Do you hear that ticking Mr Moore?

[KD in CA]

There was a 1992 study that stated that 89% of journalists voted for Clinton.  You can't get 89% of any single group to agree on the weather but I suppose these very same folks are able to put aside their obvious bias and report evenly.

 

Whatever.

309129[/snapback]

 

 

Well, the ones that write for the NY Times certain do.

[RuntheDamnBall]

We live in a capitalist society. Of course, if the demand is there the gun manufacturers will make more guns. Simple supply vs demand that works in ANY industry, not just guns.

 

The NRA has ALWAYS said that guns need to be used safely. They spend millions on gun safety courses targeted at a variety of individuals (kids, women, law enforcement, private citizens, etc). The reason why you do not hear more from the NRA is because the media purposely suppresses their views. They want to paint the NRA as an eeeeevil organization, so the less that people hear from their POV, the better.

309185[/snapback]

Am I right to infer that this might be partially because the NRA serves two functions? One as the consumer organization you speak about and another as a voice of the gun industry/lobby?

 

I just wonder if the profit the gun industry enjoys from entertainment coverage might be at odds with the interests of responsible gun owners. And perhaps the media and interests of capital like the gun lobby are trying to deflect the blame onto each other, thus to one the other is the bad guy, instead of both being complicit. Again, this is speculation; I am not an owner myself and am not at liberty to confirm any of this, more interested in the discussion, honestly. It's probably for another thread and again I'm sorry I opened my mouth about it.

[KRC]

Am I right to infer that this might be partially because the NRA serves two functions?  One as the consumer organization you speak about and another as a voice of the gun industry/lobby?

 

 

There may be something to that. They review new guns in some of their magazines. They also are the voice for gun owners, as you mentioned. Whether the issue is political, legislative, or legal in nature, the NRA will get involved if they feel that Second Amendment rights are being trampled. They will also fight for manufacturers to continue to manufacture guns.

 

 

 

 

I just wonder if the profit the gun industry enjoys from entertainment coverage might be at odds with the interests of responsible gun owners.  And perhaps the media and interests of capital like the gun lobby are trying to deflect the blame onto each other, thus to one the other is the bad guy, instead of both being complicit.  Again, this is speculation; I am not an owner myself and am not at liberty to confirm any of this, more interested in the discussion, honestly.  It's probably for another thread and again I'm sorry I opened my mouth about it.

309203[/snapback]

 

 

I imagine they enjoy the increased demand for guns. Increased profits are what all businesses strive for in the marketplace. Of course, it is not their responsibility to follow purchasers around to make sure that they always use the guns responsibly (as the rash of recent lawsuits claim they should). If the guns are leagally sold from the manufacturer to a licensed dealer, then the responsibility of the manufacturer ends.

[SilverNRed]

There was a 1992 study that stated that 89% of journalists voted for Clinton.  You can't get 89% of any single group to agree on the weather but I suppose these very same folks are able to put aside their obvious bias and report evenly.

 

Whatever.

309129[/snapback]

Ho hum....no one has any use for your facts.

 

I think it's just as telling that you can find single instances of bias in major news sources several times per week.

[Bishop Hedd]

trying to interject his brand of humour on the pope vote shows how far off the radar he's dropped

308756[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah I guess you can get shot for making pope quips now.

[Bishop Hedd]

The myth continues.  The only thing the "press" is slave to is capital.  Whatever will sell papers, ad space/time, etc. etc.  Same for CNN as it is for Fox News.  Same for the Washington Post as it is for the Washington Times.  Most "reporting" is so devoid of content that the Daily Show, fake backdrops and all, provides more truth.

308785[/snapback]

 

 

Great to see amongst all the right wing blather here that somebody finally gets it.

[Bishop Hedd]

Read Ari Fleischer's new book for a reasonable description of "liberal bias" in the media.  If you can get around his obvious bias as a conservative press secretary (and stomach his incessant repetition of "there's liberal bias in the media", which he repeats to the point of sounding whiny), he makes some pretty good points.  To tell the truth, his observations of the media in general (not just bias) scream for a true scholarly study of how the media presents itself and its stories.

308801[/snapback]

 

 

Just as long as you don't mention that twit Goldberg.

 

I think "Biased" was the only book Bush ever read, outside of My Pet Goat of course.

[Bishop Hedd]

I think we can agree the media climate is pretty different from 1992 in every way.  Post 9/11, significant deregulation of media, and so forth.

309137[/snapback]

 

 

Potsie doesn't think that way. His inane views are pretty rigid to the core. He's too busy waiting for the next homestead act to realize yes, times do change, even after ten years.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Read Ari Fleischer's new book for a reasonable description of "liberal bias" in the media.  If you can get around his obvious bias as a conservative press secretary (and stomach his incessant repetition of "there's liberal bias in the media", which he repeats to the point of sounding whiny), he makes some pretty good points.  To tell the truth, his observations of the media in general (not just bias) scream for a true scholarly study of how the media presents itself and its stories.

308801[/snapback]

I really don't think I could trust that a man who was literally a mouthpiece for the President wouldn't sense a bias against his side. This is funny because between 9/11 and the war in Iraq I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find much negative criticism of Bush, and this was precisely during the heart of Fleischer's tenure.

 

But of course, when the story was an "independent" counsel searching for real estate improprieties and coming up with blowjobs, the media were far more fair and balanced. You're a smart person. You know the media takes sensation and runs with it. They do it with both sides. It doesn't matter who they vote for because 1) both parties are drunk with power and money and 2) both parties use the media just as much as the media uses them.

 

I do think there need to be serious quantitative studies about how the media presents itself and its stories. I am certainly with you there.

[Alaska Darin]

I think we can agree the media climate is pretty different from 1992 in every way.  Post 9/11, significant deregulation of media, and so forth.

309137[/snapback]

I don't see it as much different at all and I doubt the young blood coming in is much more conservative than those they replace. Reality check: cub reporters don't make much money, nor do entry level folks in any media outlet. That means that mostly ideologues will deal with the starving artist routine to continue in the business. Not many conservatives fit that mantra.

[SilverNRed]

I don't see it as much different at all and I doubt the young blood coming in is much more conservative than those they replace.  Reality check:  cub reporters don't make much money, nor do entry level folks in any media outlet.  That means that mostly ideologues will deal with the starving artist routine to continue in the business.  Not many conservatives fit that mantra.

309711[/snapback]

Journalism as a profession doesn't attract the best people. The journalism majors I've met are a bunch of liberal nimrods who "just want to make a difference." And if you ever really need a good laugh, be sure to check out a college newspaper and experience a tidal wave of ignorance and self-righteousness.

[BravinSeattle]

that's hilarious and i'm catholic!! hahahahhaha

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I really don't think I could trust that a man who was literally a mouthpiece for the President wouldn't sense a bias against his side.  This is funny because between 9/11 and the war in Iraq I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find much negative criticism of Bush, and this was precisely during the heart of Fleischer's tenure.

 

But of course, when the story was an "independent" counsel searching for real estate improprieties and coming up with blowjobs, the media were far more fair and balanced.    You're a smart person.  You know the media takes sensation and runs with it.  They do it with both sides.  It doesn't matter who they vote for because 1) both parties are drunk with power and money and 2) both parties use the media just as much as the media uses them.

 

I do think there need to be serious quantitative studies about how the media presents itself and its stories.  I am certainly with you there.

309678[/snapback]

 

Again...read the book. Fleischer's commentary on the media is as much about their desire to report conflict (and, in the absence of real conflict, to create it) as their left-leaning bias. And despite Fleischer's own right-leaning bias (which, as you'd expect, is present...and like I said, he repeats the "liberal bias" complaint so much it sounds like so much whining), he makes some very good points that stand up pretty well to an objective reading. Overall, he comes across as a guy who's at least trying to be objective about it. And, again as I said, it doesn't even claim to be a scholarly treatment of the subject...I merely suggest that there's good points made for any objective (i.e. non-partisan) reading of it.

 

As for the media's role in Whitewater...don't even get me started on that whole mess. Aside from pointing it out as a prime example of the media's orientation towards reporting conflict, all I have to say on the subject is that it was an egregious example of gross irresponsibility on Starr's part (in greatly overstepping the bounds of his investigational mandate) and the media's part (in inflating the whole thing WAY out of proportion - never have so many words and so much mindless analysis and so much outrage been generated by a half-dozen blow jobs). Clinton's contribution to irresponsibility in failing to keep it zipped and choosing an young immature blabbermouth as a cheap tawdry "mistress" (at least Jack Kennedy understood the meaning of "discretion") is, of course, understood and needn't be discussed.

[Adam]

It seems if you just mention Moore's name for no reason it riles up the Bushinista militia here.

Weren't you just complaining about reflexive criticism of your boy Bush a few minutes ago?

308335[/snapback]

 

I'm not pro bush, and I think Moore is an idiot.

[/dev/null]

I'm not pro bush, and I think Moore is an idiot.

311116[/snapback]

 

someone else who follows a similar idealogy as i

 

lets form a PAC