|
Zonie63 -> RE: Where's this "Liberal" press we hear so much about??? (4/23/2012 10:22:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subspaceseven
It seems every GOP running for President has had more and more positive news coverage than our president. Seems there are many many many people out there that insist the news favors the "liberals" more. Something I have never agreed with, I mean look owns most of the media...giant corporations, and it seems they would want to protect their own interests over facts.
http://www.journalism.org/commentary_backgrounder/pejs_election_report
Even the Sunday new shows have far more people supporting the GOP on their shows than anyone, and it seems the favorite type of guest is white conservative males
According to the study, published in the April issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!:
Of one-on-one interviews, 70 percent of partisan-affiliated guests were Republican. Those guests were overwhelmingly male (86 percent) and white (92 percent).
The broader roundtable segments weren't much more diverse: 62 percent of partisan-affiliated guests were Republican. More broadly, guests classified as either Republican or conservative far outnumbered Democrats or progressives, 282 to 164. The roundtables were 71 percent male and 85 percent white.
U.S. government sources--current officials, former lawmakers, political candidates, party-affiliated political operatives and campaign advisers--dominated the Sunday shows overall (47 percent of appearances). Following closely behind were journalists (43 percent), most of whom were middle-of-the-road Beltway political reporters.
I guess it all depends on how one defines "liberal," and whether one automatically assumes that "liberal" = "Democrat" and "conservative" = "Republican." The categories can also be narrowed down to differentiate between social issues and economic issues, as there are plenty of fiscal conservatives who are also social liberals.
I would say that the "old guard" of conservatism probably died out during the FDR-Truman era. There are few, if any, isolationists among the Republicans anymore, and I don't know a single Republican who would call for abolishing social security these days. It used to be that the Republicans were considered the party of peace and prosperity, while it was the Democrats who were lambasted as warmongers, but now, it's the Republicans who are considered warmongers.
Similarly, the Democrats have also gone through major changes. At one time, they were known as the party of the working man, although now, they don't even seem to be that anymore. Just like the old guard of conservatism which fizzled out a generation earlier, the old guard of liberalism fizzled out during the Reagan-Bush era, culminating with pseudo-liberal Bill Clinton muscling his fellow Democrats into pushing the anti-labor NAFTA through Congress. I once heard it said that the Democrats were no longer the party of the working man, but instead, they became the party of the non-working man.
I expected the Ronnie Robots to support NAFTA, as they were always a pretty shameless bunch, but once the Democrats led by Clinton supported it, too, that seemed like a wanton betrayal of liberal Democratic beliefs. I started to hate the Democrats even more than I hated the Republicans, solely because of NAFTA.
As for the media, I would say that their "center" right now is fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. The perception that the press is considered "liberal" probably goes back a few decades. CBS used to be referred to as the "Communist Broadcasting System," as they opposed McCarthy and supported the civil rights movement, along with having their lead anchor say that the Vietnam War could not be won. Then there were all those anti-war songs being produced by the recording industry and broadcast over the airwaves. No doubt that also contributed to perceptions that the media are/were "liberal," at least from a certain point of view. But that viewpoint has become somewhat fossilized these days, although that doesn't seem to stop very many people from railing on and on about the "liberal media."
All in all, at the establishment level, both liberals and conservatives aren't really what they seem. Conservatives have been known to "tax and spend" freely on their own pet issues (esp. when it comes to the Defense Department), while liberals have also been known to be warmongers and rigid "law and order" types. Neither of them really have any kind of coherent, consistent ideology anymore, and they're more alike than they are different.
I think the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy is the true opiate of the masses these days. Wealthy elites from both parties are pulling the wool over the eyes of their respective constituencies, paying lip service to the people and telling them what they want to hear. As for the media, they make their money precisely by telling people what they want to hear, so they're definitely part of the political establishment. The "liberals" criticize them for being "conservative," while the "conservatives" criticize them for being "liberal." But they're all together, laughing at the little people behind our backs.
Back in the 1960s and 70s, people were starting to see through that crap, but something happened during the Reagan era which has blinded most rank-and-file liberals and conservatives nowadays. The younger crowd of political activists seem like nothing more than political drones these days. They're kind of a disappointment, although I can't criticize them too much, since the Baby Boomers already sold out decades ago. But at least the Boomers waited until they turned 30.
|
|
|
|
