Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

26 Nov 2010, 8:34 pm

I'm not normally a big fan of C&P posts, but I've been in a bit of a writing funk lately but want to keep my hand in here, so here's an interesting take on media bias that I can happily endorse.

Radley Balko wrote:
For the last few months, my colleague Matt Welch has been tracking the positions of California's newspapers on Proposition 19, the ballot measure that would legalize marijuana for recreational use. At last count, 26 of the state’s 30 largest dailies (plus USA Today) had run editorials on the issue, and all 26 (plus USA Today) were opposed. This puts the state's papers at odds with nearly all of California's left-leaning interest groups, including the Green Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; progressive publications such The Nation, Salon, and The Huffington Post; and a host of prominent liberal bloggers. According to a CNN/Time poll released last week, it also pits the state's newspapers against 76 percent of California voters who identify themselves as "liberal."

On this issue, the state's dailies are also to the right of conservative publications such as The Economist and National Review, prominent Republicans such as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a growing portion of the Tea Party movement, and even Fox News personality Glenn Beck. (Beck has said he favors marijuana legalization, although he has been typically schizophrenic on Prop. 19.) So who are the newspapers' allies? Nearly all of California's major elected officials are against the measure, and the No on Prop. 19 campaign has been funded mainly by contributions from various law enforcement organizations, including the California Police Chiefs Association, the prison guard union, and the California Narcotics Officers Association.

It's telling that the loudest voices opposing pot legalization are coming from the mainstream media, politicians, and law enforcement. The three have a lot in common. Indeed, the Prop. 19 split illustrates how conservative critics of the mainstream media have it all wrong. The media—or at least the editorial boards at the country's major newspapers—don't suffer from liberal bias; they suffer from statism. While conservatives emphasize order and property, liberals emphasize equality, and libertarians emphasize individual rights, newspaper editorial boards are biased toward power and authority, automatically turning to politicians for solutions to every perceived problem.

Because the left traditionally has looked to government to enforce its preferences more than the right, and certainly more than libertarians, it's easy to see how someone might get the impression that the news media lean left. But you see the editorial pages' lust for authority on issues like campaign finance reform, where unlike left-leaning groups such as the ACLU and the Sierra Club they almost uniformly support restrictions on political speech, despite the fact that their profession is inextricably tied to the First Amendment. This deference to authority was also on display in the Kelo v. New London case, where the Washington Post and New York Times editorial boards jettisoned traditionally liberal principles such as equality and fair play in favor of a broad government power to forcibly transfer property from people of modest means to wealthy developers. That position separated those papers from traditionally progressive groups like the NAACP and the AARP, which argued that eminent domain too often enriches developers at the expense of powerless groups.

But newspaper editors' elevation of government power above other liberal concerns is clearest on criminal justice issues, where editorial boards' deference to police powers aligns them with conservatives about as often as with liberals. To the extent that the criminal justice system treats minorities differently than it treats the white majority (which is a legitimate problem), you'll find newspapers registering concern along with the left. But while liberals traditionally have sought to address this sort of problem by protecting individual rights, editorial boards tend to stop at expressing concern, generally opposing any reform that would put significant limits on government power.

Welch pointed to a good example last week. In October the Drug Policy Alliance and the NAACP released a study showing that blacks and Latinos in California are several times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, despite survey data showing that whites are more likely to smoke pot. The Los Angeles Times dutifully registered its concern in an editorial but felt compelled to add that "Proposition 19 is not the answer." As Welch explained, if we need to do something about the fact that blacks and Latinos are arrested for marijuana possession more often than whites, but that something does not entail arresting fewer pot smokers, the Times can only be advocating that we start arresting more white people. That's the solution proposed by law-and-order conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who once said the disproportionate racial impact of the war on drugs means "too many whites are getting away with drug use"; the answer, he said, "is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river too."

Editorial boards' objections to Prop. 19 generally boil down to two arguments: Legalizing pot will 1) increase consumption and 2) intensify the drug policy battle between California and the federal government. The first argument is little more than contempt for individual freedom, and it is particularly revealing when applied to a relatively benign drug like marijuana. Pot doesn't make users violent. No one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. The least healthy thing about the drug is that it's most commonly ingested through smoking. The objection that "more people would use it" is based on a belief that people aren't responsible enough to be trusted with intoxicants—that they’re too weak to put down the drug if it begins to interfere with their lives.

The second argument is equally telling: We can't expand freedom for Californians because doing so would undermine the federal government's authority. This concern was conspicuously absent in the debate between the Bush administration and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over whether California should pass emission standards that exceeded those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Editorial boards seem to think it's fine to defy the feds if it means giving a state more regulatory power. But defying the feds in a way that gives Californians more freedom to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies? Well, let's not go tipping apple carts.

Similar priorities were evident in the reactions from major newspapers' editorial boards after the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld the federal government's power to enforce its laws against marijuana, even in states that have legalized the drug for medical use. The lead plaintiff in the case was Angel Raich, a woman with ailments that included an inoperable brain tumor and wasting syndrome. Her doctor said homegrown marijuana was keeping her alive. While The Washington Post's editorialists sympathized with Raich, they worried that a broad ruling on her behalf might have undermined the federal government's Commerce Clause authority to protect obscure cave-dwelling insects. That isn't a caricature. The Post actually made that argument in an editorial titled (no kidding) "Not Just a Win for Bugs." While "medical marijuana and cave-dwelling insects may not seem to have much in common," the paper said, "federal authority over both depends on the same constitutional principle: Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce."

Liberals, even in the modern American sense, won't sacrifice equality, compassion, or lifestyle freedom for government power. They are suspicious of government power at least when it comes to policing, and they tend to value individual freedom, at least until it bumps up against their notion of equality. The editorial boards of our leading newspapers have different priorities. If there's a guiding principle you can reliably extract from the average newspaper editorial, it's that people can't be trusted to act in their own best interest. They need experts, politicians, and regulators to craft laws that steer them from peril and help them fulfill their potential—even if that means locking them up them until they learn.


Bold is mine, for you tl;dr people :roll: .

Radley Balko is an interesting character that primarily specializes in police misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct; he wrote this piece for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at www.theagitator.com that is fascinating if infuriating.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

26 Nov 2010, 9:53 pm

Media reflects their owners - corporations. Big Business is the greatest thing, the Chamber of Commerce, and the authorities under Big Business' control. If some politician goes off the reservation they go after that person. It's very simple - who writes the cheques? Are journalists personally liberal as claimed? Even if they are in the US that's irrelevent as the Supreme Court ruled that they are mere puppets who have no professional standards - it's a matter of the owners' free speech that this be so.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Nov 2010, 10:19 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Media reflects their owners - corporations. Big Business is the greatest thing, the Chamber of Commerce, and the authorities under Big Business' control. If some politician goes off the reservation they go after that person. It's very simple - who writes the cheques? Are journalists personally liberal as claimed? Even if they are in the US that's irrelevent as the Supreme Court ruled that they are mere puppets who have no professional standards - it's a matter of the owners' free speech that this be so.


And there is a cure. Don't watch. Don't listen. Problem solved.

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

26 Nov 2010, 11:52 pm

It's not solved. People end up having opinions that are wrong and vote for the wrong things. There, I said it.



Musicprophets
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 413
Location: usa

27 Nov 2010, 12:09 am

xenon13 wrote:
It's not solved. People end up having opinions that are wrong and vote for the wrong things. There, I said it.


i agree. objectivity has long been thrown out of the word "news". Its all for ratings, marketing, and political/social/financial agendas. Every news story regardless of the context/history/perspective/etc is always disputed by some nutbag who usually thinks everyone else is looking to harm everyone else. And all the evilness and how we need jesus or how we need to die in a carwreck because we are terrible, stupid individuals. My belief no one on the right is right and no one on the left is right either. People have put ideology and scare tactics above common sense, pride, respect, and tolerance for others to live their lives as they want. i mean if this was posted on yahoo or some other popular news site, eventually the comments will come down to "another example of the socialist agenda brought on by the democrats that are only interested in destroying the country" and the "neo fascist god fearing money minded agenda brought on by the republicans who are only looking out for the rich, white, and powerful". its all the same bullshit just colored differently for different folks.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

27 Nov 2010, 12:10 am

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Media reflects their owners - corporations. Big Business is the greatest thing, the Chamber of Commerce, and the authorities under Big Business' control. If some politician goes off the reservation they go after that person. It's very simple - who writes the cheques? Are journalists personally liberal as claimed? Even if they are in the US that's irrelevent as the Supreme Court ruled that they are mere puppets who have no professional standards - it's a matter of the owners' free speech that this be so.


And there is a cure. Don't watch. Don't listen. Problem solved.

ruveyn


You know, I think there's a quote from your idol, H.L. Mencken, that's pretty applicable here:

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

27 Nov 2010, 12:16 am

I just see this deficit propaganda for example and there's no attempt to educate people at all about the nature of the monetary system or that austerity causes lost output which causes a declining ability to pay, there are attempts to frighten people into believing that hyperinflation is around the corner when it is not. There's so much scaring people - it can be called terrorism.

There is so much limiting of options with the media as well as the way politicians are vetted. Is it really that different from Iran with their Guardian Council?



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

27 Nov 2010, 8:47 am

I don't know how many wrongplanet debates about US media bias I can read without mentioning the elephant in the room here.

Billy Graham and Richard Nixon once had a (private, they thought) conversation way back in 1972 about the American media and its influence. Graham believed the American media was dominated by Jews and that the stranglehold had to be broken. Nixon said he agreed, but he couldn’t ever say so. (What does that say about the President’s power?)

Were they hallucinating? Let’s have a look. I trust that it is ok to talk about this in here, since it seems perfectly fine to talk about the power of the WASP establishment, evangelical Christians, big business, the miltary-industrial complex, the Catholic Church, oil companies and scientologists.

Bear in mind that Jews are supposed to be 2% of the US population.

Big Media:

CBS Corporation:
Sumner M. Redstone(Jew) - Executive Chairman
Leslie Moonves(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer

NBC Universal:
Jeff Zucker(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Jeff Gaspin(Jew) - Chairman, NBC Universal Television Entertainment

News Corporation:
Rupert Murdoch(White European) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
[Note: Rupert Murdoch, apparently a White European, is as fanatically Zionist as they come, owes a large part of his rise to Harry Oppenheimer (Jew) and Edgar Bronfman (Jew), and is related by marriage to the Jewish Freud faimly.]
Chase Carey(White European) - Deputy Chairman, President, and Chief Operating Officer

Time Warner:
Jeffrey L. Bewkes(Jewish spouse: Peggy Brim) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Gary L. Ginsberg(Jew) - Executive Vice President, Corporate Marketing and Communications

Viacom:
Sumner M. Redstone(Jew) - Executive Chairman of the Board and Founder
Philippe Dauman(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer

The Walt Disney Company:
Robert A. Iger(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Alan Braverman(Jew) - Senior Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary

Television

A&E Television Networks:
Abbe Raven [Ravnitsky](Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
David Zagin(Jew) - Executive Vice President of Distribution
Steve Ronson(Jew) - Senior Vice President, Enterprises

Comcast:
Brian L. Roberts(Jew) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Stephen B. Burke(Jew) - Chief Operating Officer
David L. Cohen(Jew) - Executive Vice President

CBS Corporation:
Sumner M. Redstone(Jew) - Executive Chairman
Leslie Moonves(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Nancy Tellem(Jew) - President, CBS Network Television Entertainment Group

CW Television Network:
Dawn Tarnofsky-Ostroff(Jew) - President, Entertainment
John Maatta(Jew) - Chief Operating Officer
Thom Sherman(Jew) - Executive Vice President, Drama Development

Discovery Communications:
David M. Zaslav(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Peter Liguori(Italian) - Chief Operating Officer
John S. Hendricks(White European) - Founder and Chairman

Disney-ABC Television Group:
Anne Sweeney(Jewish spouse: Phillip Miller) - Co-Chair, Disney Media Networks; President, Disney/ABC Television Group
Paul Lee(Jew) - President, ABC Entertainment Group
Barry Jossen(Jew) - Executive Vice President, Studio Creative and Production, ABC Entertainment Group

Fox Entertainment Group:
Gary Newman(Jew) - Co-Chairman, 20th Century Fox Television
Dana Walden(Jew) - Co-Chairman, 20th Century Fox Television
David Madden(Jew) - President, Fox Television Studios

Hearst Entertainment & Syndication:
Scott M. Sassa(Jewish spouse: Ellen G. Sassa) - President
George Kliavkoff(Jew) - Executive Vice President & Deputy Group Head
Wendy Goldberg(Jew) - Vice President of Business Development & Strategy

Home Box Office:
Bill Nelson(White European) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Eric Kessler(Jew) - Co-President
Richard Plepler(Jew) - Co-President

ION Media Networks:
Brandon Burgess(Jew) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Stephen Appel(Jew) - President, Sales and Marketing
Marc Zand(Jew) - Executive Vice President, Digital Networks & Business Affairs

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Television:
Bruce Tuchman(Jew) - President, MGM Worldwide Networks
Gary Marenzi(White European) - Co-President, Worldwide Television
Jim Packer(White European) - Co-President, Worldwide Television

NBC Universal:
Jeff Zucker(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Jeff Gaspin(Jew) - Chairman, NBC Universal Television Entertainment
Marc Graboff(Jew) - Co-Chairman, NBC Entertainment and NBC Universal Television Studio

Public Broadcasting Service:
Paula Kerger(Jew) - President & Chief Executive Officer
Michael Jones(Mixed Black / White) - Chief Operating Officer
Geoffrey Sands(Jew) - Chairman

Rainbow Media:
Joshua Sapan(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow Media Holdings LLC
Charlie Collier(Jew) - President and General Manager, AMC
Evan Shapiro(Jew) - President, IFC tv and Sundance Channel
Jonathan Sehring(Jew) - President, IFC Entertainment

Showtime Networks:
Matthew C. Blank(Jew) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
David Nevins(Jew) - President, Entertainment

Sony Pictures Television:
Steve Mosko(Jew) - President
Andy Kaplan(Jew) - President, Networks
Jamie Erlicht(Jew) - President, U.S. Programming and Production

Turner Broadcasting System:
Philip I. Kent(Jew) - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Andrew T. Heller(Jew) - Vice Chairman
Steve Koonin(Jew) - President, Turner Entertainment Networks

Viacom:
Sumner M. Redstone(Jew) - Executive Chairman of the Board and Founder
Philippe Dauman(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Shari Redstone(Jew) - Non-Executive Vice Chair of the Board

Warner Bros. Television:
Bruce Rosenblum(Jew) - President, Warner Bros. Television Group
Peter Roth(Jew) - President, Warner Bros. Television
Ken Werner(Jew) - President, Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution

Academy of Television Arts & Sciences:
John Shaffner(Jew) - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Nancy Bradley Wiard(White European) - Vice Chairman
Kevin Hamburger(Jew) - Treasurer

International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences:
Bruce Paisner(Jew) - President & Chief Executive Officer
Fred Cohen(Jew) - Chairman
Larry Gershman(Jew) - Vice Chairman

National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences:
Darryl Cohen(Jew) - Chairman
Malachy Wienges(Jew) - 1st Vice Chairman
Norman Felsenthal(Jew) - Secretary



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

27 Nov 2010, 9:26 am

codarac

Writing the new 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', are you? There are plenty of historical reasons why Jews are employed in specific areas; most of them have to do with the fact they were restricted to living in towns during the middle ages and then Jews were discriminated against during modern times in the blue and white collar sectors. It is little surprise that they ended up filling many of the other jobs. The fact that they represent a disproportionate number of specific jobs can be explained by the fact that for about 1900 years they did not have the capacity represent a proportionate representation in a number of other jobs.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 9:39 am

The Media are biased in favor of making money.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

27 Nov 2010, 9:40 am

Thank you for making it unnecessary to insist on "are".



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 11:09 am

Philologos wrote:
Thank you for making it unnecessary to insist on "are".


Medium - singular; Media - plural.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Nov 2010, 2:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The Media are biased in favor of making money.

ruveyn



Between this post and codarac's, there's a really inappropriate joke.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

27 Nov 2010, 2:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Philologos wrote:
Thank you for making it unnecessary to insist on "are".


Medium - singular; Media - plural.

ruveyn


This is a debate of American English versus Brittish English. A lot of American English insists on referring to collectives in a singular term such as "Congress/Parliament is in session" whereas Brit English insists on referring to collectives in the plural form with "Congress/Parliament are in session." Personally, I like to change it up between the two since dedication to either one is just a point of culture and superfluous preference.

Edit: this is from the point of view as seeing the "the media" as a collective group rather than viewing them as a disparate collection of businesses. Such as "'The media' is conspiring for the left, socialist wing."


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 2:59 pm

codarac wrote:
I

Bear in mind that Jews are supposed to be 2% of the US population.



The smartest and most energetic two percent. You are just filled with Gentile envy over that, aren't you?

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Nov 2010, 5:21 pm

codarac wrote:
The Walt Disney Company:
Robert A. Iger(Jew) - President and Chief Executive Officer
Alan Braverman(Jew) - Senior Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary

Disney is run by Jews? I love the irony.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH