head?

 

 

Its not that hard to prove, Mike

 

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview ...

 

ABC Propaganda

 

Just as guilty as the rest of them.

 

Keyword: triggers hate in liberals........ Palin

[Guest mz.]

Come on. I read the transcript. I urge everyone else to, as well. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill, newsbusters. The interview was edited to make her look BETTER IMO; it eliminated a ton of her incoherent rambling. Not one pertinent piece of info was left out on purpose. She is just a terrible interview, that's all.

 

MSNBC is a Liberal outlet. Stewart is Liberal. But ABC? Do they even have an opinion???

 

And I've now said this a thousand times: Liberals, like me love Sarah Palin. I can't think of a better way to push a Liberal agenda than to have such a moron soapboxing for the other side.