The Sun is Hot
From imao.us
An MSNBC study found that journalists' political donations are 9 to 1 to Democrats and liberals. Journalists responded by vowing to hunt down that 1. Actually, there's this whole website Media Matters devoted to finding and destroying the insidious bias of that 1.
What I wonder about are the liberals who insist that the media isn't liberal despite all the evidence. There are even some who argue it's biased towards conservatives. That's pretty much like arguing the sun is cold.
LIBERAL: I hate the sun! It's so cold!
NORMAL PERSON: Um... the sun is hot.
LIBERAL: Really? Then give me one example of the sun being hot!
NORMAL PERSON: It's always hot. Right now, as we're speaking, the sun is hitting us with its heat.
LIBERAL: It's not hot; it's corporate biased... and it's cold!
Liberals are so stupid. Sometimes I want to burn them with fire -- which is hot. Before anyone misconstrues my point, I'm not saying that liberals should be burned with fire, I'm just saying that I find it entertaining when pain is inflicted upon them.
18 comments:
Thanks for pointing out the MediaMatters site because they have a nice article on the site now that shreds the validity of this bogus study reported on MSNBC. The fact that the sample they used is not statistically random and the totals included in the study only represent 1/8 or 1% of all journalists, brings into question the validity of the entire study. Since you brought up a supposed 9:1 media bias associated journalists, maybe you should check out this more accurate study of the 9:1 bias towards Conservative talk-show radio on the public airwaves.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html
Sorry, Liberals aren’t stupid. Unlike Conservatives who are lazy, Liberals do their homework so as not to misrepresent the facts!
the donation story is misleading because its primary assumption is that journalists determine the content of the news. I think it would be a lot more useful for him to report on, say, the political contributions of the General Electric Co. that owns NBC and MSNBC, which, I would argue, is a great deal more influential than any journalist's particular feeling. Ditto the Walt Disney Company, Viacom, and of course Fox. (Rupert Murdoch has admitted, publicly, that he deployed Fox, et al, in support of Bush's war in Iraq.)
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahaha.... Oh, no, there's no liberal media...nossir! That's just dem dang surveys. Facts? Nossir, libs don't distort them...no way! I'm puking at this point from laughing.
No, liberals aren't stupid. They're just guilty of thinking they are smarter than everyone else. And they are not. For 30 years I've been hearing how they're smarter than Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr....and each time they've been outplayed because hubris comes before the fall.
As to the conservative dominence of talk radio...True. Why? Because radio wants to attract 24-49 year old male listeners with money. Most of that crowd are conservative leaning.
It's called a free market. Liberal talk shows and networks have been tried and failed. Some survive. Apparently, it's not what the radio audience wants to hear.
I read the American Progress report. It chilled me to the bone because they actually want to enact "fairness" by penalizing stations that aren't balanced in left and right viewpoints.
Look, if you can't compete in the marketplace of ideas then you can't compete. Period. Any artificial restraint of programming is counter to the 1st Amendment.
The problem is addressed not by shutting down right wing talk radio through legislation, it's by selling your principles and vision. If the market ain't buying it...too bad.
Suz,
I agree that they don't determine what the content of the news is. But they determine what is news. If an editor wants to squash a story and it never gets out to the public then news is not made, agreed?
I have a hard time believing that a reporter who has just given $1000 to a candidate is going to report completely objectively on that candidate. Human nature.
This is why I never supported McCain-Feingold. Anyone should be able to give any amount to anyone they want...but there should be full disclosure. Every penny should be documented. The same applies to reporters.
>>I agree that they don't determine what the content of the news is. But they determine what is news. If an editor wants to squash a story and it never gets out to the public then news is not made, agreed?<<
Not entirely. As I said, Murdoch has actually admitted to altering the newsroom to sell the Iraq war. You think a lowly editor has more power than that?
I think financing of elections should be taken out of the private sector completely. Why should one candidate with a lot of money be able to get his point of view paid for just because he has more money?
That's not free speech, that's bought and paid for candidates.
God forbid these guys were forced to do nothing but talk about their ideas and we listen, without the cacophany of Swift Boat liers and their ilk (and I include MoveOn there, although their sins are so less egregious than right-wing lies it isn't really fair to compare).
>> It's called a free market. <<
No it's not, and it never was - until Repubs took over. READ THE REPORT!!!
>>Liberal talk shows and networks have been tried and failed. Some survive. Apparently, it's not what the radio audience wants to hear. <<
This is a friggin' lie. Did you read the report? Or just the right-wing spin on it? There are plenty of examples of a) station owners with an agenda that simply refuse to put on anyone that alters their agenda, and b) there are also examples of stations that put on a progressive but don't let their sales team sell it and then they fail. Then the right-wing program that replaces the progressive gets PR up the wazoo and a sales force to die for. Then they tell you - and you believe it, of course - that it's a market place thing. Bullsh*t.
You really need to read the report instead of taking other people's statements about it, Gonzo. READ IT before you make an a*hole of yourself - again. I dare you to find a suggestion that they are trying to shut down conservative talk radio. Here are the 3 basic remedies they are suggesting:
-Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations
-Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing - Radio stations are licensed to operate in the public interest, but since the deregulation of the mid-1980’s, the public’s role in ensuring that local radio stations actually address their needs and interests has been severely limited.
-Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
Whether you agree with them or not, there is no call to shut down conservative talk radio.
I'll quote Hunter's comment from the first blog entry: Sorry, Liberals aren’t stupid. Unlike Conservatives who are lazy, Liberals do their homework so as not to misrepresent the facts!
You could learn something from that, Gonzo.
oh - here's the link to the ACTUAL REPORT!. The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio
Mr. Gonzo: I won’t comment on your childish rhetoric as it seems that is typical of your discourse. The reality is that it actually detracts from your ability to bring a persuasive argument to the table. As to the free market impact on radio, maybe you could answer some questions:
- Why don’t any of the many ABC radio stations have a single liberal talk show?
- Is it free market when Rush Limbaugh explicitly warns the stations he is on that he won’t allow them to broadcast him if they host any liberal talk shows at any other time during the day?
- Is it free market that Sean Hannity won’t go on many stations unless they also indicate they won’t broadcast liberal shows, and that they also need to carry his close friend Mark Levin’s show?
The reality is that the public is not overwhelmingly Conservative and that this is reflected in the radio market. Based on historical elections and the Dem/Rep party memberships, one would expect something closer to 50/50. The fact is that many of the large corporations that own multiple channels are conservative in nature so ensure that their programming reflects that.
Susie, Hunter,
I completely agree that the public is not strongly conservative and that the balance of talk shows does not reflect the actual political balance.
And I did read that report. Front to back.
I think what Hunter was calling "childish" was my response to the reporter contributions. Scientific poll, no, for sure, but to say that there's no liberal bias in the mainstream (ABC, CBS, NBC) is ridiculous and caused my outbreak of belly laughs.
As to the free market issues, both of you make interesting points. I think the central point boils down to what a radio station is licensed to do. If one assumes that the primary responsibility of a radio station is to serve the public interests above all else then *some* of your arguments have merit.
I read that report and what I read was that a station deemed too slanted in one direction or another would pay a sliding fee that would go to the Corp for Public Broadcasting. Did I read that wrong?
So, idealistically, this serves the public interests by homogenizing aired opinion. In reality it *is* a direct shot at the right wing hosts currently in ascendency.
Suze, it's hard to criticize your comment about campaign finance. Oddly enough I think we come from the same place but are running in opposite directions.
You believe that public financing should be removed entirely from elections to remove the taint of powerful groups. Is that correct? I agree 100% with you on the taint issue but I am inclined to mix it with the First Amendment.
To me it's unconstitutional to limit campaign contributions in any respect. However, since these are public officials every dime should be documented and the ledger publicly available for inspection.
What's happened with McCain-Feingold should horrify *all* of us. The hard money, directly traceable, has moved underground to organizations that are shell shills for one or more candidates. It is very difficult now for the average Joe to follow the money...which has not gone away. Just buried.
Hunter, for the examples you gave of the terms and conditions that Hannity and Limbaugh exact on their carriers I will not debate the reality. That may very well be true as you claim. But nothing you said violates the precepts of a free market. Perhaps, and thinly, these demands violate antitrust acts. If that's the case then why aren't Sherman Act lawsuits being filed?
And, please, can we stop quoting nutcase sites like MediaMatters? They make Pravda look good. They're a shrill, partisan, propagandist sewer.
Back to the radio issue: It's truly a "show me the money" game. That's all. If the companies running the stations could make more advertiser money with Rosie O'Donnell than Bill O'Reilly they'd switch in a heartbeat. And Rupert Murdoch did not get to where he is now by making business decisions based on politics. Besides, he holds fund raisers for Hillary Clinton - hardly a conservative role.
Hunter....
I'd like to extend an invitation to become a full contributor to this blog.
While I disagree with most of what you say, heh, I believe you have a lot to contribute and I know the others would agree.
Please email me at john.koziol@datamaxx.com so that I know which email address to extend the invite to.
"And, please, can we stop quoting nutcase sites like MediaMatters? They make Pravda look good. They're a shrill, partisan, propagandist sewer."
You say this all the time and every time I ask you to demonstrate any lies or distortions and you NEVER do. Their comments and demonstrations of the lies and distortions of the right are accurate. They even have the videos so you can see for yourself. So until you do, STFU about it.
As for the free market lie, I just heard today that in Philadelphia, no progressive talk radio show has EVER been allowed to succeed OR fail there, because all of the OWNERS of radio there don't want people to hear the other side.
Free market. BS.
Suze, I have demonstrated on numerous occasions where they are full of shit. You just don't care to see it.
In fact, I recall making up a fake MM diatribe and you believed it solely on the basis that it was purportedly MM.
MM is an evil organization that attempts to disinform and slander those they don't agree with. They are anathemic to rational discourse.
To me they are no better than whatever passes for the daily missives from the KKK or American Nazis.
Anyone who quotes MM to me, or I would hope any other rational, trying to be objecive American, is automatically a partisan ideologue.
They are SHIT. Go ahead and lie down with them, you'll smell like 'em.
Please show me the made up post. And show me the lies. I'm still waiting.
You don't like Media Matters because it shows up all YOUR idols as the disgusting liars power-grubbing anti-Constitution AMerica-destroying slime that they are.You just don't want to accept the truth because it makes you look bad.
That you defend them makes you the foul-smelling sh*thead around here.
oh - and the original comment that you didn't answer:
As for the free market lie, I just heard today that in Philadelphia, no progressive talk radio show has EVER been allowed to succeed OR fail there, because all of the OWNERS of radio there don't want people to hear the other side.
I don't remember the specifics of the made up post but it was about 3 years ago and involved Dean. I did it as a joke and you took it as real.
As to the Phidelphia situation, I can't comment because I don't know the facts or even a reasonable surmise. So my opinion would be worthless.
Now as to your quote: "You don't like Media Matters because it shows up all YOUR idols as the disgusting liars power-grubbing anti-Constitution AMerica-destroying slime that they are.You just don't want to accept the truth because it makes you look bad."
First off, I don't have idols in politics as I would think you'd know by now. Secondly, to call anyone a liar based on an MM post is a huge fucking joke. MM is the king of partisan propaganda sites - to be called a "liar" by them is a high honor.
Thirdly, you are the company you keep. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, outside the left fringe takes MM seriously. If you do, power to you if it makes you happy. But if you lie down with dogs and are flea-bitten, please keep it to yourself.
Like Susieq, I don’t understand all the hubbub and vile hatred you have towards Media Matters. As their site indicates, they are a non-profit organization that corrects misinformation put out by Conservative media:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
How do they misinform or slander as you suggest? I too would love to see any documented cases where the information that they have put out has not been factual or accurate. Like any organization, they may occasionally misprint something, but I would think that they have the courtesy to make formal corrections unlike many other news organizations (e.g., Fox News). I think if you actually read some of their postings, you would find them to be 100% unbiased.
MM is 100% unbiased? You are out of your mind. Find a single criticism of someone who isn't conservative and then maybe I'll consider.
MM is not only biased, they take quotes out of context and twist their meaning. It's hard to post specifics because if I haven't seen the original in proper context it's difficult to frame it.
As to "corrections"? Well, if they are the fact based organization you think they are, there would be the inevitable mistake, right? Pure statistics. I challenge you to find a correction anywhere on their site.
They're just evil fucks. Period. Anyone who disinforms for an agenda is in that category afaic.
Ah, so Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin are all evil fucks. Glad to see you're starting to come around to the light side, Gonz. :-)
Nice to see you, Garrett.
Gonzo wrote: "MM is 100% unbiased? You are out of your mind. Find a single criticism of someone who isn't conservative and then maybe I'll consider.
I agree that MM only looks to point out right wing lies. But that's not bias. It's their mission to point out right-wing lies. I'm sure there are right-wing sites trying to point out left-wing people.
MM is not only biased, they take quotes out of context and twist their meaning. It's hard to post specifics because if I haven't seen the original in proper context it's difficult to frame it."
They show everything, Gonz, including video and transcripts so you can see for yourself whether context is accurate, etc. And I'm SURE someone would be screaming up the wazoo if they could prove inaccuracies. None of YOUR sources coming through?
I've only seen screaming denials from those who don't want what they say out in the open for the lies that they are, but the video proves them liars and MM truth tellers. You say they distort and take out of context. PROVE IT OR STFU.
Yes, also nice to see Garrett again. Welcome back, buddy.
Suze, it's not their mission to point out right wing lies. It's their mission to distort the truth to further their agenda. You challenged me on this point in another post and I took apart the MM post you posted.
I have already proven they distort. Everytime you stridently demand proof I supply it. It's not that hard if one isn't blindly partisan and prone to being influenced.
MM is an evil, shitbag group who don't have the credibility to be quoted virtually anywhere in the media. PERIOD. Find me an MSM artile that relies on anything from MM. You won't find it.
And the scary thing is - if it was so easy for me to utterly denigrate their bullshit, why do people listen to and believe shills like that?
They are a joke. A laughable one. Keep throwing their shit at me and I'll keep making you look like an ass.
And, no, they don't put quotes in complete context. Which you are in no position to question if you haven't looked.
As to my sources....I try to be damn careful about those. You don't see too many MRC or right wing nutcase cites from me.
Oh, hey, Garrett...
Absolutely right. Anyone who blindly follows a partisan agenda and attempts to disinform is an enemy of America in my opinion.
Malkin - yes. Limbaugh.....on the fence. Coulter...no. She's the anti-Will Rogers.
Post a Comment