The Myth of the Liberal Media & Liberal Corporations

[BullBuchanan]

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

[RochesterRob]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

  Seek out professional help at once.  No one believes your bull plop other than the like minded sycophants that populate the board here.  Go back to pretending that you are some rich socialite that moonlights here to enlighten the less fortunate or some other fantasy that you may have.  Such as saving Hillary from the evil king who stole the throne.  

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Seek out professional help at once.  No one believes your bull plop other than the like minded sycophants that populate the board here.  Go back to pretending that you are some rich socialite that moonlights here to enlighten the less fortunate or some other fantasy that you may have.  Such as saving Hillary from the evil king who stole the throne.  

I'm taking the under on you ever actually contributing a post of substance, Westside4. 

[RochesterRob]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I'm taking the under on you ever actually contributing a post of substance, Westside4. 

  That's right.  Tear down or discredit things that you do not understand.  That aside since the schism this board has become an interesting study in sociology. A couple generations ago guys like you would have been shunned to the corner of the neighborhood bar barely allowed in only because of the long held belief of because you have a penis you need a retreat from your household.  Today you have the platform to find like minded fools in WNY and points beyond.  You lucked out as to when you were born.  In 1975 you would have had a couple of stale beers still in the can tossed your way as a measure to shut your pie hole.

[TBBills]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  That's right.  Tear down or discredit things that you do not understand.  That aside since the schism this board has become an interesting study in sociology. A couple generations ago guys like you would have been shunned to the corner of the neighborhood bar barely allowed in only because of the long held belief of because you have a penis you need a retreat from your household.  Today you have the platform to find like minded fools in WNY and points beyond.  You lucked out as to when you were born.  In 1975 you would have had a couple of stale beers still in the can tossed your way as a measure to shut your pie hole.

The irony of this...

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, TBBills said:

The irony of this...

  As applied to yourself?  Yes, I can see it.

[TBBills]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  As applied to yourself?  Yes, I can see it.

Look, he did it again!

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

It’s very stupid, yet the whole right is built upon the idea that “The Media” is out to get them. Fox News runs with any story anywhere of a dark skinned person committing a crime. It’s just a bunch of rich guys tricking the rubes into supporting the oligarchs agenda. That so many whites are totally racist makes it all so easy. 

[BullBuchanan]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It’s very stupid, yet the whole right is built upon the idea that “The Media” is out to get them. Fox News runs with any story anywhere of a dark skinned person committing a crime. It’s just a bunch of rich guys tricking the rubes into supporting the oligarchs agenda. That so many whites are totally racist makes it all so easy. 

Fox's recent out of character rebuffing of late-stage Trumpism should be seen as further evidence. They were anti-Trump in the beginning until it served their interests to jump full on the bandwagon, and now they're hedging their bets that they may need to be looked as as a more moderate voice to win over right leaning independents and democrats during a GOP dark age. It all comes down to money.

[SoCal Deek]

You guys really have to be kidding here. There is ZERO question that the main stream media has become an extension of the Democratic Party. All of the pretenses that I grew up with are gone. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You guys really have to be kidding here. There is ZERO question that the main stream media has become an extension of the Democratic Party. All of the pretenses that I grew up with are gone. 

 

It's like racists claiming there is no racism.  My boss, who was a lifelong Dem until a few months ago when he switched to "unaffiliated" (but still voted for Biden because he hates Trump) finally agreed with me that the media is liberally biased.

[Warcodered]

16 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Fox's recent out of character rebuffing of late-stage Trumpism should be seen as further evidence. They were anti-Trump in the beginning until it served their interests to jump full on the bandwagon, and now they're hedging their bets that they may need to be looked as as a more moderate voice to win over right leaning independents and democrats during a GOP dark age. It all comes down to money.

Fox is in general following the base line GOP during 2016 they were against Trump when it was the Primary and he was a ridiculous candidate. Then when he was the GOPs ridiculous candidate suddenly things changed. Right now to a degree they're waffling which pretty well sums up what Republicans are doing with the results of this election. The rest of the media is biased as well but more along the lines of what Jon Stewart said that they are biased towards laziness and sensationalism. Which makes sense as corporate entities lazy=easy/cheap and sensationalism draws viewers.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Fox is in general following the base line GOP during 2016 they were against Trump when it was the Primary and he was a ridiculous candidate. Then when he was the GOPs ridiculous candidate suddenly things changed. Right now to a degree they're waffling which pretty well sums up what Republicans are doing with the results of this election. The rest of the media is biased as well but more along the lines of what Jon Stewart said that they are biased towards laziness and sensationalism. Which makes sense as corporate entities lazy=easy/cheap and sensationalism draws viewers.

Yup - all of that.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise.
 

In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: 

"Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html

Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. 

This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo!

It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because  as Inigo Montoya would say:





 

 

 

Okay.

Honest question:  What's your point?

Is your point that the media is a capitalist enterprise?  That's obvious.

 

Is your point that people don't like the media?  That's true, too. Doesn't matter left or right.  Only 40% of the public "trusts" that the media are fair reporters. And in fact, the trend is to believe a liberal bias.  Here are poll results from April, 2020.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1663/media-use-evaluation.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's like racists claiming there is no racism.  My boss, who was a lifelong Dem until a few months ago when he switched to "unaffiliated" (but still voted for Biden because he hates Trump) finally agreed with me that the media is liberally biased.

What do you consider liberal? 

 

If its calling out the Trump lies, then I guess they are. 

 

Media companies shouldnt be part part of the Trump cult. 

 

Its more like the media is full of educated people. 

[BullBuchanan]

22 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Okay.

Honest question:  What's your point?

Is your point that the media is a capitalist enterprise?  That's obvious.

 

Is your point that people don't like the media?  That's true, too. Doesn't matter left or right.  Only 40% of the public "trusts" that the media are fair reporters. And in fact, the trend is to believe a liberal bias.  Here are poll results from April, 2020.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1663/media-use-evaluation.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is in the title and the first sentence. The notion that "the media" is politically biased and thus cannot be trusted is false. They are financially biased. Whether or not you can trust that depends on how well you understand financial motivation.

However, conflating the people that work at the corporations with the corporations themselves is likely where things get confused. As I've identified before, the tendency to hold "American conservative" views tends to diminish as education increases. Given that most roles involved within media tend to require advanced education, it stands to reason that those that work in the media will also be less likely to have "American conservative" views. This is also true of Big Tech. The fact that Facebook is made up of predominantly people that would be significantly more likely to have "American liberal" views could lead certain people to believe that Facebook is a "liberal" company, when that is not true in any sense of how they exist in the world. The may say and do some things in order to reap the benefits of appealing to their employees and their customer base, but the corporation itself does not hold a liberal political ideology beyond that.

The claim that it does, and the lack of understanding why it doesn't, is what allows anti-intellectualism and crazy conspiracy theories to fester which further draws people to extreme ends of the political spectrum. The idea that a corporation is on any working person's "team" is completely ludicrous, and the sooner we put it to bed the sooner we can start to have meaningful political discussions and compromises as a country. 

If someone thinks that the best way to increase our economic growth as a country is through a limited tax structure? Great - let's talk about the pros and cons of that. If someone thinks think that there's a liberal sponsored sex cult taking place in the basements of pizzerias and the reason that they haven't gotten a raise in 5 years is because there aren't enough Mexican kids in cages at the border, we can't even pretend we're functionally the same species.

Edited November 17, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Doc]

51 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What do you consider liberal? 

 

If its calling out the Trump lies, then I guess they are. 

 

Media companies shouldnt be part part of the Trump cult. 

 

Its more like the media is full of educated people. 

 

Calling out some people's lies and not others is what makes you biased.

[SoCal Deek]

Right! It’s all about money. So in a completely divided country these media companies have decided that only democratic voters actually buy things and watch television! 😂😂😂😂

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Calling out some people's lies and not others is what makes you biased.

Did Trump win the election in 2020? 

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Right! It’s all about money. So in a completely divided country these media companies have decided that only democratic voters actually buy things and watch television! 😂😂😂😂

Isn’t Fox the number one rated cable tv network? 

[SoCal Deek]

44 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Did Trump win the election in 2020? 

Isn’t Fox the number one rated cable tv network? 

Tibs....where are you going with this? The FOX comment is proof that it isn't just about money and eyeballs on screens. They filled a void in right leaning television.  That void was created by the usual Media outlets leaning hard left.

Edited November 18, 2020 by SoCal Deek