quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Chris Mathews from 'soft ball' said it was his job to see that Obama was successful after he was elected. A true unbiased reporter. Guys like him and Keith Oberman will never change. 

quote:

 More recently, the New York Times’ fraudulent reporter Jayson Blair received a mid-six figure advance for his memoirs—even the most egregious reporters can make big bucks and become media darlings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack45

The people who HIRE "journalists" hire their viewpoint, journalists are propagandists for their owners. Which is why heartland Americans get the shaft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Good reasoning, but I disagree with a couple of your assumptions.

The first is that there are more liberals, than there are conservatives.

The majority of Americans are conservative fiscally and politically, but liberal in social issues.

The second assumption I disagree with is that it is somehow "right" that a liberal world view should dominate the news organizations.

But thank you for the post. Glad to see someone addressing the actual subject.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



The first is that there are more liberals, than there are conservatives.

.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



The first is that there are more liberals, than there are conservatives.

.

Firm

But overall twice as many, when asked to put a single label on their beliefs, say they are conservative. I don't believe that's the real ratio...there are a helluva a lot of liberals who are afraid to admit it so they call themselves "unaffiliated" or "progressive". But there is still an overwhelming pluarlity of conservatives over liberals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Well I would understand anything you care to post but will save you some effort at searching Amazon.

This is what economists at the NY Fed thought of supply side economics (after a decade of implementation):
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/quarterly_review/1992v17/v17n1article1.pdf

Here's a fascinating book on the history of the rise and fall of supply side economics by a WSJ reporter who was there:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587981807

You havent shown that you understand plain English, how are you going to understand something more complex that Dick and Jane?

Have them, read them. Also have and read:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Anniversary-Gateway-Contemporary/dp/0895263440

http://books.google.com/books?id=XkO_g5TP828C&dq=supply+side+policies+cook+healey&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=sY7vSxtf2w&sig=EfP2WJjoXbRQRt_cObmZaWyVSiM&hl=en&ei=3RZ6SrKVBo_csgPquLC-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

All of Robert Mundell's (Nobel Prize winner) lectures and papers

Everything written by Laffer, Friedman and von Mises.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Um, has anyone heard of Rupert Murdoch?  He probably controls more media than anyone else in the world, and he's solidly conservative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Well I would understand anything you care to post but will save you some effort at searching Amazon.

This is what economists at the NY Fed thought of supply side economics (after a decade of implementation):
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/quarterly_review/1992v17/v17n1article1.pdf

Here's a fascinating book on the history of the rise and fall of supply side economics by a WSJ reporter who was there:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587981807

You havent shown that you understand plain English, how are you going to understand something more complex that Dick and Jane?

Have them, read them. Also have and read:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Anniversary-Gateway-Contemporary/dp/0895263440

http://books.google.com/books?id=XkO_g5TP828C&dq=supply+side+policies+cook+healey&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=sY7vSxtf2w&sig=EfP2WJjoXbRQRt_cObmZaWyVSiM&hl=en&ei=3RZ6SrKVBo_csgPquLC-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

All of Robert Mundell's (Nobel Prize winner) lectures and papers

Everything written by Laffer, Friedman and von Mises.

Wanniski's book predates any attempt to implement the theory. Healey's book isn't one I've read but I'm aware of his work, that is screwing up Belarus's privatization program.

Mundell has written 146 papers published in peer reviewed journals and literally hundreds of other papers. Very few deal with supply side economics. He is perhaps best known for predicting stagflation would inevitably occur anywhere a floating currency and highly progressive tax rates coexisted. Strangely all of Europe has had both for better than 20 years with no stagflation.

Laffer, and his curve, have been completely discredited. No tax cut has ever resulted in higher revenue.

Friedman, Milton I presume, was a monetarist not a supply sider. There is a clear difference. As a matter of fact the Permanent Income Hypothesis, what he thought was his best work, directly contradicts supply side theory and makes clear the Laffer curve is a delusion.

von Mises? His work long predates the invention of supply side theory and considering his stance on government spending I am confident he would have been beyond outraged by the deficits that have occured as part of supply side theory. BTW how did you like "The Development of the Relationship Between Peasant and Lord of the Manor in Galicia, 1772-1848?" Is your technical German up to reading a very dense book published 1902? Where did you find a copy anyway? It doesn't seem to be in print.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

What about us Independants out here who vote for neither Dems nor Repubs?
Ha, "progressives." Gee, could they call Ted Kennedy a "progressive?" A lot of their policies are "regressive."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The subject was understanding 'trickle down economics' IOW supply side economics.

Supply side isn't old. It was created in the 1970's.

The Laffer curve is discredited. The simple fact is that no tax cut has ever resulted in increased revenue for the government that cut the tax. That is what the Laffer curve predicts. It's proponents are reduced to claiming that no tax ever cut has been above the critical point of the curve, i.e. no tax anywhere ever has been too high as to stifle investment or spending. The actual fact is Friedman's permanent income hypothesis predicts quite accurately that tax reductions will result in paydown of debt or in increased savings but not increased business investment or increased taxable spending.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I think the reasons for political affiliation is pretty clear cut in general.

Of course I am making assumptions based on my age but I find most young people tend to come out of school very liberal. They have no idea of the true responsibility or the hardships of life. Their parents have protected and insolated them from the realities. Then as they gain families and responsibilities they turn more conservative especially if it affects their pocket books. Finally when they pass middle age they become liberal again because they need the social security system or, if well off, they fear the accounting with their maker.

That will always mean there will be more people liberal at any one time. They may however temporarily change their allegiance to liberalism due to war. I believe that was the case when the Republicans temporarily controlled Congress.

I believe most people in the media are…look at me type people…very ideologic and never grow from that early stage. Money and to some extent responsibility is not important to them…very speculative I know. Therefore they remain liberal most of their lives.

Butch

quote:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

...

There is an important distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page -- 73% call themselves conservative -- Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.

True to their nonpartisan tendencies, close to half of political independents -- 45% -- describe their political views as "moderate." Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

quote:

"I think that many people will claim that "news" today is about corporatism, since most of the news agencies are owned by large corporations, and I think there is some truth to that.

And from the link provided in the OP:

quote:

 More recently, the New York Times’ fraudulent reporter Jayson Blair received a mid-six figure advance for his memoirs—even the most egregious reporters can make big bucks and become media darlings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

You know, having read the OP,and thought about it, it makes a certain amount of sense. I am not going to get dragged into a silly debate about if there is a liberal bias to the media simply because there is, I see it with my own two eyes. That is why a network like Fox exists, they saw a relatively untapped market and went for it. As to why this bias might be, well the article in the OP presents a feasible explanation. And one devoid of any hint of conspiracy, it isn't so much an institutional bias, as a conglomeration of many individual biases (not sure if biases is a real word or not). Definately thought provoking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

DK, rule, willbeur, .... as a favor, would you guys mind starting your own thread about economics?

Thanks

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

DK, rule, willbeur, .... as a favor, would you guys mind starting your own thread about economics?

Thanks

Firm

Sorry.

These threads do tend to drift sometimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

You know, having read the OP,and thought about it, it makes a certain amount of sense. I am not going to get dragged into a silly debate about if there is a liberal bias to the media simply because there is, I see it with my own two eyes. That is why a network like Fox exists, they saw a relatively untapped market and went for it.