An undeniable case of liberal media bias.

[Tiberius]

almost everything seems liberal if you are on the far edge of conservatism.

B*I*N*G*O

 

And Bingo was his name-o

[Rob's House]

I'd argue you have been reprogrammed. Thanks for pointing out how this is all a conspiracy though. Everyone hates the ref when he makes a call against your team, and Conservatives hate a media that doesn't tow the line perfectly.

 

Can you tell me who is at the bottom of this reprogramming effort?

 

Who suggested it was a conspiracy. You don't need a central organizer to encourage left wing activists to write stories with a left wing slant. They do it on their own naturally, and their left wing editors and producers role with it.

 

If not for bias why did this non-story get roughly the amount of coverage the most broad reaching executive order in US history got?

 

 

 

Movies and TV shows are not being crammed full of liberal messages to reprogram anyone or due to some decree from up on high. The majority of decision makers in the industry are fairly conservative politically. Are there liberals writing TV shows? Absolutely. Are they doing so because they're motivated by politics? Absolutely not -- if they were they'd be out of a job. You'd be surprised by the political make-up of most writer's rooms in this town -- even more so by the notes process from studios and networks.

 

Bull ****, dude. If you're a hard left activist you're going to steer your story to advance your position as far as you think you can without blowing your ratings or compromising your career.

 

almost everything seems liberal if you are on the far edge of conservatism.

 

And Keith Olbermann sounds objective and reasonable when you're a fascist.

[birdog1960]

I'd argue you have been reprogrammed. Thanks for pointing out how this is all a conspiracy though. Everyone hates the ref when he makes a call against your team, and Conservatives hate a media that doesn't tow the line perfectly.

 

Can you tell me who is at the bottom of this reprogramming effort?

now c'mon. everyone knows it's the kennedys with help from george soros.

[Azalin]

I didn’t “drive off” – had stuff to do. Are you guys saying that Fox, Rush, Brietbart, Drudge are somehow not part of “mainstream media” at this point? They are just as – if not more – viewed by other media outlets at this point – or do they have a pass? As well – they are just as guilty of sensationalizing, beating to death, extrapolating, folding, spindling and mutilating as their left wing counterparts.

 

As far as what our founding fathers set in motion – they started a Constitution that has been added to and interpolated for 240 years – last time I checked everything that happens here in the US of A abides by that Constitution – if it does not – then it gets taken to judges who decide whether what is happening is “Constitutional” – or has that changed?

 

Your penchant for stirring the pot and leaving has earned you a bit of a reputation as a 'drive-by' poster, but at least you're sticking around this time to follow up on your point, so I give you credit for that.

 

Centrist and right-slanted media have indeed been on the increase over the last couple of decades, to the point where anyone can get their information from any point of view they wish. The three major broadcast networks, along with the NY Times and Washington Post, all remain primarily left in their leanings, and despite the popularity of other outlets (such as FOX), are still considered to be 'the mainstream', even if the reality of that is changing. It may be more correct to refer to them as 'traditional media outlets' or 'major news organizations', but we all know what people are talking about when they refer to the MSM.

[Tiberius]

Who suggested it was a conspiracy. You don't need a central organizer to encourage left wing activists to write stories with a left wing slant. They do it on their own naturally, and their left wing editors and producers role with it.

 

The poster I was replying to said it was a conspiracy.,

 

Who hires these people and puts them in positions to have the power of mind control?

 

General Electric owns NBC, don't they know what's going on at their corporate media outlet?

[B-Man]

The era of “narrative journalism” is upon us

 

All of the coverage of Ferguson (and now Staten Island) is providing yet another glaring example of a long settled trend in journalism which applies to far more stories than just episodes of racial tension and law enforcement issues. The vast majority of the mainstream press seems to quickly fall in line with an interpretation of each story and, more importantly (to them) the larger meaning of it all. While some amount of analysis is expected, as well as potentially useful, when the narrative takes over the actual news, well… Houston, we have a problem. Jim Geraghty refers to this as narrative journalism.

What if the mainstream media’s increasing devotion to “narrative journalism” – preconceived storylines that fit a particular agenda or political or ideological view, almost always progressive – as opposed to say, “factual journalism” — is actually harmful to the causes they seek to advance?

 

We’ve seen the media’s “narrative journalism” insisting that Officer Darren Wilson’s fatal shooting of Michael Brown represented a vivid, awful example of racist police forces recklessly using deadly force against defenseless black men. The grand jury remained unconvinced. They saw too many pieces of evidence and witness testimonies that contracted that simple morality play.

 

The media’s “narrative journalism” contended that George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin represented a brutal crime, revealing a reckless, gun-toting vigilantism loose on the streets of America, preying upon innocent young black men. The jury looked at the available evidence and acquitted Zimmerman. All that one-sided “narrative journalism” left a portion of their audience completely unprepared for the jury’s decision, because it seemed so contrary to everything they had been told.

 

Jim highlights a problem totally separate from complaints about low standards in news coverage. It’s fair to ask if narrative journalism is doing more harm to the public than simply leaving them uninformed or misinformed. What if they are serving up unrealistic expectations which, when unfulfilled, produce a volatile response? Geraghty notes the example of George Zimmerman. The media narrative was not only that Zimmerman was guilty (and a horrible racist to boot) but that he would almost surely face “justice” at a later date at the hands of either a federal civil rights charge or a wrongful death suit brought by the Martin family. But the media almost entirely failed to note that the Justice Department has pretty much given up on that idea. And absent a conviction on that count, the wrongful death suit loses much of its appeal and may never happen either. So the pre-set expectations of the masses were not met and anger simmered.

 

 

 

More at the link:

[DC Tom]

One can't help but wonder why the liberal arguments against political bias in the media don't also apply to racial bias in law enforcement.

[Rob's House]

The poster I was replying to said it was a conspiracy.,

 

Who hires these people and puts them in positions to have the power of mind control?

 

General Electric owns NBC, don't they know what's going on at their corporate media outlet?

 

As a matter of fact they do. They stepped in back around 08 to make sure CNBC anchors didn't go too hard on Obama.

[Deranged Rhino]

Ok, then why, as you say, are movies and TV being crammed full of liberal messages?

 

I wouldn't agree that they are -- certainly not intentionally. It's a reflection of the content creators and their backgrounds (most writers/actors/creators tend to come from big cities and working class backgrounds... until they make it -- that has an impact on the type of material they create or gravitate towards). The power players who actually make decisions on content are driven by ROI and making as much money as they can as fast as they can because the average shelf life for an exec in this town is about the same as an NFL player. The turnover is crazy, making any kind of systemic political programming impossible. And the guys and gals who sit at the head of the table and own the studios, networks, and agencies by and large are a mixed bag in terms of personal politics.

[Rob's House]

One can't help but wonder why the liberal arguments against political bias in the media don't also apply to racial bias in law enforcement.

 

The "come on, it's obviously racism" argument is just so much more compelling.

[birdog1960]

Your penchant for stirring the pot and leaving has earned you a bit of a reputation as a 'drive-by' poster, but at least you're sticking around this time to follow up on your point, so I give you credit for that.

 

Centrist and right-slanted media have indeed been on the increase over the last couple of decades, to the point where anyone can get their information from any point of view they wish. The three major broadcast networks, along with the NY Times and Washington Post, all remain primarily left in their leanings, and despite the popularity of other outlets (such as FOX), are still considered to be 'the mainstream', even if the reality of that is changing. It may be more correct to refer to them as 'traditional media outlets' or 'major news organizations', but we all know what people are talking about when they refer to the MSM.

and that's the point. do you think this msm moniker is accidental? it implies that the listeners and competitor sources are victims. and that conservative sources are unconventional and revolutionary. nothing could be further from the truth. this is purposeful disinformation setting up the unfortunate reality that people believe only their chosen partisan news sources. it makes for an uninformed and easily misled public. Edited December 4, 2014 by birdog1960

[Tiberius]

As a matter of fact they do. They stepped in back around 08 to make sure CNBC anchors didn't go too hard on Obama.

Why would CNBC anchors do that?? I thought they were biased FOR him?? You are complete trash

[DC Tom]

Why would CNBC anchors do that?? I thought they were biased FOR him?? You are complete trash

 

CNBC. Not NBC. You moron.

[Tiberius]

CNBC. Not NBC. You moron.

 

 

What are you talking about sh** breath?

[DC Tom]

What are you talking about sh** breath?

 

CNBC is a financial network...they were told by GE to stop criticizing the president's economic policies.

 

NBC is the news network that's biased for Obama.

 

How can you even participate in a discussion about the media when you can't tell the difference between media outlets?

[Rob's House]

Why would CNBC anchors do that?? I thought they were biased FOR him?? You are complete trash

 

CNBC is business news which necessarily leads to more fiscally conservative reporting. The brass stepped in to put a stop to that.

 

To the bigger issue, as has been stated, there are outlets where you can seek out conservative news, but the average citizen who doesn't go out of their way to find it is inundated with liberal outlets that can't talk about constitutionally questionable acts by the government because it's more important to report that some rank and file nobody who works for a Republican said something mildly critical about Obama's daughter on her own Facebook page.

 

They should get back to responsible reporting - like fact-checking the rare SNL skit that actually criticizes the chosen one.

[GG]

General Electric owns NBC, don't they know what's going on at their corporate media outlet?

 

No, it doesn't

[Deranged Rhino]

Bull ****, dude. If you're a hard left activist you're going to steer your story to advance your position as far as you think you can without blowing your ratings or compromising your career.

 

Sure, but I've yet to meet a hard left activist content creator that puts political messages (or social ones) above the commercial viability of their world/story. There's a lot of vapid folk out here in Hollyweird, but most of the people who get shows and movies made are quite sharp. Sharp enough to know that in this new frontier of social media outrage, playing politics is the surest way to lose money.

 

The actual activist writers and creators are almost always operating outside the mainstream system.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Sure, but I've yet to meet a hard left activist content creator that puts political messages (or social ones) above the commercial viability of their world/story. There's a lot of vapid folk out here in Hollyweird, but most of the people who get shows and movies made are quite sharp. Sharp enough to know that in this new frontier of social media outrage, playing politics is the surest way to lose money.

 

The actual activist writers and creators are almost always operating outside the mainstream system.

 

I don't disagree with that. I think they're often very good at weaving it in so that people like my mom don't realize the subtext. But they definitely slide it in there. They do it a lot in kid's shows too. It's not a coincidence that conservatives, Republicans, and the like are almost invariably cast in a subtly negative light while liberals, Democrats, and their ideals are almost always cast in a positive light.

 

Edit: I will say that in the last several years that a lot of shows & movies have moved away from going political, but when they do it's almost always tilted toward the left.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Rob's House

[birdog1960]

Sure, but I've yet to meet a hard left activist content creator that puts political messages (or social ones) above the commercial viability of their world/story. There's a lot of vapid folk out here in Hollyweird, but most of the people who get shows and movies made are quite sharp. Sharp enough to know that in this new frontier of social media outrage, playing politics is the surest way to lose money.

 

The actual activist writers and creators are almost always operating outside the mainstream system.

you mean it wasn't hollywood insiders that produced those most excellent atlas shrugged films?