John VanSickle wrote:
> Happens in the U.S. all the time.  Of the major media institutions
> (print and media), the majority of them are well to the left of the
> American populace (in polls taken of journalists, they tend to vote for
> one party over 80% of the time, whereas the general populace, as whole,
> favors both parties evenly).

	You do realize that the other side says exactly the same with just
substituting the words "left" with "right"? And their "evidence" is just
as valid. I tend to tire of these statements (from both sides), because
from my observation, they're both correct. And that doesn't mean that
the media is centrist. It means that putting these issues on a one
dimensional spectrum is faulty. Some news channels are very "left" on
certain issues, and very "right" on others.

	From the rest of the industrial world's perspective, it's almost all
"right" - in the sense that what print/radio/TV advocates in the US is
closer to what the the right wing folks in those countries say, and what
they consider the ordinary "left" is far too left even for most people
who think they're left in the US.

> On April the 15th, there were literally thousands of demonstrations in
> the U.S. against the massive taxing and spending agenda of the current
> administration.  The demonstrations were run by the demonstrators
> themselves with no significant overall organization (what we call a
> "grass-roots" movement).  With one exception, the major media houses did
> their best to ignore the demonstrations (which were weeks in the
> planning) up until the day of the demonstrations, and then portrayed the
> demonstrators as a minor extremists fringe, misrepresented their views,
> and dismissed them as puppets of the one major television news outlet
> that does not share the other news outlets' views.  On-location coverage
> was notoriously biased.  Demonstrators interviewed on-camera were
> frequently not allowed to speak as much as a complete sentence without
> interruption by the reporter, whereas in coverage of demonstrations on
> the other end of the spectrum, demonstrators are essentially handed the
> microphone.

	And left wingers complain of the same treatment by the media (i.e.
being ignored) when they march for various things.

	I have a feeling you're suffering from selection bias. You follow
activities you care about, and notice the various "injustices" against
your side. When things happen on the other side that the media ignores,
you probably don't hear about it because you're not in the other camp.
Additionally, if the media ever does represent your side, you don't view
it as a positive and may not even notice - you just think they're
telling the truth and that's it. Ditto for the other side.

> The one major media format that runs counter to this picture is talk
> radio.  The talk radio audience is, as a rule, not interested in the
> viewpoints that predominate in print and television, and therefore only
> those shows which oppose those views can make a profit (the major
> exception is subsidized by the government); the most recent major effort

	Can you say Clear Channel?

	From my experiences, talk radio is as bad if you want something
_representative_ of the people. The problem with it is that they are
almost always *opinions*, which are not backed up by facts. And when
they back them up with facts, they're often wrong, or out of context. Or
they conveniently don't mention facts and stats that go counter to their
view. And when someone tries to point out to them that what they claim
as facts aren't, the throw a whole tantrum about media conspiracies. The
only way they're "better" is that at least it's openly opinion - as
opposed to news agencies who claim being unbiased.

	But "populist" they are not. I've lived in states on both sides of the
spectrum, and you have to go a _long_ way to find someone who actually
shares their opinions.

	There's a problem with all these formats - including the Internet.
Given the *choice*, most people (at least in the US) will gravitate to
listening to only those sources that reflect their opinions. Most people
don't want the truth - they just want the truth that agrees with their
own world view - and they want to find an authoritative agency that
"backs them up". So the various agencies in the media cater (what do you
expect - there's money in it). So it's quite normal for me to find a
bunch of people listening only to a few sources - and a different bunch
listening to some other sources, and a third bunch doing likewise, and
their sources don't have any intersection. Those sources will frequently
report the truth that those people want to hear, and conveniently omit
truths that go counter to their audience's view. It's true for radio,
for news channels, and probably for print.

> It goes without saying that talk radio is routinely demonized by the
> print and television media.

	See above. I'll add that from what little talk radio I heard, it was
replete with demonizing other news media - far more than the converse.

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message