Liberal media? [Archive]

Katana

21st June 2007, 11:34 AM

What this tells us is that between 2004 and 2008, among the 144 journalists that MSNBC was able to identify as political contributors, the majority gave to the Democrats or to more "left-leaning" causes.

First of all, that's a pretty small number of people from a variety of different roles. In that group is a war correspondent, a producer, local TV anchors from places such as Minneapolis, Memphis, and Wichita, an ethics columnist for the New York Times, a WSJ weekend editor, MTV's former presidential campaign correspondent (that one cracked me up), among others. How much can you extrapolate from this small group that represents such highly-varying roles in the media?

What might be interesting to know is how many others gave to campaigns in their spouses' or kids' names and whether this tendency to donate to Democrats differs at all from how they donated prior to Bush's arrival in the White House.

Cain

21st June 2007, 11:46 AM

It appears the original poster is confusing liberal with Democrat.

I was shocked at the 90,000 dollar figure. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone would donate to a political candidate for reasons other than self-interest/quid pro quo. What a waste of coin that could be better spent on hookers and drugs.

Overman

21st June 2007, 11:47 AM

LOL@ this crap article.

Worry much more about where Phillip Morris gives there money then a $500 from a cute Omaha Reporter...

OMAHA! COME ON!

Drysdale

21st June 2007, 11:57 AM

Tony

21st June 2007, 12:01 PM

Maybe all the radio talk show heads are right after all.

You mean those conservative members of the so-called liberal media?

Upchurch

21st June 2007, 12:03 PM

I'm quite capable of keeping my personal and professional lives and opinions separate. Does donating money necessarily mean your journalistic coverage will be biased?

I would think biased coverage would be a key indicator of biased coverage.

Tony

21st June 2007, 12:09 PM

So democrats aren't considered liberal?

You obviously consider them liberal, but that's you.

Here is a short lesson. Democrats are what we call a political party, some are liberal, some are conservative, some are progressive and some are idiots. Liberal is what we call a set of ideals. Those ideas usually entail individual rights, free speech, freedom of religion, just government and elected and/or representative government. Contrary to what you hear on dittobot radio, democrat and liberal are hardly synonymous.

MilwaukeeMike

21st June 2007, 12:11 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm liberal media with extra bias.......hhaahahahahaaha (Drool dripping from mouth) DOH!!!!!

:cool:

strathmeyer

21st June 2007, 12:16 PM

This is why I only read yellow journalism, like the Drudge Report.

Cain

21st June 2007, 02:07 PM

WTF, I decided to look up the writing staff of the Daily Show. It's more relevant to me than some blond teevee reporter from Bum****, Nebraska. This is my citizen journalism for the year. I won't be surprised if someone from the press or the blogosphere RIPS ME OFF.

In addition to Open Secrets I plugged names into Myspace (the MSNBC article found some interesting stuff through Facebook and blogs). Actually it looks like the Open Secrets links stop working after awhile. You can search it for yourself.

Jon Stewart apparently supported at least one liberal Jew from the Democrat Party (but before his tenure at the Daily Show): http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=qkfzy&txtName=stewart,%20jon&txtState=NY&txtAll=Y&Order=N

Tim Carvell apparently supports screamin' Dean and the Democrat Party:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=ahqwq&txtName=Carvell,%20Tim&txtState=NY&txtAll=Y&Order=N
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=52617007
Clearly he the gay agenda.

I bet it's the writer from the Daily Show for two reasons: 1) He looks like an overeducated writer; 2) He has a comment from Rachel Axler, who is also a writer at the Daily Show. See her page here:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=11324667

Either she started college when she was nine, she incorrectly entered her years of college, or she's lying about her age (though I suppose that could also be a typo).

Scott Jacobsen -- 250 bucks to John Kerry:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=jpcx2&txtName=Jacobson,%20Scott&txtState=NY&txtAll=Y&Order=N

David Javerbaum -- 750 dollars to John Kerry:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=JPEH5&txtName=Javerbaum,%20David&txtState=NY&txtAll=Y&Order=N
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=108402554
(Empty Myspace Page -- might not be his)

Rob Kutner's Myspace Page:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=4571123
(One commentator calls him a writer. His Myspace friends look like writer types.)

By the way, my Myspace page is way, way, way better than everything I've seen here. I have a cool URL, the background music is actually good, and I'm a compulsively interesting person with interesting interests.

Eric Drysdale aka Stage Manager "Bobby" for the Colbert Report is a raging liberal loon: He gave 300 bucks to DNC Services Corp. I don't know exactly what that is, but I'm sure it's some vanguard communist force trying to subvert whatever remains pure and holy in America.

Russ Lieber aka David Cross has apparently given two grand to America Coming Together. No surprise there. I'm assuming it's him since occupation is "SELF/ENTERTAINER" and location is, of course, Beverly Hills, California.

I'm pretty sure the information here is accurate.

thinkingaboutit

21st June 2007, 03:27 PM

The political leanings of the editors, managers and owners of media are more relevant than those of journalists themselves in regards to the thread title, in my opinion.

Drysdale

21st June 2007, 04:10 PM

You obviously consider them liberal, but that's you.

Here is a short lesson. Democrats are what we call a political party, some are liberal, some are conservative, some are progressive and some are idiots. Liberal is what we call a set of ideals. Those ideas usually entail individual rights, free speech, freedom of religion, just government and elected and/or representative government. Contrary to what you hear on dittobot radio, democrat and liberal are hardly synonymous.

Thats a pretty broad brush you have there.

And Republicans/Libertarians/Independents/Green Party etc dont believe in all that?

And most democrats are what is considered liberal because of their beliefs on abortion,social programs,larger govt,pornography being the main issues.

But this thread isnt about ideology.

The point is this..

Since 90% of those journalists are contributing to democrats does'nt it make sense their articles and stories would tend to support their views and therefore have a tendency to influence uneducated voters?

I guess those papers/magazines/news people etc. going to have to be looked at too no?

And it's funny how the same liberals and democrats(Happy?) who scream about freedom of speech want to silence the right wing/republican talking heads. Whats your views on the fairness doctrine Tony just out of curiosity?

Main difference in the mainstream media and talk radio to me is this.
Mainstream media tries to give the appearance of being unbiased which they are'nt. Whereas the Limbaugh's,Hannity's,etc are upfront about their conservatism which I'd wish all outlets would do.

It's not possible to be completely unbiased, I dont give a D--- how skepitcal you claim to be. Just peruse the posts in these political forums and that is obvious.

Tony

21st June 2007, 04:33 PM

Thats a pretty broad brush you have there.

[Insert irony meter here]

And Republicans/Libertarians/Independents/Green Party etc dont believe in all that?

I don't recall saying anything about Republicans/Libertarians/Independents/Green Party.

And most democrats are what is considered liberal because of their beliefs on abortion,social programs,larger govt,pornography being the main issues.

You obviously have no idea what liberal means or even what the main issues are. It seems, and I've no doubt it's true, that you're repeating the drivel you hear on ditto-bot radio without thinking critically about it. Name one prominent liberal politician who says that larger government and pornography are the main issues. Furthermore, name one liberal philosopher (I’ll name a few: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke) who says that abortion, social programs, larger govt, and pornography are what define liberalism.

Since 90% of those journalists are contributing to democrats does'nt it make sense their articles and stories would tend to support their views and therefore have a tendency to influence uneducated voters?

No, it doesn't.

And it's funny how the same liberals and democrats(Happy?) who scream about freedom of speech want to silence the right wing/republican talking heads.

Who? Give me specific names. It's not anymore funnier than the conservatives who claim to support personal freedom (limbaugh, hannity) but are against gay marriage or the conservatives (dobson, pat robertson) who claim to be pro-american but seek to turn this country into a christian theocracy.

Whats your views on the fairness doctrine Tony just out of curiosity?

What is that?

Main difference in the mainstream media and talk radio to me is this. Mainstream media tries to give the appearance of being unbiased which they are'nt.

You think they are biased because they don't simply tell you what you want to hear or validate you belief system. If you have absurd beliefs (not saying you do), its your fault. Its not a journalists job to support your belief system. Are journalists "biased" because they don't take holocaust denial or geocentricity seriously?

Whereas the Limbaugh's,Hannity's,etc are upfront about their conservatism which I'd wish all outlets would do.

The limbaughs and hannitys aren't journalists.

It's not possible to be completely unbiased

And you know this...how? How are you defining "completely unbiased"?

I dont give a D--- how skepitcal you claim to be. Just peruse the posts in these political forums and that is obvious.

What's obvious?

Art Vandelay

21st June 2007, 05:53 PM

Name one prominent liberal politician who says that larger government and pornography are the main issues.Pornography was last on his list. And he didn't say that Democrats say those are the main issues, he said that they are the main issues. And abortion, social security (i.e. bigger government), and "obscenity" are big issues. I can't think of many bigger issues other than Iraq.

Furthermore, name one liberal philosopher (I’ll name a few: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke) who says that abortion, social programs, larger govt, and pornography are what define liberalism.He wasn't talking about liberal philosophy, he was talking about liberal politics.

No, it doesn't. So they pay others to promote Deomcrats, but they don't do it themselves?

Who?Dianne Feinstein. Russ Feingold. Bernie Sander. Dennis Kucinich. Maurice Hinchey. Louise Slaughter. Shall I go on?

Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine)

It's not anymore funnier than the conservatives who claim to support personal freedom (limbaugh, hannity) but are against gay marriage"Personal freedom" doesn't mean you get to tell the government what to do.

The limbaughs and hannitys aren't journalists.They aren't pure journalists, but they do report news (albeit with much editoralizing).

Do you agree that there is an important distinction between "Leftist" and "liberal"?

SezMe

21st June 2007, 06:15 PM

I'll see your study and raise you this one (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/). Some findings from the link:

– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.
– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

SezMe

21st June 2007, 06:23 PM

And abortion, social security (i.e. bigger government), and "obscenity" are big issues. I can't think of many bigger issues other than Iraq.

You can't? Really? These don't appear on your radar?

- Illegal (and legal, for that matter) immigration
- Trade (im)balance
- Corrupting influence of money on politics, especially at the federal level
- Corporate concentration of media ownership (or, more generally, lax to no enforcement of anti-trust laws.)
- Deficit spending
- Dominating influence of the military-industrial complex.

And these are just off the top of my head. These fall below abortion and, oh my word, obscenity, on your list of governmental priorities? Really? Obscenity??? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Oh, BTW, you poor conservatives, after Reagan and Bush II, are going to have to find some other boogie-man than big government since those two are poster children for out-of-control spending and governmental growth.

Drysdale

21st June 2007, 07:24 PM

I'll see your study and raise you this one (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/). Some findings from the link:

[/INDENT]

Are those govt sponsored programs? If not whats your point?
Free enterprise is the key here. There's been plenty of left leaning radio shows,Air America was a self proclaimed channel of only the left, but people dont listen to them. Why? Maybe because it's the same view as we see and hear on TV and newspapers. Dont know if thats the reason, but can you think of another thats better?

Drysdale

21st June 2007, 07:33 PM

You can't? Really? These don't appear on your radar?

- Illegal (and legal, for that matter) immigration
- Trade (im)balance
- Corrupting influence of money on politics, especially at the federal level
- Corporate concentration of media ownership (or, more generally, lax to no enforcement of anti-trust laws.)
- Deficit spending
- Dominating influence of the military-industrial complex.

And these are just off the top of my head. These fall below abortion and, oh my word, obscenity, on your list of governmental priorities? Really? Obscenity??? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Oh, BTW, you poor conservatives, after Reagan and Bush II, are going to have to find some other boogie-man than big government since those two are poster children for out-of-control spending and governmental growth.

Hey, did I say I was a conservative? I listen to talk radio because they tell you other news the big guys dont. I think if you dont listen or watch both to an extent you're cheating yourself.

I'll wholeheartedly agree with many of those.

- Illegal (and legal, for that matter) immigration
Both parties are in bed on that god awful immigration bill. Dont know what your point is here.
- Trade (im)balance
What exactly are you referring to here?
- Corrupting influence of money on politics, especially at the federal level
Again, these are'nt the sole domain of one party.
- Corporate concentration of media ownership (or, more generally, lax to no enforcement of anti-trust laws.)
Ditto
- Deficit spending
Agreed, republicans and Bush are spending like drunken sailors. But so are the Dems. Did you get a glimpse of all the BS in that immigration bill?
- Dominating influence of the military-industrial complex.
Not sure what you're saying here.

edited for spelling

Katana

21st June 2007, 07:38 PM

In case anyone missed it the first time:

What this tells us is that between 2004 and 2008, among the 144 journalists that MSNBC was able to identify as political contributors, the majority gave to the Democrats or to more "left-leaning" causes.

First of all, that's a pretty small number of people from a variety of different roles. In that group is a war correspondent, a producer, local TV anchors from places such as Minneapolis, Memphis, and Wichita, an ethics columnist for the New York Times, a WSJ weekend editor, MTV's former presidential campaign correspondent (that one cracked me up), among others. How much can you extrapolate from this small group that represents such highly-varying roles in the media?

What might be interesting to know is how many others gave to campaigns in their spouses' or kids' names and whether this tendency to donate to Democrats differs at all from how they donated prior to Bush's arrival in the White House.

But the bottom line is that this is a really small sample population from which some big conclusions are being drawn. People, they, some of you are drawing conclusions based on the behavior of 144 people who are supposed to be representative of all journalists. Does that seem remotely reasonable?

Drysdale

21st June 2007, 07:51 PM

Katana

21st June 2007, 08:00 PM

Agree, wish I could see more bu you gotta admit even in a small sample thats staggering.

While I thank you for being the first to respond to my post(s) (clearly, I had a need to be recognized ;)), I respectfully disagree. I don't think that it is staggering when I think about how few 144 are among the field of journalists in this country. I just don't know what conclusion to draw from it.

Simply put, it is just too small a sample population from which to conclude anything.

Just my humble opinion, of course, and, again, thanks for placating my need for acknowledgement. :)

firecoins

21st June 2007, 08:02 PM

I believe that most of the media has a liberal bias to some extent or another.Whats the big deal? Even if the media didn't lean to the left it would lean in another direction. It doesn't matter. I don't trust the media reguardless of which political orientation they have or don't have. Just make sure there is freedom of the press and plenty of competition.

I like my talk radio to lean to the right. Please keep the fairness doctrine away from the first amendment.

I like boobs in my Superbowl Halftime Shows. Just keep the FCC and conservative wackos from talk radio away from the boobs.

I like my documentaries to be liberal, I like my big star Hollywood movies to be liberal and I like my stand up comedy to be liberal. I love funny liberal comics.

I think you get the point. I love freedom of expression.

Let Stanley Tunic take photos of large groups of naked people anywhere he wants.

Drysdale

21st June 2007, 08:11 PM

Comrade Ogilvy

21st June 2007, 08:46 PM

This is certainty a solution from the fascist Left ...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.

Dr Adequate

21st June 2007, 09:00 PM

This is certainty a solution from the fascist Left ... What do you guys on the Marxist Right suggest?

Jeff Corey

21st June 2007, 09:02 PM

This is certainty a solution from the fascist Left ...
Nominated for the oxymoron of the year.

Comrade Ogilvy

21st June 2007, 09:04 PM

What do you guys on the Marxist Right suggest?

Certainly not the BBC..."Right Mate"!

SezMe

21st June 2007, 09:08 PM

Are those govt sponsored programs? If not whats your point?

That is the biggest non sequitur I think I have ever seen. Your OP suggested the media have a liberal bias. I respond with a study suggesting just the opposite. And your response is to ask if they are government sponsored programs. What the hell does that have to do with my post?

Comrade Ogilvy

21st June 2007, 09:08 PM

Nominated for the oxymoron of the year.

What... the left isn`t a fascist knee jerk propaganda organization?...they learned it from the feet of Lenin and Stalin.

Dr Adequate

21st June 2007, 09:11 PM

What... the left isn`t a fascist knee jerk propaganda organization? No. Someone's been pulling your leg.

Perhaps you should have learned something about politics before you started posting on the politics forum. You could read a newspaper or something, just a thought.

SezMe

21st June 2007, 09:14 PM

There's been plenty of left leaning radio shows,Air America was a self proclaimed channel of only the left, but people dont listen to them. Why? Maybe because it's the same view as we see and hear on TV and newspapers. Dont know if thats the reason, but can you think of another thats better?

That study I cited says just the opposite - that the liberal perspective has not had a level playing field of competition in radio, primarily because of ownership concentration. Too bad you didn't read it before commenting. Doing so might have answered your last question.

People don't listen to Air America? That's a pretty strong statement. Care to back it up? In some markets, Air America has better ratings that conservative talk.

SezMe

21st June 2007, 09:17 PM

Hey, did I say I was a conservative? I listen to talk radio because they tell you other news the big guys dont.

Oops, maybe this is a bigger non sequitur. :) I was responding to Art's set of priorities he expressed speaking as a conservative. I look forward to Art's response.

BTW, conservative talk radio IS the big guys. Sinclair. CBS. Clear Channel. If you think you are getting non-mainstream news from those outlets, you're sadly mistaken.

SezMe

21st June 2007, 09:19 PM

Hey, I see Katana joined the thread. Sweet. :)

SezMe

21st June 2007, 09:21 PM

This is certainty a solution from the fascist Left ...

Comrade, go read the wiki article on facism and see how many defining characteristics are held in common by the far right. "facist left" is largely an oxymoron.

ETA: Jeff beat me to it.

Comrade Ogilvy

21st June 2007, 09:29 PM

Comrade, go read the wiki article on facism and see how many defining characteristics are held in common by the far right. "facist left" is largely an oxymoron.

ETA: Jeff beat me to it.

Yep....Lenin...Stalin..Mao...ect..ect.. were all an oxymorons...all dictators are fascist in my opinion.

Jeff Corey

21st June 2007, 09:29 PM

What... the left isn`t a fascist knee jerk propaganda organization?...they learned it from the feet of Lenin and Stalin.
Comrade, propaganda comes from the Sarca Congradatio de Propagandio Fide, or the Sacred Congregation to Propagate the Faith. You know, The Church. It was honed by your hero Goebbles (had no balls at all) and most recently appeared as Baby Bush's"Weapons of mass destruction".

Comrade Ogilvy

21st June 2007, 09:36 PM

Comrade, propaganda comes from the Sarca Congradatio de Propagandio Fide, or the Sacred Congregation to Propagate the Faith. You know, The Church. It was honed by your hero Goebbles (had no balls at all) and most recently appeared as Baby Bush's"Weapons of mass destruction".

And you Digital Left Wing Brown Shirts have embraced it..."All News is fake but accurate".

Dr Adequate

21st June 2007, 09:40 PM

Yep....Lenin...Stalin..Mao...ect..ect.. were all an oxymorons...all dictators are fascist in my opinion. Then you should find out what "fascist" means.

Really, as I've pointed out, if you've never taken any interest in politics this is not the best place for you to be posting.

Dr Adequate

21st June 2007, 09:43 PM

And you Digital Left Wing Brown Shirts have embraced it..."All News is fake but accurate". Whom are you quoting? The voices in your head, or a real non-made up human being?

Jeff Corey

21st June 2007, 09:45 PM

And you Digital Left Wing Brown Shirts have embraced it..."All News is fake but accurate".
Like Fox's "Fairly Unbalanced"? A more accurate one would be :We Rightwingnuts Got Us A Station.

Tony

21st June 2007, 09:46 PM

Pornography was last on his list. And he didn't say that Democrats say those are the main issues, he said that they are the main issues. And abortion, social security (i.e. bigger government), and "obscenity" are big issues. I can't think of many bigger issues other than Iraq.

He wasn't talking about liberal philosophy, he was talking about liberal politics.

You need to re-read his post.

So they pay others to promote Deomcrats, but they don't do it themselves?

Yep.

"Personal freedom" doesn't mean you get to tell the government what to do.

Who said it did?

Dianne Feinstein. Russ Feingold. Bernie Sander. Dennis Kucinich. Maurice Hinchey. Louise Slaughter. Shall I go on?

When have they ever said they want to "silence the right wing/republican talking heads"?

Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine)

I've heard of it. It could be a good thing, if implemented fairly.

Do you agree that there is an important distinction between "Leftist" and "liberal"?

Huge distinction.

Comrade Ogilvy

21st June 2007, 09:53 PM

Like Fox's "Fairly Unbalanced"? A more accurate one would be :We Rightwingnuts Got Us A Station.

One fairly right wing station in a sea of left wing MSM...and lefties go nuts..they want only a left wing bleat to go to bed with....typical.

Darth Rotor

21st June 2007, 09:54 PM

Fairness Doctrine
I've heard of it. It could be a good thing, if implemented fairly.

Do you trust the government of the US "to implement this farily?"

The track record on fair has not been too hot for the past two decades.

DR

Tony

21st June 2007, 09:57 PM

I listen to talk radio because they tell you other news the big guys dont.

This is a lie.* I listened to conservative talk radio for years, even when I was in high school. There is nothing they talk about that you can't find yourself either on the web or on tv. How the hell do you think they find it?!!!??!

I think if you dont listen or watch both to an extent you're cheating yourself.

Not really. Most of the talkers, including the progressive talkers, are just normal dudes/chicks with talent on the mic. I've found that, generally, their opinions don't reflect a level of thought, knowledge or perspective more than lay people. I've discovered that it's better to think for oneself than rely on a pundit to filter the events of the day. They aren't authorities on history, political science or political history. I will say though, that for as nutty as he is, Micheal Savage brings a level of knowledge and history to the discussion that most don't, and again, that includes both conservative and progressive talkers.

*retracted

Tony

21st June 2007, 10:00 PM

Do you trust the government of the US "to implement this farily?"

No, nor do I trust the free market to give the country what it needs.

The track record on fair has not been too hot for the past two decades.

You mean the past two decades conservatives have been in power either in congress or the Whitehouse? Do you have any examples in mind of the government's poor track record on fairness these past 2 decades? The market's track record isn't all that either, as our current epidemic of bellicose idiots will attest.

Tony

21st June 2007, 10:03 PM

But the bottom line is that this is a really small sample population from which some big conclusions are being drawn. People, they, some of you are drawing conclusions based on the behavior of 144 people who are supposed to be representative of all journalists. Does that seem remotely reasonable?

No madame, it doesn't :)

SezMe

21st June 2007, 10:20 PM

Yep....Lenin...Stalin..Mao...ect..ect.. were all an oxymorons...all dictators are fascist in my opinion.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. But it is useful to facilitate good communications in areas prone to contentious views such as politics to use words as carefully and precisely as possible. Sometimes that's a distant ideal. Other times, such as using the word "fascist" in a non-standard manner just leads to distraction, misunderstanding and missed opportunities to make your position be heard.

*Departs the high road*

That's a really stupid opinion. Holding it prevents you from making good political judgements....which you have demonstrated. As the good doctor suggests, go play elsewhere unless you get educated.

SezMe

21st June 2007, 10:32 PM

This is a lie.

This is an example of where you go off track, Tony. It is a NOT a lie. He stated why he listens to talk radio. That is not a lie. There is an assumption behind his assertion which I challenged him on that is incorrect. But even that does not make him a liar. It just means he's wrong.

I will say though, that for as nutty as he is, Micheal Savage brings a level of knowledge and history to the discussion that most don't, and again, that includes both conservative and progressive talkers.

Didja ever listen to Thom Hartman (http://www.thomhartman.com/)? He's the most cerebral talker I've listened to.

Tony

21st June 2007, 10:40 PM

This is an example of where you go off track, Tony. It is a NOT a lie. He stated why he listens to talk radio. That is not a lie. There is an assumption behind his assertion which I challenged him on that is incorrect. But even that does not make him a liar. It just means he's wrong.

I re-read his comment and realized you're right. My attention was paid to the part about "they tell you other news the big guys dont" to the neglect of the "I listen to talk radio because" part.

Didja ever listen to Thom Hartman (http://www.thomhartman.com/)? He's the most cerebral talker I've listened to.

Yeah, I've listened to his show. I've like it most of the times I've listened and I really enjoy his "Brunch with Bernie" segments.

Tony

21st June 2007, 11:07 PM

The political leanings of the editors, managers and owners of media are more relevant than those of journalists themselves in regards to the thread title, in my opinion.

I think this deserves repeating. It is the editors, managers and owners that have the real power in the media, the journalists are at the bottom of the ladder.

SezMe

21st June 2007, 11:55 PM

Yeah, I've listened to his show. I've like it most of the times I've listened and I really enjoy his "Brunch with Bernie" segments.

I agree. It would be really interesting if a part of any Fairness Doctrine would include a requirement that every elected official had to take unscreened calls from his constuents. Sure, you'd get a lot of nut bars on both sides of the aisle but the wheat might well be worth the chaff.

Art Vandelay

22nd June 2007, 12:07 AM

You can't? Really? These don't appear on your radar?Once again, you show youir poor reading skills. It's not my radar. Other than possibly immigration, all of the issues that you mention are less of an issue than abortion for the electorate at large. What I think is important doesn't have much relevance to what are big political issues. And I take issue with the concept of "trade imbalance". The only way there can be a "trade imbalance" is if certain types of trade, such as investment, are not included.

I don't think that it is staggering when I think about how few 144 are among the field of journalists in this country.If you think that the size of the sample relative to the population, is relevant, then you don't know much about statistics.

Simply put, it is just too small a sample population from which to conclude anything.No, it's not. The standard deviation is roughly the square root of the sample size. They said 125 gave to Dems, 17 to Dems. That's a difference of 108. The square root of 144 is 12. 108 divided by 12 is 9. That's a huge difference. There's a less than 1 in a million probability of getting that just by chance.

People don't listen to Air America? That's a pretty strong statement. Care to back it up? In some markets, Air America has better ratings that conservative talk.Yes, I'm sure that Air America enjoys a large audience base in Santa Cruz.

Oops, maybe this is a bigger non sequitur. :) I was responding to Art's set of priorities he expressed speaking as a conservative.So I am a conservative?

You need to re-read his post. Well, that's rather uninformative.

Who said it did?You implied it.

When have they ever said they want to "silence the right wing/republican talking heads"?Name one, and I'll give you a cite. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Democrats who have voted for censorship. I don't have time to document every one of them.

I've heard of it. It could be a good thing, if implemented fairly.How can it be implemented fairly? How can the government "objectively" determine what is "fair"? How can we keep politics from entering into it?

Huge distinction.
Well, at least on the big issue we agree.

Corsair 115

22nd June 2007, 12:33 AM

You obviously have no idea what liberal means...And therein lies the problem with this seeming American obsession with the liberal bias in the media (or lack thereof, depending on one's position) - the lack of anything approaching a consistent, precise, and uniformly accepted defintion of the word "liberal."

I'd wager quite strongly you'd get quite a variety of defintions for the word "liberal" depending on the political persuasion of the person you're asking. And yet this somehow never gets taken into account when these "liberal media" type of discussions occur.

If you don't have a commonly accepted, uniform defintion to the word, how can anyone establish with any degree of usefulness whether there's a liberal bias or not? You have to start with the defintion of the term, don't you?

And I haven't even touched upon how the definition of "liberal" (or "conservative" or "moderate" or what have you) in the U.S. differs from those one might encounter in other countries...

SezMe

22nd June 2007, 01:26 AM

And therein lies the problem with this seeming American obsession with the liberal bias in the media (or lack thereof, depending on one's position) - the lack of anything approaching a consistent, precise, and uniformly accepted defintion of the word "liberal."

Substitute the word "conservative" for the word "liberal" in this quote and you still have a coherent sentence.

brodski

22nd June 2007, 02:28 AM

Yep....Lenin...Stalin..Mao...ect..ect.. were all an oxymorons...all dictators are fascist in my opinion.

Your opinion is at odds with objective reality.
Fascism doesn’t just mean totalitarianism,
Fascism doesn’t just mean collectivism or authorisation government,
and Fascism doesn’t just mean any political opinion which you happen to disagree with.

Words have meanings- if you are going to use a word, have the common courtesy to learn the meaning.

The Painter

22nd June 2007, 03:40 AM

Fascism, it’s a funny word. What does it really mean?

Most scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but many conclude that fascism eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. For example, Nazism began as a socio-political movement that promoted a radical form of National Socialism, but altered its character once Adolf Hitler was handed state power in Germany. Some scholars and political commentators argue that fascism is a form of socialist dictatorship similar to that in the Soviet Union.

In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views. In the strict sense of the word, Fascism covers movements before WWII, and later movements are described as Neo-fascist.

Some have argued that the term fascist has become hopelessly vague over the years and that it has become little more than a pejorative epithet. George Orwell wrote in 1944:

...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.

Wow, Nazis and Commies, both Fascists? A fascist in just a bully, according to George Orwell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

It seems there is no clear cut, gold standard, definition of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Katana

22nd June 2007, 04:03 AM

No madame, it doesn't :)

:thanks

pgwenthold

22nd June 2007, 05:19 AM

That study I cited says just the opposite - that the liberal perspective has not had a level playing field of competition in radio, primarily because of ownership concentration. Too bad you didn't read it before commenting. Doing so might have answered your last question.

People don't listen to Air America? That's a pretty strong statement. Care to back it up? In some markets, Air America has better ratings that conservative talk.

Also, the claim that people don't listen because it is the same as MSM is mind wobbling, and a statement made by someone who has never listened to Air America.

pgwenthold

22nd June 2007, 05:23 AM

SezMe quoted thusly:

Quote:
– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.
– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Liberal media that is so liberal that it won't even use the word "liberal"?

Katana

22nd June 2007, 05:44 AM

Hey, I see Katana joined the thread. Sweet. :)

Thanks, SezMe! That's so nice. :)

:seerrrr:

Wait! You only just noticed then?

Geesh. No wonder I have a complex.

:(

;)

brodski

22nd June 2007, 06:00 AM

Fascism, it’s a funny word. What does it really mean?

Wow, Nazis and Commies, both Fascists? A fascist in just a bully, according to George Orwell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

It seems there is no clear cut, gold standard, definition of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
True, but then defining any political philosophy is often problematic, however any meaningful definition of Fascism must include totalitarianism, corporatism and romantic conservatism. Only one trait is shared with Communism.
Those who seek to equate Fascism with Communism tend to do so for political purposes, rather than to further understanding of the various hideous ideologies which flourished in the early 20th century.

Trying to draw an ideological line between fascism and modern US “liberalism”, through communism because somehow they all fall on the “left” is political naivety of the first order, at best- and the ravings of those totally blinded by ideology at worst.

The Painter

22nd June 2007, 06:10 AM

In some markets, Air America has better ratings that conservative talk.

What markets does it have better ratings? Which ones? I think you made that up. I would like to see the Arbitron ratings. Not the rating from the bias site you quoted.

ponderingturtle

22nd June 2007, 06:17 AM

I re-read his comment and realized you're right. My attention was paid to the part about "they tell you other news the big guys dont" to the neglect of the "I listen to talk radio because" part.

The funny thing is, that is exactly the reason I read the onion, they report the stories that even the right wing radio people refuse to.

And when you give up all facts why not go for something that is at least funny?

ponderingturtle

22nd June 2007, 06:23 AM

No, it's not. The standard deviation is roughly the square root of the sample size. They said 125 gave to Dems, 17 to Dems. That's a difference of 108. The square root of 144 is 12. 108 divided by 12 is 9. That's a huge difference. There's a less than 1 in a million probability of getting that just by chance.

Good, now prove that this is a representative sample by a thorough analysis of their sampling methodology.

Katana

22nd June 2007, 06:32 AM

If you think that the size of the sample relative to the population, is relevant, then you don't know much about statistics.

Wow. While I'm no expert, I've heard of statistical power.

Good, now prove that this is a representative sample by a thorough analysis of their sampling methodology.

I am interested in the same.

Upchurch

22nd June 2007, 06:58 AM

What markets does it have better ratings? Which ones? I think you made that up. I would like to see the Arbitron ratings. Not the rating from the bias site you quoted.
I'm curious, too. I don't understand the ratings scale, per se, but here's what I found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio#Ratings):
n Arbitron's Winter 2006 ratings book, the most recent available as of May 2006, ratings at Air America stations nationwide average about a 1.2 share in markets for which Arbitron reports results four times a year. Some of the network's highest ratings come from station KPOJ in Portland, Oregon, where the station ranks second among AM stations and sixth overall. Other markets with previously high ratings include Seattle and Madison, Wisconsin: however, Air America's Madison affiliate announced on November 10th, 2006 it would switch to all sports programming by the end of the year[3]; a spokesperson for Clear Channel in Madison later announced that the station would remain an Air America affiliate.[23]

I tried to look for something on Arbitron's website, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. The closest thing I found was this (http://www.arbitron.com/national_radio/home.htm) and I'm not really sure it's giving the information you're asking about.

eta: I don't know if it's mixing apples and oranges, but it looks like Air America's average market share was 1.2 according to Wikipedia and Fox News's was 0.9. But again, I have no idea if these are even the same kind of numbers.

firecoins

22nd June 2007, 08:18 AM

No, nor do I trust the free market to give the country what it needs. .

It is not the fair market but the free market. It gives thic country what it wants. Having the government dictate what we need is not a good idea. Apparently we needed to invade Iraq.

Dr Adequate

22nd June 2007, 09:19 AM

Wow, Nazis and Commies, both Fascists? A fascist in just a bully, according to George Orwell. No. You have misunderstood him completely. Read that quotation again until you know what he is saying.

Darat

22nd June 2007, 09:27 AM

Orwell from "What is Fascism?" published 1944 (bold by me)

...snip...

By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Tony

22nd June 2007, 10:33 AM

It is not the fair market but the free market.

What?

It gives thic country what it wants.

Evidence?

Having the government dictate what we need is not a good idea.

No one ever said anything about having the government dictate what we need.

Apparently we needed to invade Iraq.

Apparently, we wanted to invade Iraq as well.

Drysdale

22nd June 2007, 12:54 PM

That is the biggest non sequitur I think I have ever seen. Your OP suggested the media have a liberal bias. I respond with a study suggesting just the opposite. And your response is to ask if they are government sponsored programs. What the hell does that have to do with my post?

Is your report not a non sequitur to mine? Kills me how some of you guys scream foul while doing the same thing. Funny actually.

I posted nothing to do with talk radio and ownership etc. conservative programming as opposed to ahem,progressive(Thats what they're calling it now huh?). I posted article noting the % of donations to the democratic party by journalists etc al.

That link is nothing but a bunch of yadda,yadda. Lots of screaming about ownership of stations affecting programming etc. Nothing really in there of substance that I saw. Maybe the owners of those stations want to make money and the PROGRESSIVE guys dont deliver? Nah, thats too simple, has to be a conspiracy there.

But let me get this straight, not only does the content need to be regulated but ownership of stations does too? Wow, thats kinda scary isnt it?

Just to hell with free enterprise huh. Unbelievable.

By the way, I listened to air america, have XM radio and they carried it and when we drove cross country I listen to nearly anything to alleviate the boredom. It stunk, I heard Al Franken and some other girl whose name escapes me and couple ohers I dont know and they were bad. Thats why it failed my friend. Not because of a conspiracy.

SezMe

22nd June 2007, 01:06 PM

I posted nothing to do with talk radio and ownership etc. conservative programming as opposed to ahem,progressive(Thats what they're calling it now huh?). I posted article noting the % of donations to the democratic party by journalists etc al.
Drysdale, what's the title of this thread that YOU created?

1337m4n

22nd June 2007, 01:11 PM

I've heard Conspiracy Theorists say that there is no liberal media, only a Zionist Jew media trying to manipulate the masses.

Go to google, type in "Jews in the media" and hit "I'm feeling lucky".

Drysdale

22nd June 2007, 01:11 PM

This is an example of where you go off track, Tony. It is a NOT a lie. He stated why he listens to talk radio. That is not a lie. There is an assumption behind his assertion which I challenged him on that is incorrect. But even that does not make him a liar. It just means he's wrong.

Didja ever listen to Thom Hartman (http://www.thomhartman.com/)? He's the most cerebral talker I've listened to.

I also listen to it because it's entertaining. Not gonna lie about it. Some of those guys are very talented. Savage I do listen to unitl he starts going off crazy on some of his conspiracy rants which I cant stomach.

As well as Limbaugh, and one thing about Rush. He gives you sources for everything he talks about. You can disagree and think he's a blowhard etc but he links everything on his site.

Gonna have to listen to this Hartman guy, never heard of him. Doesnt come on in my area I dont think. Have to try him on web I guess.

Drysdale

22nd June 2007, 01:15 PM

Drysdale, what's the title of this thread that YOU created?

Alright, guess I should have named it something else.
I wanted a snazzy title to draw interest to it like the newsguys do I guess.

Guilty

Katana

22nd June 2007, 01:19 PM

Alright, guess I should have named it something else.
I wanted a snazzy title to draw interest to it like the newsguys do I guess.

Guilty

Damn sensationalist.

:duck:

Tony

22nd June 2007, 01:40 PM

Gonna have to listen to this Hartman guy, never heard of him. Doesnt come on in my area I dont think. Have to try him on web I guess.

I only have access to him because I have Sirius.

Art Vandelay

22nd June 2007, 01:41 PM

Wow. While I'm no expert, I've heard of statistical power. What do you think it means?

I am interested in the same.While that is a valid criticism, it wasn't your original issue.

The Painter

22nd June 2007, 05:40 PM

No. You have misunderstood him completely. Read that quotation again until you know what he is saying.

"almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. "

I did??? Since you think you know so much more than me, splain it to me Lucy.

Comrade Ogilvy

22nd June 2007, 05:53 PM

Big Govt. is a solution to all evils...unless they are Liberal evils

, June 22, 2007

Frank Beckmann

Government shouldn't play favorites on talk radio shows

The talk radio industry has provided Americans with a town hall-like forum that has disappeared from the political landscape. That open discussion is now being threatened by those who seek government control of speech.

Democrats in Washington have suggested they may seek a new "fairness doctrine" that would require radio talk show hosts to zip their own lips and keep track of time spent speaking on different sides of issues.

Even a leading Republican, U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, suggests conservative talk radio hosts need to be dealt with after Americans recently railed against the ill-conceived immigration bill.

Another move toward censorship is led by the liberal Center for American Progress. Its study of talk radio ownership and content, released Thursday, concludes that there are far too many conservative talk shows in America. The study claims that there is 10 times as much conservative talk on U.S. airwaves as there is liberal talk.

Rather than recognizing that radio shows are the purest form of a free market system -- if you don't get good ratings, management will change hosts or format -- CAP concludes that conservative talk shows have proliferated mostly because of a lack of diversity in ownership.

"Stations owned by women, minorities or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows," the report says.

This statement reveals that CAP isn't concerned about an open exchange of ideas on all stations, but wants to muzzle the most successful programming on the nation's airwaves.

CAP proposes more government controls through limiting corporate ownership of multiple stations, ensuring more local programming to limit successful syndicated shows like that of Rush Limbaugh and taxing stations if listeners complain that their viewpoints are not properly represented.

The study calculates this tax or "fee" would raise $100 million to $250 million annually for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and "would not overly burden commercial radio broadcasters."

This abominable idea seeks to create an elite broadcasting oligarchy and punish broadcasters who don't share the "progressive" view of America.

The study may be flawed on programming content. CAP says my station, WJR, carries 10.5 hours per day of conservative programming and has no liberal hosts. It ignores two successful "progressive" talents in Mitch Albom and Warren Pierce. If the study is that wrong on one station, how many more mistakes does it contain?

In addition, CAP makes an insulting assumption that people only listen to programs they agree with and are brainwashed. Listeners tune in to their favorite shows to be entertained and, hopefully, exchange ideas.

CAP also fails to note another example that refutes its conclusion. Liberals created an entire network called "Air America," but it went bankrupt because of a lack of listeners and advertisers across the country.

Government should not ensure the failure of more businesses just to mollify a group of people who are incapable of succeeding in the arena of ideas.

Frank Beckmann is the conservative host of "The Frank Beckmann Show" on WJR from 9-11:30 a.m. Monday-Friday. His column runs Fridays. E-mail: letters@detnews.com.

Corsair 115

22nd June 2007, 09:19 PM

Substitute the word "conservative" for the word "liberal" in this quote and you still have a coherent sentence.Of course. If the political terms are not defined in a uniformly accepted manner, then charging bias in one direction or another is pointless it seems to me. It all starts with the definitions of the terms being referenced.

Lonewulf

23rd June 2007, 05:09 AM

"almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. "

I did??? Since you think you know so much more than me, splain it to me Lucy.

Here's a tip:

Orwell wasn't talking about what HE would define it as.

I'll give you a few moments and see if you actually figure this out without being spoon-fed.

Here, I'll quote him:

...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.[23]

Do you get it now?

firecoins

23rd June 2007, 09:20 AM

What?

Evidence?

No one ever said anything about having the government dictate what we need.

Actually Media Matters ,which has been quoted, brough up using the government to legislate what we "need". They want to bring the fairness doctrine back because talk radio leans conservative and it isn't what we "need".

Supply and Demand is the concept of how a free market brings us what we want. Firms supply a product with enough demand to be profitable or they go out of business. Very simple

Brian Marks

Katana

25th June 2007, 04:46 PM

What do you think it means?

To quote you: "If you think that the size of the sample relative to the population, is relevant, then you don't know much about statistics."

How about you tell me why it's not?

While that is a valid criticism, it wasn't your original issue.

Did I say that it was?

Art Vandelay

25th June 2007, 06:59 PM

To quote you: "If you think that the size of the sample relative to the population, is relevant, then you don't know much about statistics."

How about you tell me why it's not?Well, it's rather hard to prove a negative. But it did matter, then any population with an infinite number of members would need an infinite sample for any significance at all.

Also, suppose you flip ten quarters, then randomly choose one of them. Is the probability of it being heads up any different than if you had just flipped one?

Chaos

26th June 2007, 04:14 AM

Well, it's rather hard to prove a negative. But it did matter, then any population with an infinite number of members would need an infinite sample for any significance at all.

Since there are no populations with infinite numbers of members (that we know of), that is completely irrelevant.

And every math teacher and statistics professor so far has told me that a sample become more representative the bigger it is compared to the population.

Also, suppose you flip ten quarters, then randomly choose one of them. Is the probability of it being heads up any different than if you had just flipped one?

What does THAT have to do with statistics?

If you flip one quarter, you´d get zero or one heads, which is NOT representative of the probability for heads.
If you flip ten quarters, you will probably get four or five or six heads, which is (even for four and six, more or less) representative of the probability for heads.
The more quarters you flip, the smaller the deviation from the probability is going to be. That´s elementary stochastics.

And, for samples, the larger the sample size, the more likely it is to be representative of the full population.

Billdave2

26th June 2007, 11:29 AM

This is the thing...People who listen to talk ready do it to afirm what they already believe. It doesn't matter if it is right wing or left wing they aren't changing peoples minds, they are preaching to the choir. All bring back the fairness doctrine would do is chase the audience to other sources (Fox news, the internet). Do they really think the average Rush Limbaugh listener will "see the light" and realize the error of their ways if they take his Svegali voice away? If the position was reversed and 90% of talk radio was liberal would the Democrats want to bring back the fairness doctrine? Would Republicans want to? I think we know the Dems would not and the Reps would. When in doubt on free speech should we lean towards restriction or greater freedom? I say freedom. I am a conservative but would argue that it is always better to have these discusions out in the open. I am not calling for changes to the MSM (which i do believe has a liberal bias) because we need to hear all sides of the important issues. I may not agree but I want to be able to hear what they say.

Tony

26th June 2007, 01:12 PM

Actually Media Matters ,which has been quoted, brough up using the government to legislate what we "need".

I didn't quote them, nor do they want the government to "dictate" what we need.

They want to bring the fairness doctrine back because talk radio leans conservative and it isn't what we "need".

And they're right. Conservative government has allowed it's conservative friends to treat our airwaves like their own propaganda apparati to the detriment of true discourse, it's a backdoor violation of free speech and no different than if the government legislated that all talk radio conform to a certain message.

Supply and Demand is the concept of how a free market brings us what we want.

Aside from the fact that this is theory stated as fact. The situation in American talk radio hardly represents a free market. The market is dominated by a few conservative owners who dictate the majority of programming on the talk dial.

Firms supply a product with enough demand to be profitable or they go out of business.

More theory stated as fact.

Tony

26th June 2007, 01:17 PM

This is the thing...People who listen to talk ready do it to afirm what they already believe. It doesn't matter if it is right wing or left wing they aren't changing peoples minds, they are preaching to the choir. All bring back the fairness doctrine would do is chase the audience to other sources (Fox news, the internet). Do they really think the average Rush Limbaugh listener will "see the light" and realize the error of their ways if they take his Svegali voice away? If the position was reversed and 90% of talk radio was liberal would the Democrats want to bring back the fairness doctrine? Would Republicans want to? I think we know the Dems would not and the Reps would. When in doubt on free speech should we lean towards restriction or greater freedom? I say freedom.

Good points, but how does the current situation represent freedom?

Billdave2

26th June 2007, 01:38 PM

Good points, but how does the current situation represent freedom?

Reinstituting the fairness doctrine restricts one groups right to free speech as a matter of law. Right now the only limitation is placed by the market (ratings,free enterprise, etc). The constitution guarantees freedom of expression form government but not from the market.

Lurker

26th June 2007, 01:40 PM

No, it's not. The standard deviation is roughly the square root of the sample size.

What? Where did you get the notion that the std dev = sqrt(n) ?

Lurker

Tony

26th June 2007, 01:59 PM

Right now the only limitation is placed by the market (ratings,free enterprise, etc).

Evidence?

The constitution guarantees freedom of expression form government but not from the market.

Evidence?

Furthermore, none of this fits in with your notion of freedom. If the "market" (read: owners of media) is allowed to infringe upon rights, then there is no freedom, the restriction is simply in place at the behest of, and in the intersts for, another power.

Art Vandelay

26th June 2007, 02:20 PM

Since there are no populations with infinite numbers of members (that we know of), that is completely irrelevant.Arguably, there are an infinite number of ways that a coin can be flipped.

And every math teacher and statistics professor so far has told me that a sample become more representative the bigger it is compared to the population.Then they're wrong.

If you flip one quarter, you´d get zero or one heads, which is NOT representative of the probability for heads.
If you flip ten quarters, you will probably get four or five or six heads, which is (even for four and six, more or less) representative of the probability for heads.
The more quarters you flip, the smaller the deviation from the probability is going to be. That´s elementary stochastics.If you look at ten quarters out of a thousand, will that be more representative than ten out of ten thousand?

I am not calling for changes to the MSM (which i do believe has a liberal bias) because we need to hear all sides of the important issues.What does that mean?

And they're right. Conservative government has allowed it's[sic] conservative friends to treat our airwaves like their own propaganda apparati to the detriment of true discourse, it's a backdoor violation of free speech and no different than if the government legislated that all talk radio conform to a certain message. Except, of course, for the fact that it is different.

The situation in American talk radio hardly represents a free market. How so?

The market is dominated by a few conservative owners who dictate the majority of programming on the talk dial.But did those owners acquire the stations through competitive bidding?

What? Where did you get the notion that the std dev = sqrt(n) ?Variance is p(1-p)n. Standard deviation is the square root of variance. Hence, standard deviation is proportional to sqrt(n).

Evidence?

Evidence?You're the one with the burden of proof.

Furthermore, none of this fits in with your notion of freedom. If the "market" (read: owners of media) is allowed to infringe upon rights, then there is no freedom, the restriction is simply in place at the behest of, and in the intersts for, another power.Yeah, the owner. That's what freedom means. It means that people are allowed to do what they want with their property, not they're allowed to do what they want with other people's property.

Tony

26th June 2007, 02:55 PM

Except, of course, for the fact that it is different.

Not the effect, which, if you stopped being small minded and pedantic, you would of understood.

How so?

It's up to you to explain how it is like the freemarket. I would have thought that the fact that radio stations have to get licensing from the government to operate means that it isn't a free market.

<FREE MARKET definition watch> Is Art, like the rest of the free market fundies, going to re-define the free market? Lets wait and see.

But did those owners acquire the stations through competitive bidding?

I don't know and its irrelevant. Slaves were required through competitive bidding, but their rights were still being violated.

You're the one with the burden of proof.

No, I'm not. You guys are the ones claiming it's the free market thats responsible for the abundance of conservative idiots on talk radio.

Yeah, the owner. That's what freedom means. It means that people are allowed to do what they want with their property, not they're allowed to do what they want with other people's property.

Aww, so slavery is ok because, after all, an owner is allowed to what they want with their property, even if it infringes on the rights of others. No freedom does not mean you're allowed to do what you want with your property, I can't use my guns to shoot you in the face, and media owners can't use their property to subvert free-speech and the constitution.

Art Vandelay

26th June 2007, 04:59 PM

Not the effect, which, if you stopped being small minded and pedantic, you would of [sic] understood.Ah, so not agreeing with you is being "small-minded and pedantic". Currently, Americans burning the American flag is an exceedingly rare occurrence. If the Constitution were amended to outlaw such burnings, the burnings would still be exceedingly low. So having the Amendment has the same effect as not having it.

For you to equate no one doing something with the government banning it is absurd.

It's up to you to explain how it is like the freemarket. No, it's not. The burden of proof is yours.

I would have thought that the fact that radio stations have to get licensing from the government to operate means that it isn't a free market. To operate on land, one must get a license (deed) from the government. Does that means that retail is not a free market?

I don't know and its irrelevant. Slaves were required [sic] through competitive bidding, but their rights were still being violated.Which would be relevant if we were discussing whether the rights of frequencies are being violated. But since frequencies are inanimate objects, they don't have rights to violate.

No, I'm not. You guys are the ones claiming it's the free market thats responsible for the abundance of conservative idiots on talk radio.And you're claiming it's not. In other words, you're claiming that there are non-free forces at work. Since you're the one making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Aww, so slavery is ok because, after all, an owner is allowed to what they want with their property, even if it infringes on the rights of others.Only if you accept the premise the slave is the property of the owner, in which case you've already accepted slavery.

No freedom does not mean you're allowed to do what you want with your property, I can't use my guns to shoot you in the face, But if you shoot my face, you aren't merely making use of your gun, you're also making use of my face. You can do what you want with your property, just as long as it doesn't affect mine.

and media owners can't use their property to subvert free-speech and the constitution.Free-speech can't be subverted, only the right to free speech. Whose rights are being suberted? Your argument isn't based on what the constituion says, but what you think it should say.

Your entire argument is based merely on assertion. You have nothing to support your claims.

Tony

26th June 2007, 05:28 PM

Ah, so not agreeing with you is being "small-minded and pedantic".

If you say so.

Currently, Americans burning the American flag is an exceedingly rare occurrence. If the Constitution were amended to outlaw such burnings, the burnings would still be exceedingly low. So having the Amendment has the same effect as not having it.

For you to equate no one doing something with the government banning it is absurd.

Sophistry.

No, it's not. The burden of proof is yours.

No it's not, the burden of proof is yours.

To operate on land, one must get a license (deed) from the government.

Evidence?

Does that means that retail is not a free market?

Retail what?

Which would be relevant if we were discussing whether the rights of frequencies are being violated. But since frequencies are inanimate objects, they don't have rights to violate.

LOL That went right over your head.

Dodge noted. The fact that you can't provide evidence that free market forces are the reason for conservative domination of talk radio shows how weak your position is.

Only if you accept the premise the slave is the property of the owner, in which case you've already accepted slavery.

But if you shoot my face, you aren't merely making use of your gun, you're also making use of my face.

So then you can't do whatever you want with your property.

You can do what you want with your property, just as long as it doesn't affect mine.

That's the point, but keep moving those goal posts.

Free-speech can't be subverted, only the right to free speech.

More pedantic idiocy.

Whose rights are being suberted?

Everyone's rights.

Your argument isn't based on what the constituion says, but what you think it should say.

So is yours.

Your entire argument is based merely on assertion. You have nothing to support your claims.

You're getting confused with yourself.

Art Vandelay

26th June 2007, 05:53 PM

In other words, you have no interest in actually debating the issue.

Billdave2

26th June 2007, 07:44 PM

Evidence?

Evidence?

Furthermore, none of this fits in with your notion of freedom. If the "market" (read: owners of media) is allowed to infringe upon rights, then there is no freedom, the restriction is simply in place at the behest of, and in the intersts for, another power.

the evidence is in the bill of rights. It states that the government shall not pass laws abridging freedom of speech, not no one shall abridge free speech.

The market drives talk radio (actually all radio). If a show does not have ratings and/or sponsers it will not last. If people wanted to listen to left wing talk radio more they would, but they don't.

Ask yourself this. Would the Fairness doctrine make things equal by creating more left wing talk, or reducing right wing talk. And what about a talk show where the host is a true moderate and takes different sides on different issues? Who is going to sit and decide how to distribute this air time freely?

This issue is actually kind of silly we you think about it. Even proponents of the Fairness doctrine don't think itt would be able to withstand Supreme Court review, but the time it would take to get there (2 years minimum) would cripple the right wing talk shows that are in existence now.

Lurker

27th June 2007, 05:56 AM

Variance is p(1-p)n. Standard deviation is the square root of variance. Hence, standard deviation is proportional to sqrt(n).

Ah, last time you didn't say "proportional" you said roughly equal to.

Lurker

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 07:09 AM

Actually Media Matters ,which has been quoted, brough up using the government to legislate what we "need". They want to bring the fairness doctrine back because talk radio leans conservative and it isn't what we "need".

Supply and Demand is the concept of how a free market brings us what we want. Firms supply a product with enough demand to be profitable or they go out of business. Very simple

Brian Marks

Of course we also don't apparently need local coverage of emergencies becuase the loosening on ownership rules has ment that you often have no one at local radio stations to report on local emergencies, unless you are in a major city.

But America does not NEED emergency information either, I guess.

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 07:11 AM

Well, it's rather hard to prove a negative. But it did matter, then any population with an infinite number of members would need an infinite sample for any significance at all.

Also, suppose you flip ten quarters, then randomly choose one of them. Is the probability of it being heads up any different than if you had just flipped one?

And if you non randomly select them? You have ignored providing any evidence that it was a random sampling method.

Billdave2

27th June 2007, 08:13 AM

Of course we also don't apparently need local coverage of emergencies becuase the loosening on ownership rules has ment that you often have no one at local radio stations to report on local emergencies, unless you are in a major city.

But America does not NEED emergency information either, I guess.

That is why stations are required to test their EMS every week. The system is mandatory and it doesn't matter if you are playing a local broadcast or syndicated, when it goes off it takes control and starts broadcasting.

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 08:29 AM

That is why stations are required to test their EMS every week. The system is mandatory and it doesn't matter if you are playing a local broadcast or syndicated, when it goes off it takes control and starts broadcasting.

The problem is that it is not always activated when it would be useful. In the east cost blackout a few years ago, as long as you where in NYC you had local news and coverage, but further away if you wanted coverage, you have local NYC coverage.

In a chlorine leak there was also problems because they could not even get anyone to answer the phone at the radio station, because it was entirely automated.

This includes a discussion of the problem link (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/01/10)

Billdave2

27th June 2007, 09:08 AM

The problem is that it is not always activated when it would be useful. In the east cost blackout a few years ago, as long as you where in NYC you had local news and coverage, but further away if you wanted coverage, you have local NYC coverage.

In a chlorine leak there was also problems because they could not even get anyone to answer the phone at the radio station, because it was entirely automated.

This includes a discussion of the problem link (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/01/10)

It would seem then that the answer to this problem would lie more in the realm of FCC regulations about maintaining the EMS properly, or requiring that all stations have at least one human present at all times. I can't see how this relates to the fairness doctrine. If anything the fairness doctrine would probably put more local stations out of business making the problem worse. I also am not sure why some DJ would be the person you want to call in an emergency. The only thing he would have access to that you would not is the actual EMS transmitter. The automated system stations broadcast it automatically and the non automated simply throw a switch and get out of the way.

ponderingturtle

27th June 2007, 09:17 AM

It would seem then that the answer to this problem would lie more in the realm of FCC regulations about maintaining the EMS properly, or requiring that all stations have at least one human present at all times. I can't see how this relates to the fairness doctrine. If anything the fairness doctrine would probably put more local stations out of business making the problem worse. I also am not sure why some DJ would be the person you want to call in an emergency. The only thing he would have access to that you would not is the actual EMS transmitter. The automated system stations broadcast it automatically and the non automated simply throw a switch and get out of the way.

They both relate to massive consolidation of radio in the past decade.

Billdave2

27th June 2007, 09:31 AM

They both relate to massive consolidation of radio in the past decade.

Yes but they are different issues. The fairness doctrine is what is being discussed as being reinstated, not limits on how many radio stations you can own.

Nullifidian

27th June 2007, 05:05 PM

From this article sure appears that way huh.

Maybe all the radio talk show heads are right after all.

Sure, just like we can be certain that General Motors is institutionally pro-union by polling the workers on the shop floor.

Nullifidian

27th June 2007, 06:18 PM

Big Govt. is a solution to all evils...unless they are Liberal evils

I guess Frank is too ignorant of the history of the field he's supposedly speaking for to note that the "Fairness Doctrine" predates the current Democratic House and Senate and that talk radio flourished just fine under it. Apparently Barry Gray, Joe Pyne, John Nebel, Jerry Williams, Alan Berg, etc. don't exist for him.

firecoins

27th June 2007, 06:45 PM

I didn't quote them, nor do they want the government to "dictate" what we need.
The fairness doctrine if brought back will be run by whom? The FCC I believe. Are they not apart of the US government?

And they're right. Conservative government has allowed it's conservative friends to treat our airwaves like their own propaganda apparati to the detriment of true discourse, it's a backdoor violation of free speech and no different than if the government legislated that all talk radio conform to a certain message.

The conservative government has no such power to "allow" or "not allow" what radio talks shows are programed. You may want to read the first amendment of the constituion.

I don't think Michael Moore is having any trouble getting his movie into theaters. Air America is still on air. Live Aid is happening. Many other liberal outlets are going quite strong.

Aside from the fact that this is theory stated as fact. The situation in American talk radio hardly represents a free market. The market is dominated by a few conservative owners who dictate the majority of programming on the talk dial.

Wrong. Radio is competing with the internet forums, television, movies, podcasts and other formats. Radio is not in a world by itself. Nobody is forced to listen to talk radio.

firecoins

27th June 2007, 06:50 PM

Of course we also don't apparently need local coverage of emergencies becuase the loosening on ownership rules has ment that you often have no one at local radio stations to report on local emergencies, unless you are in a major city.

But America does not NEED emergency information either, I guess.
Nope. You don't need it. You should pack up and move to a big city. I think they are trying to tell you something. :)

Art Vandelay

30th June 2007, 03:16 PM

Ah, last time you didn't say "proportional" you said roughly equal to.

LurkerI was thinking in terms of orders of magnitudes.

And if you non randomly select them? You have ignored providing any evidence that it was a random sampling method.You have ignored me pointing out that that is a separate issue. Quit moving the goalposts.

The fairness doctrine if brought back will be run by whom? The FCC I believe. Are they not apart of the US government?You don't actually expect Tony to provide a logical argument, do you? When he gets in trouble, he simply declares "sophitry" in lieu of providing a counterargument, demands that you prove a negative, refuses to prove his claims and declares that you're the one with the burden of proof, and accuses you of moving the goalposts when you point out that X actually means X, not Y.

Schneibster

30th June 2007, 07:34 PM

Texas

30th June 2007, 08:20 PM

Indeed. Out of what, a hundred thousand journalists? Yeah, right, "teh librul media." Pull the other one. Well UCLA seems to think that the Media is decidedly left leaning:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Schneibster

30th June 2007, 09:24 PM

Texas

30th June 2007, 09:33 PM

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

Check better. WorldNutDaily was not a good name to find cited in their paper. But, not bad. Keep it coming, you're interesting, Texas. You also don't bad-mouth, and I won't either (and if I have, please accept my apologies). This was an interesting piece that I had not seen comment about.Thanks for the kind words. You will find over time I am actually very a-political. When presidents started getting elected that were younger than me I lost interest in politics as a blood sport. I am a contrary old fart but I am harmless. As to WorldnetDaily the publisher, Farah, is one of the most obnoxious nutcases on the planet.

Grasshopper

1st July 2007, 11:31 PM

I come to this discussion as a former reporter, with a fondness for investigative reporting, and current adjunct journalism professor.

I think journalists should be proud to be liberal, properly defined; just as The Economist is when it asked to have its word back after the last U.S. presidential election: A liberal believes in personal and business freedom and opposes unchecked power as a matter of principle.

If there is a valid criticism of improper liberalism in the press, it's that business freedom is proportionally under appreciated. But that's part of the tension between unchecked free enterprise and its unaccounted externalities on personal freedoms.

A lot of reporters I know have too much faith in government, but remain wary of its powers. They also have too little faith in free enterprise, but also are wary of its powers. If that may be considered a bias, I think it's a healthier one than many I can think of.

Nullifidian

14th July 2007, 04:33 PM

Well UCLA seems to think that the Media is decidedly left leaning:

No, UCLA thinks no such thing. A professor affiliated with UCLA publishing something doesn't imply institutional support for the thing being published unless it's being published by the university's presses.

And even if it did, the study would still be flawed, as is well covered at Language Log. I can't improve on the critique there although I've read the paper, and unfortunately neither can I link to anything as yet, so I'll just leave you with the best quote which you can search for at your leisure.

"In effect, G & C have located the political center somewhere in the middle of the Republican Party, by which standard the majority of American voters would count as left-of-center."

Schneibster

14th July 2007, 06:51 PM

Reinstituting the fairness doctrine restricts one groups right to free speech as a matter of law. And not reinstituting it restricts the other group's right to free speech as a matter of finance. I fail to see the difference between political power and financial power; they both look like power to me. And up until last January, in the US, there was no apparent difference at all.

Right now the only limitation is placed by the market (ratings,free enterprise, etc).Right now the only limitation is placed by the rich people who have a vested interest in right-wing propaganda, and are running the media.

It's incredibly coy to assert that political power is a problem, and financial power is not, and incredibly naive to believe it.

The constitution guarantees freedom of expression form government but not from the market.You mean not from the rich people. See, the point is, rich people have a monopoly on the media. Does Rupert Murdoch ring any bells? How about the Mays family? Ever hear of them? How about Sumner Redstone?

Basically, you can have these people run it, or you can have the government run it. At least you get to vote for the government. I can't recall ever voting in an election that included Mark P. Mays. Maybe I missed the memo or something.

Art Vandelay

15th July 2007, 04:11 PM

And not reinstituting it restricts the other group's right to free speech as a matter of finance. Yet another Orwellian redefinition of "freedom of speech" as "the right to tell other people what to say". I put a lot of effort into responding to Tony's drivel, only for him to contempuously dismiss my points without presenting any arguments. From your posting history, I don't expect you to act differently.

I fail to see the difference between political power and financial power; they both look like power to me.And I fail to see how your ignorance of basic political principles has any bearing on the discussion.

It's incredibly coy to assert that political power is a problem, and financial power is not, and incredibly naive to believe it. If you mean the idea that there are no drawbacks at all to consolidation, I think that's a strawman. If you mean the idea that financial power is of a character completely different from that of political power, then it is you who is being naive by disputing it.

You mean not from the rich people.No, he means the market. Don't tell people what they mean.

See, the point is, rich people have a monopoly on the media.Except that they don't. "Media" includes as methods of communication, including the internet. Your statement would be true if interpreted loosely, but then it would also be vacuous. Control of the media is a form of wealth. Rich people are people with a lot of wealth. So most wealth is held by people who have a lot of wealth. What a trenchant observation.

Basically, you can have these people run it, or you can have the government run it. At least you get to vote for the government.They manage various media, but the ultimate control lies with consumers. Liberal democracy means that you don't get to vote on everything. If the government is in charge of everything, that's totalitarianism. We don't get to vote for the Pope. Does that mean that the government should take over the Catholic Church?

I can't recall ever voting in an election that included Mark P. Mays. Maybe I missed the memo or something.Yeah, I guess you did. Control of the spectrum was handed out by elected officials. Your problem is not that the electorate wasn't involved in the decision, but that a decision that you don't like was reached. An all-too-typical attitude on the part of Leftists: democracy means that things are settled by votes, unless that leads to something they don't like, in which case their "rights" are being violated. Moreover, the use of that spectrum is determined by market forces, allowing everyone to vote with their wallets.

I don't see how government control makes sense, even within the Leftist worldview. If The People can't be trusted either to elect politicians who will make good decisions handing out the spectrum, nor even to vote for the "right" people, rather than mindlessly following whoever has the most ads (which would make "right wing control of the media" largely irrelevant), how can they be trusted to elect people who make sure that the "Fairness" Doctrine will, in fact, be implemented "fairly"? If the Right has so much control, can we not expect that they will use their vast influence to elect politicians who will interpret the "Fairness" Doctrine as much in their favor as possible? If the media elites have undue influence on the government, why would we want to complete a vicious cycle by putting the government in charge of the media?