StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Starglider wrote:This is another highly disingenuous statement. The so-called 'Big Three' networks now have a combined market share of less than 30% of all TV programming, but of course for elections what we really care about is news. Fox News regularly achieves over a 50% share of all US cable TV viewers and in overall terms is over twice as popular as the next competitor (CNN, which is well ahead of the nearest big-three news source, MSNBC). Fox News is of course completely and unashamedly Republican-biased.

On the contrary, its a highly-accurate assessment. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, AP, UPI AFP and Reuters plus every major newspaper in the country plus every major news magazine plus all the major FM radio stations all unequivocably and overwhelmingly supported Obama, gave hima pass on every issue, never questioned him, never investigated him, never raised any issues that might embarras him. In contrast, they hounded McCain and Palin mercilessly, picking up on every slight flub and inventing issues when none could be found. Of all the news media, Fox and only Fox actually tried to give the Republican candidates an even break. Your viewing/listening figures are correct but this simply shows the vast gap that has grown between the far-left political orientation of the news media and the center-right orientation of their audience. That's also why newspapers are bleeding readers and money at a laudable rate. With a little luck, they'll go bust soon. Your readership figures actually emphasize the point I'm making; the US is a center-right country and the workings of electoral demographics mean that it is likely to stay that way.

Starglider wrote:I can't personally appraise this statement because I had only limited exposure to US media through the election - I stayed up for the election night and I do sometimes watch Fox News for the comedy value but that's it. However second-hand experience seems to suggest that Obama had his fair share of scandals, the birth certificate thing, the mad preacher, dubious property dealings etc. He did get away with various flubs, but then Palin also got away with some horrendous ones.

Completely wrong. All the negative issues surrounding Obama were glossed over and buried very quickly. Palin got away with nothing and many of the accusations and issues poured out by the press turned out to have been completely invented. Remember the "who is the real mother?" meme that went around and the number of media people who actually took it seriously. The vicious campaign of character assassination against Sarah Palin (which continues by the way) was probably the U.S. media's lowest point and effectively destroyed it had left.

Starglider wrote:Again I don't have personal experience of this but I find it highly unlikely that a market exists for Republican-biased news which is not being filled. I suspect the situation is that Democrats (who are more usually urban) tend to buy newspapers while Republicans (who are more usually urban) prefer to listen to Rush Limbaugh. TV and to a lesser extent Internet sources are probably more important however.

I'm afraid argument from incredulity doesn't get one very far. And your basic presumptions are utterly wrong. Get out of the urbanized areas and local newspapers get to be very important community tools. Newspaper readership in such areas is actually greater than in big cities. That's why local papers remain relatively ehalthy while teh national ones are collapsing. You are correct on TV news, but as we've seen, with the exception of Fox, all the television media and are far-left orientated and all the internet news sources easily available. A sign of just how corrupted the U.S. national media is can be seen from one simple fact. The Chinese Xinhua news agency, the official news agency of the Chinese communist government gave better-balanced coverage of the U.S. elections than any of the main U.S. media.

Starglider wrote:Democrats are favoured by 'traditional' media sources. However Republicans have abandoned these sources in droves and now almost exclusively use alternative, heavily pro-Republican sources. The effective result is a roughly 50/50 split between media consumption (not necessarily number of outlets) biased in each direction, which is unsurprising, because it's exactly what supply/demand economics would predict. This split is now so severe that there were several interesting articles published about 'two halves of America living in separate worlds'.

Which simply proves my point. The news media are completely out of synch (and far to the left of) the American political center of mass.

Starglider wrote:I would note that personally I was a Libertarian up to age 21 or so, and have been getting progressively more moderate since then, although I am still a strong supporter of the Conservative party in the UK. Annecdotal, but definitely the reverse of the trend you are postulating.

In US terms, "libertarian" is a code-word used by democrats who don;t want to admit the fact. (Interesting point how most Democrats try to conceal their actual identity either by Mobying or by claiming to be libertarians. Republicans very rarely do that).

the US is a center-right country and the workings of electoral demographics mean that it is likely to stay that way.

Basically, does anyone have any evidence I can use or failing that just personal experience relevant to the question of how much of the US media is 'Democrat-biased' and how much is 'Republican-biased' (of course both sides would probably call most of their side 'fair and balanced').

The Chinese Xinhua news agency, the official news agency of the Chinese communist government gave better-balanced coverage of the U.S. elections than any of the main U.S. media.

In US terms, "libertarian" is a code-word used by democrats who don;t want to admit the fact. (Interesting point how most Democrats try to conceal their actual identity either by Mobying or by claiming to be libertarians. Republicans very rarely do that).

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, FOX, AP, UPI AFP and Reuters plus every major newspaper in the country plus every major news magazine plus all the major FM radio stations all unequivocably and overwhelmingly supported McCain, gave him a pass on every issue, never questioned him, never investigated him, never raised any issues that might embarrass him. In contrast, they hounded Obama and Biden mercilessly, picking up on every slight flub and inventing issues when none could be found. Of all the news media, MSNBC and only MSNBC actually tried to give the Democratic candidates an even break.

Completely wrong. All the negative issues surrounding McCain were glossed over and buried very quickly. Obama got away with nothing and many of the accusations and issues poured out by the press turned out to have been completely invented. Remember the "Reverend Wright scandal" meme that went around and the number of media people who actually took it seriously. The vicious campaign of character assassination against Barack Obama (which continues by the way) was probably the U.S. media's lowest point and effectively destroyed [any credibility] it had left.

You are correct on TV news, but as we've seen, with the exception of MSNBC, all the television media and are far-right orientated and all the internet news sources easily available. A sign of just how corrupted the U.S. national media is can be seen from one simple fact. The Chinese Xinhua news agency, the official news agency of the Chinese communist government gave better-balanced coverage of the U.S. elections than any of the main U.S. media.

Count Chocula wrote:
Regarding media bias, that should be relatively simple to determine: just write down a list of prominent news personalities from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox, then find out or ask the networks if they're registered to vote as Democrats, Republicans or Independents. I'm tempted to tell you my bias, but I'm working from musty memories that are not reliable.

Count Chocula wrote:Plus, I'm cynical enough to believe that ALL of the networks slant the news for sensationalism over veracity. That depth of research may not be worth your time for a board debate, however.

Mr Bean wrote:Political affiliation means little to reporting since so many FOXNEWS's anchors pull that trick of registering independent yet being so damn Neo-conservative it's not even funny. And so many of the talking heads they bring on are "independent" as well. A better comparison would be your classic Positive/Negative Statement assignment.

Count Chocula wrote:Regarding the Libertarian party: they are actually far more conservative, in the original sense of the word, than either major political party in the US is by examination of their party platforms. The general Libertarian belief (from my perspective, as a registered and active Libertarian until approx. age 30) is that the Constitution and first 10 amendments, plus maybe the Louisiana Purchase and Monroe Doctrine, are the ideal federal government. Basically, they're 1789ers.

Darth Wong wrote: As for his idiotic arguments about the American political "center of mass", he seems to believe that Obama's decisive victory was somehow a trick, and that most of the country actually hates him. He'll have to provide better evidence than "because I say so", which seems to be the sole underpinning of his entire argument.