StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.fair.org/activism/savage-donahue.html

I gotta ask- why do we need Fox News again?

The media has exhibited a conservative bias ever since the fairness doctrine was shot down. It will only get worse from here. Keep the cocksucking market out of the media; its supposed to be PUBLICALLY owned.

Sigh. Even when we had real liberals in the media, they weren't reactionary freaks that called everyone nazis or commies when facing an opposing viewpoint.

Did you guys even watch Donahue?? It was horrible, it was slow and plodding. The I am smarter than you attitude was apparant each and every show.. I am sure AL Franken will do much better..

theski wrote:Did you guys even watch Donahue?? It was horrible, it was slow and plodding. The I am smarter than you attitude was apparant each and every show.. I am sure AL Franken will do much better..

Al Franken's a funny guy

But come on, look at the human sewage they're hiring!

Look you want to do a liberal vs conservative thing. You do what CBS wanted for 60min Clinton vs Limbaugh I would watch that all day!!

Hameru wrote: The media has exhibited a conservative bias ever since the fairness doctrine was shot down. It will only get worse from here. Keep the cocksucking market out of the media; its supposed to be PUBLICALLY owned.

Excuse me, what alternative to private corporations owning news services is there? You want to nationalize the news services? I don't see any other options here. It either belongs to privately owned corporations (which operate in the marketplace), or it gets nationalized and run by the government. Hmm... state run news services. Yeah. That's a good idea. Maybe we'll need to come up with a catchy title like "Pravda: The North American Edition".

Hameru wrote: Sigh. Even when we had real liberals in the media, they weren't reactionary freaks that called everyone nazis or commies when facing an opposing viewpoint.

You're confusing the large number of conservative columnists and pundits (who are hired to comment upon the news, not report it, and are supposed to take one side of an issue, and people know this) with how the straight news is reported. In the three networks, plus CNN, plus MSNBC, plus the major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times), plus the major newsmagazines such as Time and Newsweek, there is no conservative bias. In fact quite the opposite. There is a very pronounced tendency to slant the news to the left, because the overwhelming majority of reporters and their editors are left-leaning in their politics, and it colors the way they report the news. And unlike OpEd pieces from conservative columnists (which are, after all, confined to the opinion page of the paper), this stuff is reported as straight news, which is supposed to be objective.

The reason that Fox news is gaining in popularity is that most Americans are aware that the media reports the news with a leftward tilt, and they see Fox News as an alternative.

Incidentally though, I can't stand idiots like Michael Savage. He is exactly the kind of guy that gives conservatives a bad name, because he is not somewhat conservative; he really is an extreme, right winger. Moreover, he's so loud, obnoxious, abrasive, intolerant, and given to insulting those who disagree with him, that most conservatives can't stand him, nevermind anyone else. He puts more moderate conservatives on the defensive, because they have to try and distance themselves and their positions from this idiot.

He's so good at making anyone who hears him hate his guts, I wonder if MSNBC didn't hire him in order to bring conservatives and conservatism into disrepute.

Perinquus wrote:<snip>
He's so good at making anyone who hears him hate his guts, I wonder if MSNBC didn't hire him in order to bring conservatives and conservatism into disrepute.

Knowing NBCs history, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Perinquus wrote:Excuse me, what alternative to private corporations owning news services is there? You want to nationalize the news services?

It works in Britain. The BBC is a publicly owned network without corporate funding, and they are thus not beholden to corporations. Likewise, they are willing to attack their own government. That's why investigative reporters like Greg Palast have to go abroad to get work; the British news services recognize and employ competent people who will perform the role of a journalist and reveal the failures of those in power. Sadly, this is lacking in America. An example: the BBC program Newsnight covered the story of how Katherine Harris and Clayton Roberts, in connection with the GOP-funded DBT Technologies, disenfranchised tens of thousands of minorities and Democrats in the 2000 elections; they did this while the votes were being counted. The British newspaper The Observer began to cover it on November 26. ABC, CBS, and the Washington Post were all aware of the story during this time; however, none of them ran it. All three gave the same reason: they called Jeb Bush's office and he denied it. Eventually, the Washington Post ran a story about it in June 2001, when it was over and done with, after the US Civil Rights Commission duplicated the work of Palast, Joe Conason, and others months earlier.

Perinquus wrote:You're confusing the large number of conservative columnists and pundits (who are hired to comment upon the news, not report it, and are supposed to take one side of an issue, and people know this) with how the straight news is reported. In the three networks, plus CNN, plus MSNBC, plus the major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times), plus the major newsmagazines such as Time and Newsweek, there is no conservative bias. In fact quite the opposite. There is a very pronounced tendency to slant the news to the left, because the overwhelming majority of reporters and their editors are left-leaning in their politics, and it colors the way they report the news. And unlike OpEd pieces from conservative columnists (which are, after all, confined to the opinion page of the paper), this stuff is reported as straight news, which is supposed to be objective.

The reason that Fox news is gaining in popularity is that most Americans are aware that the media reports the news with a leftward tilt, and they see Fox News as an alternative.

There is no such tendency in media today. Look at the coverage of three events:

• The Clintons engage in suspicious land deals. They invest $30,000 and make no profit. The Justice Department clears them of any wrongdoing. The Washington Post and the New York Times call for independent investigations, and rightly so, b/c the Justice Department is staffed with appointees who rely on Bill Clinton for their job.
• George W. Bush is on the audit committee for Harken Oil in 1989, which uses the same techniques Enron later perfected to hide $10,000,000 in debt. Bush also engages in the sale of Harken Oil stock (in 1990) to the tune of $800,000 after signing a contract not to sell stock and after being informed of the company's financial problems. Soon after, Harken Oil stock tanks. The SEC chief, appointed by his father, appoints an attorney to investigate; the investigator is Dan Bartlett, who was also George W. Bush's personal lawyer. The SEC did not exonerate Bush (as revealed in a 1993 letter from the SEC to Bush's attorney, saying its decision "must in no way be construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated"), but they did not bring charges. Not one major news agency asked for independent investigations. In fact, most news agencies repeat the lie Bush told during his campaign that he was exonerated.
• Dick Cheney makes $18.5 million selling shares of Haliburton Oil while he is CEO. Six days later, stock values decline by 11% in one day after the company issued a warning about how its business was failing and it was investigated by a grand jury for overbilling the government. This was investigated recently, by the George W. Bush appointee Harvey Pitt. Not one news agency asked for independent investigations.

In fact, Whitewater caused a furor that lasted for months, whereas the president and VP's dealings received barely a peep. I've already mentioned the failure on the part of the media in covering the 2000 elections. If there was a liberal bias in reporting the news, you'd expect both of these stories to have received at least some coverage.

Let's also keep in mind that conservatives dominate TV and talk radio, which reach significant numbers of people.

Moreover, news agencies are beholden to corporate interests; it's highly unlikely that ABC will break an expose about corporate crime within Disney, for example. Likewise, Fox News is unlikely to address stories about News Corporation. The corporate sponsors are far and away the most significant decision-makers when it comes to reporting - and they are conservative.

To quote Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post:

Gene Weingarten wrote:My company is a large, liberal-minded institution that thrives on convivial collegial consensus among persons who...are complete coequals right up to the time as an actual disagreement occurs. At this point, the rules of the game change slightly. We go from Candy Land to rock-paper-scissors. Editors are rock. Writers are those gaily colored wussy plastic paper clips. In short, I was given a choice: I could see the lucent wisdom of my editors' point of view and alter the column as directed, or I could elect to write a different column altogether, or I could be escorted to the front door by Security.

There are exactly six corporations that control the major news outlets (Disney, AOL/TimeWarner, Disney, Viacom, GE, and News Corp). They are not exactly bastions of liberal thought. Further, a 2000 study from the Pew Research Center found that 40% of journalists felt a need to censor their own work to benefit the organizations they work for; a 2000 study from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism indicated that one thired of local news directors were pressured to avoid negative stories about advertisers.

The emphasis on the bottom line means that little actual news is reported; they are expected to do what makes money, and if that means manufacturing hysteria over a nonexistent "epidemic" of bay kidnappings (as they did a few years ago), then so be it. If news is not reported, then liberals can't slant it.

Finally, most people listen to pundits more than they simply read news stories. Many of them (such as Joe Scarborough of MSNBC) pretend to be journalists.

Frank_Scenario wrote:
It works in Britain. The BBC is a publicly owned network without corporate funding, and they are thus not beholden to corporations. Likewise, they are willing to attack their own government.

But there is also Sky News, Reuters, various papaers, etc. What was posted earlier on this thread was the assertion that we need to get privately owned corporations out of the news, which would leave only the state run news services. And without alternative sources to balance them off, it is far less likely that news stories would be balanced.

Frank_Scenario wrote:There is no such tendency in media today.

BULLSHIT!!!

We've been over this ground before in another thread you know. I cited examples out of Bernard Goldberg's book. Most particulary an Eric Engberg hatchet job on conservative presidential candidate Steve Forbes on the CBS evening news. I don't see how you can read actual instances of the most blatant and appalling media bias and sit there and contend that "There is no such tendency in media today." All you have to do is watch the damn network news broadcasts and you see it all the damn time!

Frank_Scenario wrote:Look at the coverage of three events:
The Clintons engage in suspicious land deals. They invest $30,000 and make no profit. The Justice Department clears them of any wrongdoing. The Washington Post and the New York Times call for independent investigations, and rightly so, b/c the Justice Department is staffed with appointees who rely on Bill Clinton for their job..

He was already president when this information came out. You do understand that presidents are extremely high profile figures right? Also the fact that some of Clinton's Whitewater partners ended up in jail, tends to make the matter look rather more serious, and might have something to do with making people talke a closer look at this incident. But again, Clinton was a sitting president when this was investigated. You do understand that they tend to be subject to more scrutiny than...

Frank_Scenario wrote:George W. Bush is on the audit committee for Harken Oil in 1989, which uses the same techniques Enron later perfected to hide $10,000,000 in debt. Bush also engages in the sale of Harken Oil stock (in 1990) to the tune of $800,000 after signing a contract not to sell stock and after being informed of the company's financial problems. Soon after, Harken Oil stock tanks. The SEC chief, appointed by his father, appoints an attorney to investigate; the investigator is Dan Bartlett, who was also George W. Bush's personal lawyer. The SEC did not exonerate Bush (as revealed in a 1993 letter from the SEC to Bush's attorney, saying its decision "must in no way be construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated"), but they did not bring charges. Not one major news agency asked for independent investigations. In fact, most news agencies repeat the lie Bush told during his campaign that he was exonerated.

Who was not president when this was investigated.

Frank_Scenario wrote:Dick Cheney makes $18.5 million selling shares of Haliburton Oil while he is CEO. Six days later, stock values decline by 11% in one day after the company issued a warning about how its business was failing and it was investigated by a grand jury for overbilling the government. This was investigated recently, by the George W. Bush appointee Harvey Pitt. Not one news agency asked for independent investigations.

These supposed shady accounting practices and "overbilling the government" actually have a solid defense. Halliburton handles enormous construction projects, like power plants and oil refineries. In the past, the company had signed construction contracts on what was known as a cost-plus basis. That meant the customer paid the costs of construction plus an agreed-upon profit for Halliburton. But in the 1990s, Halliburton began to sign more fixed-price contracts in which it agreed to do projects for a pre-determined fee. "The industry as a whole was changing," says Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton. "It was moving from cost-plus contracts to large lump-sum contracts."

The change created pressure to revise the way Halliburton accounted for revenues from such projects. With a fixed-price deal, whenever the final cost of the project ran over the preset dollar amount, Halliburton had to go back to the customer to try to get payment for the extra costs. Until 1998, Halliburton recorded such payments in its revenue column only when the customer actually sent in a check. But in 1998, Halliburton adopted another system of accounting in which it recorded revenues more quickly, based on an estimate of what it would ultimately collect. Halliburton made the change in the aftermath of its expensive merger with Dresser Industries, and the change allowed Halliburton to post more revenue to offset the losses associated with the merger.

Contrary to the criticism that the move "stretched and may have broken accounting rules," it appears that Halliburton's method of accounting is in fact not only perfectly legitimate but is the preferred way for large companies to do business these days. "Back in 1982, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants issued a statement of position on contract accounting, including cost overruns," says Doug Carmichael, professor of accounting at Baruch College. "Prior to that time, those things were only recorded when they were resolved on a cash basis. But generally, accounting doesn't work that way. It works on an accrual basis, where things are recognized when they happen rather than when cash changes hands." Now, Carmichael says, "recognizing [revenues] on an accrual basis when the costs are incurred is probably the method that most contractors follow. It's what the audit guide says should be done."

Frank_Scenario wrote:In fact, Whitewater caused a furor that lasted for months, whereas the president and VP's dealings received barely a peep.

A sitting president is revealed to have been engaged in shady business deals in which three of his partners, one a former governor of Arkansas and prominent democrat are convicted of fraud and sent to prison. This sparks a furor in the media. And this genuinely newsworthy event indicates conservative bias how?

Frank_Scenario wrote:I've already mentioned the failure on the part of the media in covering the 2000 elections. If there was a liberal bias in reporting the news, you'd expect both of these stories to have received at least some coverage.

What failure of the media in covering the elections? What things do you think they should have covered that they did not?

Frank_Scenario wrote:Let's also keep in mind that conservatives dominate TV and talk radio, which reach significant numbers of people.

For the zillionth fucking time, when we speak of media bias, we are speaking of bias in those who are supposed to be unbiased, whose job it is to report the news in an unbiased fashion, i.e. reporters and news correspondents. Of course the pundits are biased. They're expected to be biased. They're goddamn fucking supposed to be biased! Americans who are upset about media bias are not upset that pundits are offering opinions rather than unbiased reports; that's what they're fucking hired for.

What upsets Americans is media bias in reporters, whose job it is to report the news in an objective and unbiased fashion, and who all too often are not doing that.

Frank_Scenario wrote:Moreover, news agencies are beholden to corporate interests; it's highly unlikely that ABC will break an expose about corporate crime within Disney, for example. Likewise, Fox News is unlikely to address stories about News Corporation. The corporate sponsors are far and away the most significant decision-makers when it comes to reporting - and they are conservative.

Oh, that explains the NY Times, Time magazine et. al adopting all thoise conservative viewpoints, and recommending all those conservative candidates for political office. Oh, wait a minute...

Frank_Scenario wrote:To quote Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post:

Gene Weingarten wrote:My company is a large, liberal-minded institution that thrives on convivial collegial consensus among persons who...are complete coequals right up to the time as an actual disagreement occurs. At this point, the rules of the game change slightly. We go from Candy Land to rock-paper-scissors. Editors are rock. Writers are those gaily colored wussy plastic paper clips. In short, I was given a choice: I could see the lucent wisdom of my editors' point of view and alter the column as directed, or I could elect to write a different column altogether, or I could be escorted to the front door by Security.

Maybe my English is bad, but this reporter describes his paper as a "liberal-minded institution", and also says he can write what his editor tells him to write or be shown to the door, and this indicates conservative bias?

God almighty dude! The Washington Post is one of the most liberal papers out there. They consistently come down in support of the liberal side of every issue, abortion, the flat tax, gun control, affirmative action, take your pick. And here's a Post reporter sdmitting that his editors routinely tell him "my way or the highway", and this indicates conservative bias?

Frank_Scenario wrote:There are exactly six corporations that control the major news outlets (Disney, AOL/TimeWarner, Disney, Viacom, GE, and News Corp). They are not exactly bastions of liberal thought. Further, a 2000 study from the Pew Research Center found that 40% of journalists felt a need to censor their own work to benefit the organizations they work for; a 2000 study from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism indicated that one thired of local news directors were pressured to avoid negative stories about advertisers.

Disney is run by Michael Eisner - a liberal. AOL/Time-Warner, until recently Ted Turner and company were big wigs in that outfit. Ted Turner - yeah, big time conservative. Another Time/Warner bigwig, Richard Parsons, is somewhat conservative on fiscal issues. On social issues he's a liberal as they come. The conservative bogeyman you see dominating the news just is not there.

I can also add The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Morning Show, and All of the evening network news stations CBS< NBC< ABC all Liberal and let the taking heads show it..

I should add that the myth of the conservative media is based primarily on the rise of cable news networks, some of which are indeed conservative. That being said...ah, what the hell, tell 'em, Andrew:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_arti ... m=20030305

I don't know much about Michael Savage, but it seems that he is not merely a Conservative, but a racist. He does not stand as the poster child for all conservative political thought in the US, he seems to come from an uber-right pov.

I am also bright enough to differentiate between a liberal and a person with raving Politically Correct ideals. To take Savage and say, "see! Conservative news dominates!" is like going into a library, pulling out "Meain Kampf", and say "Libraries support fascism, see what I found in there?"

In radio talk shows, Conservatives seem to have the edge. Conservative talk TV is also a Conservative arena. The broadcast news organizations were once overwhelmingly liberal and now seem to be migrating right a bit. On many domestic issues, however, they are still fairly true to their liberal roots, I think.

Print media, on the other hand, is a left wing empire. Magazine racks are full of left wing news magazines and social issue readers, and newspapers seem to be more to the left than otherwise. Between print and broadcast, you can probably find a line in the middle and therein seek the truth.

It does not help that all media in the US are corporations, and reporting news to make money to a selected audience-- this will put their biases in action one way or another...

Conservative talk radio is just the market at work. You say no one ever gives liberal talk radio a chance? Look at NPR. Making the voice of unprofitable radio heard.

Durran Korr wrote:Conservative talk radio is just the market at work. You say no one ever gives liberal talk radio a chance? Look at NPR. Making the voice of unprofitable radio heard.

You're right. NPR seems to be the last place where liberal journalism is freely espoused. The New York Times and Washington Post are the print-journalism versions of NPR.

Frank_Scenario Let's also keep in mind that conservatives dominate TV and talk radio, which reach significant numbers of people

You have ...got to be kidding me.
The Conservative is mainly based in Talk RAdio where the Liberal is the weakest. LIBERALS DOMINATE THE TELE!!!

As for Savage Nation, I stopped listening to him last week when he said all Atheists are communists.....that fucken retard!!!

Cyaround,
Jason

You have ...got to be kidding me.
The Conservative is mainly based in Talk RAdio where the Liberal is the weakest. LIBERALS DOMINATE THE TELE!!!

You'd be correct if you were talking about entertainment coming from the likes of Al Franken, etc.

---

One of the claims Goldberg makes is that conservative politicians are identified as conservatives much more than liberal politicians are identified as liberal. That is refuted on Eric Alterman's site.

Welch and Murdoch are but two of hardline conservative businessmen that own the news. Larry Tisch when he owned CBS. So are Richard Parsons and Steve Case of CNN (and Time Warner AOL),[from consortiumnews]

Regarding AOL : many liberal sites, including democraticunderground.com are censored (last time i checked, which was a year ago) when parental controls are enabled. Freerepublic.com, the conservative site famous for its members that harrassed the owners of Chuy's, is not censored. Nor is lucianne.com or other far-right sites.


The argument on Eisner being a liberal is funny, because although Michael Eisner DID give to Bill Bradley and Al Gore, he gave more to Bush and McCain – and he supported Rick Lazio for the Senate against Hillary Clinton.