jayRIngram's Blog

It is not a myth. Just watch the different news channels. Just read how the media has treated Obama like he is a God. Their ridiculous love affair with Hillary Clinton - a woman that couldn't tell the truth if her life depended on it.
Now with that being said, I 100% agree with you about the media "dropping the ball" on the Iraq War. I wrote a blog about this before. Think about the timing of the Iraq War. Bush and his cohorts threw it at us after Sept. 11. Come on bro, who would go against him at that point and come across as un-patriotic. Not even the media wanted to touch that one.

This is an interesting essay on the subject:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

"The press itself is facilely and falsely labeled “the liberal media” by the hundreds of conservative columnists, commentators, and talk-shows hosts who crowd the communication universe while claiming to be shut out from it."

I would love to actually hear one of the three, Dorothy, Steve or Jillian have enough balls to be upfront instead of being a part of the media promoting Obama. As expected, the media starts with the news of Clinton supporters angry and going over to McCain and then very smoothly start giving percentage of those slowly going over to Obama to persuade Clinton voters over to him. Now they are saying 68% of Clinton supporters are now voting for Obama. They do that to people who aren't so upset at the media's biased tactics. How can over half be going over to Obama. Honestly I can't believe they were even able get 50% of supporters to say which way they're voting now, let alone to get a poll saying 68% of her supporters want Obama now. That would mean they would have had to poll over 100% of her voters, or by media standards, even 20% more that would not vote for Obama. That would be 88%. If so, I happen to be in the 15% that wasn't apart of this polling if only 20% were polled to be for McCain. They're so full of lies and as long as they continue to show me that's what will run our country, I don't want a part of it. You would think that they would oppose lies and deceit, but apparantly not. I guess doing whatever to help a black man get in office is more noble than how he's getting there. Maybe I just don't really understand how they get these percentages in polling. It makes me sick to see how every word that comes out of their mouths are so negative for H.C. and always positive for B.O. from the beginning. In about 50 years we'll look back and add how ignorant we were. Onc

WOW!!! drk12, you actually have a professor that is telling you to NOT trust the media. I thought all professors were as far left as possible. Man, you are actually getting a quality lesson from what sounds like a quality professor - very rare.

Steve Dorothy and Jillian are allowed to share their views, whether people agree with them or not. That's the format of GDLA, or the View, etc. And granted, yes, many who work in the media find Obama an attractive candidate. That goes without saying - but it's more likely his personality and demeanor they support versus his politics. But to say that the mainstream media is "liberal" in any sense is one of the greatest myths perpetuated on news consumers. Almost every aspect of mainstream media culture reinforces and promotes a specific point of view that favors consumerism, promotes state foreign policy, and pleases the owners of the companies who run the various outlets. The owners of these media outlets are some of the wealthiest people in the history of mankind, so why would they create and promote a "liberal" media that is against their personal economic interests? Almost anything on TV that has commercials running it by nature would not be critical of the corporations that buy advertising on their air? Doesn't that make sense?

Watch a few episodes on www.democracynow.org - this is independent media - commercial free - listener sponsored. Do you see these stories covered in the news? Are these views aired as openly as let's say Ann Coulter? Below is a video interview about a book by former Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - did you see this book discussed anywhere in the mainstream press? The book is about putting President Bush on trial for the Iraq War - did you see this on CNN, CBS or MSNBC? Why not?

Many form their political views from Sunday morning politcal shows, right?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton's second term, President George W. Bush's first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.

Among the study's key findings:

* The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.

* Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.

* In both the Clin

"...There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer. Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that."

And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Nevertheless, Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing the ignorant prejudices of his own constituency.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

Jay,

Do you write for AIR AMERICA? PBS?

"...Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever.

“If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23loga
n.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss