BS: 'Liberal media'?

Subject: 'Liberal media'?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 01:56 PM

Yeah, another political thread, although this one is not specifically about the recent US Presidential election. I'm interested in people's views on the "liberal media" in the US. I frequently hear this phrase, generally uttered in a disparaging way, to characterize the supposed liberal bias in all forms of media, particularly the news media. I consider myself a moderate-liberal, and perhaps this makes me unable to detect the liberal media bias that is so apparent to my more conservative friends. On the other hand, this phrase may be nothing more than a sound-bite that is used in a cynical attempt to discredit all media reports that don't have a conservative bias. Which is it?

I encourage any and all who respond to do so in an open and charitable spirit, and to resist the urge to beat up on others who hold opposing views. I also encourage DougR, troll, and any others to respond -- I understand that they feel somewhat outnumbered on this forum, but the thread won't be of much value if it just ends up being a place where liberals can preach to the converted. Finally, if people feel that this thread really won't be able to proceed without a lot of rancor and unpleasantness, I would encourage them to refrain from posting, and let it die a quick and relatively painless death -- I certainly won't be offended.

Any takers?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 02:05 PM

This is the media which is owned by huge corporations, and paid for by advertisements from huge corporations, and we're supposed to believe it has a liberal bias. It is to laugh.

This is the media that knew nearly a year ago that George W. had a DWI but sat on it until some guy from Maine looked it up at the DMV and brought it up again.

I'm not buying it.

When I worked in HIV/AIDS Epidemiology at the health department, I would sit around and listen to the gays and lesbians (wonderful people, all) complain how the media represented them and how slanted (to the right) the coverage of the homosexual community is.

And I hear the same (mutatis mutandis) from people on the right. Seems like nobody's happy with the media. I heard one guy talk about a pro-life rally he was involved in, and no representatives from the media were there. My wife (who does PR as a sideline) asked him how many they had invited and he stared at her like she was from the moon. Yeah, some bias.

Perhaps the reason the conservatives say "liberal media" is that "liberal" is the worst invective they can think of.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 02:10 PM

I've been hearing the "liberal media" thing for more decades than I want to be specific about. As far as I can tell, it is just as meaningless now as it ever was.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 02:29 PM

Ok, who do we have on the other side from, Pat Robertson, Imus, Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh? On tv, we have Fox network, mostly trash tv and anti liberal slant.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 02:59 PM

To me, 'liberal', by and large, denotes people who live by a more closely examined system of beliefs. Liberals are willing to change a country-wide injustice, once recognized, whether it's slavery, segregation, disability discrimination, ageism, sexism, whatever, ASAP and at whatever cost…

'Conservative' to me implies a clinging to the past, whether or not the person suspects that an injustice is being perpetuated. They want the condition to be fair and just but if it isn't, they still don't want it changed. They seem to fear that once something is begun it won't have a stopping place. To me, that implies a fear of people and their judgment.

So, yes, in that sense I would say the mainstream media are liberal- it's hard not to come across as a wild-eyed, throat-throbbing redneck if you don't at least give lip service to the concept of fairness. Just take a look at some of the magazines and pamphlets that the ultra-right puts out!

Now that I've offended everybody, let me remind you that this is my Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 03:04 PM

Well, that do beat all- part of my diatribe didn't get sent:

I ended "let me remind you that this is my concept of the terms. Not everyone interprets the terms the same way."

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Kim C
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 03:22 PM

Well, I don't know about liberal... I have seen liberal and conservative slants in news reporting and frankly I don't care for either one. The media's job is to report the news, not MAKE the news, but lately they seem to spend more time trying to MAKE news than they do to report it. Being a Virgo I want the facts, all the facts, nothing else but the facts, without a bunch of spin and dancing around the facts. But I guess sometimes the facts don't get ratings, and anymore that seems to be the most important thing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Sarah
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 03:27 PM

Just an opinion from someone who never voted a "straight ticket" in her life:

The media push both sides. (Most, mousethief, are owned by people who are Terribly Concerned with "first amendment rights," -- theirs, not ours -- and ofttimes confuse freedom with license. The bottom line for these folks is that it's more profitable -- and powerful -- to be liberal.) The trick is to watch the adjectives and adverbs, as well as the choice of verbs. If you hear that the Republicans are "taking the issue to the courts" and the Democrats are "filing yet another lawsuit," you get a pretty good picture of the reporter's slant.

It's like advertising: Advertising tells us what's out there, and that's good. But it behooves the consumer to remember that the people who put gobs of toothpaste on the brush in the commercial would like for us to believe that it's necessary to use that much to get our teeth clean. The media have their own agendas, too. Some are slanted to the left, some to the right.

The problem, as I see it, is that Journalism is dead. Its life was a brief one in this country, but it did live, and was a noble thing. When I were a wee child, television news was news. No adjectives, no adverbs, just the facts. Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Huntley and Brinkley, telling us what happened and nothing more. (God, I'm old!) The editorial piece was labeled as such and set aside in its own slot.

It's a chicken/egg conundrum. Did politics destroy statesmanship or did op-ed destroy news reporting? Or are they working in tandem? Politics gets more feedback than statesmanship; editorial reporting arouses more passion than does a simple delivering of the facts. It doesn't matter to these folks whether the feedback is encouraging or outraged -- it proves to their bosses that people are listening. Back to the bottom line, you see.

Sarah

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Gern
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 03:59 PM

The notion of a liberal slant to the media has been around quite a while, but can be best traced to Richard Nixon's verbal hatchet-man, VP Spiro Agnew. It caught on, as misleading labels often do, because it defended the interests of the entrenched right and demonized those smarmy fancy-pants college boy journalists that nobody really liked anyway. To Nixon's view, anything on the left side of Mussolini was 'liberal' and therefore dismissable. Whenever criticism and scrutiny became unbearable,Nixon merely smeared those who reported his capers.And now that the Democratic Party is essentially a conservative organization itself (Gore would have been a centrist Republican in any state but Tennessee,) even Democrats chide supposed media bias. I see no such conspiracy or tendency. We're simply enduring a time when conservative voices carry the farthest and liberals lack the guts to stand up and be counted, and until the pendulum swings back, lots of people will agree with these Agnew-Limbaugh-Cheney fabrications and exaggerrations. I say, blame it on Dukakis!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 04:05 PM

Let's say a big company is violating --say-- anti-pollution laws and dumping toxic waste into the river.

Let's say that company also happens to have several execs on the same boards of companies with execs from the newspaper.

Let's also say that it purchases extensive advertising in the newspaper.

How many expository/investigative articles do you expect to see in the newspaper about the company's illegal practices?

If you answered "more than zero" think again. Since the mid-90's, when the Los Angeles Times broke down the heretofore inviolable separation between the News and Sales departments, newspaper after newspaper across the country have been allowing their sales departments to dictate to the News departments what they may and may not write about.

The editorial page may tell you to vote for Nader. But if the City Desk can't investigate the abuses of local corporations due to a choke-hold from Sales, then the paper is not "liberal" no matter how you want to define it.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Cindy
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 04:16 PM

I have never done this and maybe this should be a new thread, but I would like an opinion regarding the last paragraph of mousethief's last message which says "The editorial page may tell you to vote for Nader." My terribly liberal friend and I have been arguing about whether newspapers should be supporting any one candidate over another, even on the editorial pages. I believe there is a huge conflict of interest. Does anyone else agree?

Cindy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 04:22 PM

I'm not sure where you're going, Cindy. Can you flesh that out a little -- in what way is it a conflict of interest?

alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 04:36 PM

Two trends that worry me about the media: First - they have reporters interviewing other reporters. And that includes stories that start off with " X reported today that...". And the other one is that they seem far more concerned with reporting a story FIRST than correctly.

I agree with Kim C. Just give me the Jack Webb facts please and I'll come up with my own liberal opinions myself. I miss Huntly and Brinkly. At least they finished their show with Beethovens 9th Symphony - second movement.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Cindy
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 05:29 PM

My argument was much along the lines of the idea of the front page not being able to do investigative reporting due to the sales department worrying about the advertisers. How much objectivity can a newspaper have in its front page reporting if in the editorial section (which in the Washington Post, my "local" paper, is the last 2 pages of Section A) the paper itself is touting a particular candidate. The editorial column authors, certainly. It's what they are there for, and even the Post usually has a token conservative or two. But I don't believe the newspaper, as an entity supposedly providing "objective" news, should be endorsing a particular candidate. Television and radio stations don't endorse candidates (that I have seen) and public radio here in the Washington, D.C. metro area was recently rather horrified that they were required by law to run political ads. There is also the issue of whether it is undue influence on its readers because it is "The Washington Post."

Cindy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 05:33 PM

Okay, Cindy, I see where you're at now. Yes, that makes a great deal of sense to me. Would you have them not do editorials at all, then? I mean, the editors do have opinions; every human does. With the editorials in the paper, you can read them and see which way they lean, and adjust your vision (so to speak) of the rest of the paper accordingly.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 09:53 AM

Its easy in the UK. If you want to read left wing sympathetic news, buy the Guardian. You want to read a paper with right wing sympathies read The Telegraph (or most of the tabloids if you want a load of scandal and page 3 girls thrown in too).

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Naemanson
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 10:21 AM

As far as the "news" in concerned, let the buyer be(a)ware (to paraphrase an old saying).

In other words, if you get your news from Rush Limbaugh you should do so knowing that the news is heavily slanted to a very conservative bias. If, on the other hand you get your news from National Public Radio you should realize that there is a liberal bias to the news. There is no organization that is able to provide just the facts. Human languages and the brain are not designed to allow one to speak without inserting his/her own biases into the words. These biases cannot be completely edited out and most people don't even try.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:24 PM

Brokaw's statement said it all for me.
Limbaugh is for entertainment, not news. Pat Robertson is a wild-eyed religious kook. I have never listened to Liddy so I have no opinion.
You speak of the far right; if you really want to get scared, read a bit of Earth First!
NBC refused to allow it's affiliates to cut inot the showing of "Titanic" to carry Bushes speech, offering instead taped exerpts for later viewing, but carried Gores speech live.
Jesse Jackson started a demonstration in Palm Beach Co. chanting "No Hand Count, No Peace". This sounds to ME like a threat to start a riot if his demands weren't met. The media carried it as an aside. In Miami-Dade, the people counting the votes decided to move from the large open hall where they were to a set of locked offices on another floor where no observation of the count would have been possible. When the Republican observers protested loudly, the media reported it as a "near riot" designed to disrupt the count.
Just how much more do you need to be convinced of the medias bias? Of course, you probably haven't read much about any of this. The Mainstream media haven't given it much space.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:33 PM

I've found that the "Liberal Media" is usually slightly to the right of moderate. And usually pretty mediocre, coem to that.

There seems to be a prevalent myth (actively encouraged by the media) of objectivity. And they are, every now and then., As mentioned, the media has become a market driven force that responds to what the advertisers and/or managers think the readers want to hear/see/read.

"Mother Jones" covered it a few years ago, highlighting stories that weren't carried in national media because the advertisers put in their contracts they type of content to be carried.

Not even a lot of good research goes on. Look at the "Playing Dungeon and Dragons causes suicide" myth. Or the "What Teachers Worry About "Study"" . Both were reported as fact. The later was read into the Congressional Record in support of a bill for educational reform.

Or the story about contemporary slavery in Africa that was/is true but none of the mainstream media would touch it. I heard in on NPR, along with details about how the reporters couldn't get anyone to air the story.

It takes a lot of effort to figure out what's going on. Assuming the media bothers to report it.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Gary T
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:50 PM

My wife's cousin is on the editorial board of the Kansas City Star. He assures me that the news department and the editorial department each do their own thing, not consulting with nor interfering with each other. I believe him.

Every so often there are letters to the editor decrying the paper's liberal bias, and likewise letters decrying its conservative bias. I guess your viewpoint depends upon your vantage point.

A local TV news personality spoke at our church's men's fellowship dinner a year or so ago, and said there may be something to a perceived liberal bias in the various media, as most of the people in the trade have liberal beliefs. Refreshing candor.

I have found the most helpful approach, as alluded to in a previous post, is to get as many different news sources as you can. This tends to balance out individual reporting biases.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 02:31 PM

I find the use of "liberal" as a shorthand for extreme left really strange. Being liberal means being tolerant of people you disagree with, believing that discussion should be civil and open, and that people shouldn't be bullied.

And you might have all kinds of political viewponts and still be liberal in that sense. It means you don't want to shoot your adversaries down, or shout them down, or send them to jail.

Maybe it's just a matter of arbitrary terminology which differs in various countries. But I can't help believing that there is a political intent to the way the term seems to be used in the USA. It feels as if the idea is to restrict the range of argument, and to suggest that political views which in most democratic countries would be regarded as moderate and centrist, or even right of centre, should be seen as being extreme-left.

Of course other people play word games too. I believe there's a party in Russia that calls itself Liberal Democrat. But in fact, it is what most people in America or England would see as Fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 03:54 PM

Yeah, I'll bite.

That label Liberal Media has always been a bit of a knotty puzzle to me. Consider that Rupert Murdoch owns USA Today and I don't know what else in the way of newspapers; that Time/Warner/AOL is heavily invested in television and radio, as is the Disney Corporation which owns ABC. Rather than state sponsored censorship, what I suspect is happening is that we have business sponsored censorship. If Tom Brokaw should dare to utter something offensive to the Corporate Brass, how long do I think he'd have his job? My suspicion is that Tom knows which side the bread is buttered on, and gives the nightly news that isn't offensive, or controversial. It's bad for Bidnez. Ratings go down, and advertising dries up. Same goes for NPR, really. They sorta flirt with the edges of progressive politics, but they realize if they get too controversial, their contributions might dry up too. Hence, I am left wondering, "How much of the picture are we really missing?"

Liberal Media? What's Rush Limbaugh? He's a media guy. What's George Will? He's a media guy. Compare Time and Newsweek to The Utne Reader Liberal Media? Where? I may not be from Missouri, but Show Me.
Jim Krause

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: snake
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 04:18 PM

Alex, this is Cindy from yesterday. I was (am now) at work and realized what time it was and left, hurriedly. I would not ban editorials or editorials sections, they do tend to have either a token conservative or liberal, depending on the paper. It's just the idea of the official endorsement by the paper.

Cindy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: snake
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 04:18 PM

Alex, this is Cindy from yesterday. I was (am now) at work and realized what time it was and left, hurriedly. I would not ban editorials or editorials sections, they do tend to have either a token conservative or liberal, depending on the paper, so that it is, at least, marginally balanced. It's just the idea of the official endorsement by the paper.

Cindy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 05:47 PM

troll,

The decision in Miami-Dade was a space issue. If they were trying to conduct the count out of the sunshine, it would have taken any judge in Florida about 5 minutes to issue an injunction.

Once they moved, the logistics of counting on one floor, and ballots on another made it problemetic that they could finish under the then deadline.

As to Mr. Limbaugh, a few years ago, I would have agreed.... just an entertainer (no matter what his followers might have thought.) Lately I looks to me like he's fallen into the trap of the Russian propagandist, which makes him a lot scarier as I don't sense he has a sense of limits and proportion. (Or reality sometimes) Pat Robertson has lost some of his influence but as a "true believer" who seems to think he's under orders from God to save the world from himself, I find him a little ominous.

Earth First has always struck me as true fanatics, whereas the far right are just highly opinionated and misguided.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 06:20 PM

I think the mainstream media shows a liberal bias, particularly all the television networks save Fox News Network.

Newspapers vary, I'm sure from city to city. Our newspaper in Phoenix use to be very conservative when it was owned by the Pulliam family. It has become more moderate in recent years since it is no longer controlled by them. The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, I believe lean to the liberal side. Wallstreet Journal leans more to the right.

Frankly, I have no problem with newspapers endorsing candidates. The candidates they endorse, in most instances, broadcast their political bias to the readers in most cases and the reader can decide whether he/she agrees with that philosophy. Their editorials express the newspaper's political leanings, and I think that's fine too.

I don't think the question of columnists versus reporters should be confused. Columnists write opinions, and their opinions are flavored by their political philosophies, and the reader knows that. Personally, I like to read a newspaper that prints a good balance between the two. I don't agree with the liberal columnists, in most instances, but I enjoy reading them.

I think some very good observations have been expressed in this thread. Sarah, I, like you, miss the days when television reporters only reported the news and didn't attempt to sway public opinion by flavoring their reports one way or the other. In addition to the newscasters you mentioned, there was Douglas Edwards, William L. Shirer, Eric Severeid, and the Dean of all newscasters, Edward R. Murrow. I think many of those newscasters, including Murrow, were liberals, but they didn't allow their political leanings to flavor their news reporting.

Thanks, Whistle Stop for posting this thread. I've enjoyed reading it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 09:09 PM

I agree with that Doug about this being a good thread, and nothing unkind or uncourteous in it.

On my definition that last post of yours definitely would count as liberal. As well as conservative - nothing inconsistent about that. Any more than there is in being a republican and a democrat. Maybe keeping thinghs in lower case is the answer. Why even words like "bush" and "gore" cease to be in any way controversial or divisive...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 10:51 PM

Skeptic, the story I got was that they moved the counting upstairs and refused entry to both the press and Republican observers. Check the story by Timmerman on www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky
Or not. It's up to you.
McGrath, I try to be liberal in my approach to others. On the other hand, I am a Conservative in my approach to the role of Government.
In my lexicon, the opposite of "liberal" is "intolerant" and the opposite of "Liberal" is "Conservative". One is an attitude, the other a political viewpoint.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 12:33 PM

I am a liberal.

That said, terms like "Liberal Media", "Politically Correct", "Fascist", "Communist Influence in...", "Fuzzy Thinking", "Wishy Washy" "Knee Jerk Liberal", "N----- Lover", etc., etc., are often attempts to DEMONIZE and trivialize the other guys often well-thought out and serious opinions without doing any homework and preparation---or without confronting in your arguments the actual details of the discussion at hand. They are also attempts to trivialize a more complex topic and reduce it to the level of bumper sticker philosophy that the masses can assimilate and utilize easily in order to push an otherwise rarely stated , if ever, hidden agenda.

As with Geoge Dubya in the recent debates, how very many times did you hear "fuzzy thinking" or "fuzzy math" instead of any real and detailed arguments?

Someone once said, "People will die for an idea provided that idea isn't quite clear to them."

That's why 18 year old kids make the best unquestioning soldiers. At 50 years of age they are just now wondering why the hell they were so gung ho and went off to war so easily.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 12:44 PM

Art: I'm not sure I follow your thinking (I've an old brain). Why would one expressing an opinion that the mainstream press appears to one, to be more liberal than conservative, be demonizing anything?

It's just an opinion. Unless the newspaper or radio or TV network proclaims itself to be one or the other, no one really knows for certain in which direction they lean.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 05:03 PM

In my lexicon, the opposite of "liberal" is "intolerant..." (troll)

Exactly so. But I've noticed that, even in this thread, lots of people have been using the lower case, writing "liberal" instead of "Liberal" and "conservative" instead of "Conservative", but meaning it in an Upper Case sense - and I think that is dangerous.

I suspect that kind of thing actually encourages people who aren't "Conservative" to think that their political adversaries are all intolerant. And worse still it encourages some people who are Conservatives to think that it's all right being intolerant of your adversaries. So both ways it encourages an attitude of intolerance.

...and the opposite of "Liberal" is "Conservative". Not so sure about that one. I'd say it only makes sense to talk of a political ideology as having an opposite, if there are only two political ideologies. It's a bit like saying the opposite of an American is a European. I mean there are other pieces on the board, such as Radical, Libertarian, Authoritarian...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 05:58 PM

ON TOPIC

Gary T commented on the objectivity his wife's cousin felt existed on the he worked for, reporting on the give and take in deciding how to handle a story or issue. Probably true.

Unsaid, maybe unrealized, is the unconscious censorship that goes on. Teh stories that never make it to the discussion phase because someone decides. "they" wouldn't like it or it might reflect later on promotions. What is reported may be essentially balanced. When compared to what is happening in the World, it may not be. No conspiracy, just simple human fallibility.

OFF TOPIC MORE OR LESS troll,

The link didn't work but a seach of the WorldNetDaily sight for prior articles by Mr. Timmerman suggests he is long somewhat in love with the idea of grand conspiracies and sensationalistic journalism with a Conservative flavor. While this doesn't mean any of his claims regarding the Miami-Dade non-recount are not true. I find the fact that no other element of the media picked up on what is a clear violation of Florida Law, that neither the Gore or Bush legal efforts have even mentioned it and the fact that you believe it to indicate the story may be less than factual.

Paper ballots are .... well .... quaint. And not cheap when you're talking about 50 million voters with dozens of choices on each ballot. And more susceptible to fraud which is why the various automated systems were developed.

My County just did away with butterfly ballots, I talked to our Supervisor of Elections (She's a Democrat, btw). There have always been problems with the butterfly type ballot, usually involving municipal and local elections.

This was the first national election where the problems that everyone knew existed might make a difference. The State of Florida has guidelines on how to deal with the known problems. There were no hard and fast rules laid down about chards and so on. Probably should have been but there weren't.

Upper case L and C was best defined by Ambrose Bierce to the effect that a Conservative is someone enamoured of the existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal, who wants to replace them with new evils of his own. We (the US) seem to have a real problem with the idea of a win-win situation. There has to be A Winner an A Loser. Clearly all the other ideologies don't matter. In American politics (and in a lot of American life, the idea of a win-win situation seems un-American. So come up with labels, classify people (deservedly or not) and Win. An unfortunate trend in America seem to be that winning, like money, makes a lot of wrong things magically ?right?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 06:12 PM

"Paper ballots are .... well .... quaint."

That's what a lot of people say when they are putting down folk-music. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'd have thought a sensible way to go woild be a paper ballot which is marked with a pencil for the Presidential election, and maybe a couple more choices, and a multiple-choice one with punch-cards for the rest.

From a dictionary: Chadband n. Unctuois hypocrite (person in Dickens's Bleak House) That seems about right to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 06:13 PM

"Paper ballots are .... well .... quaint."

That's what a lot of people say when they are putting down folk-music. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'd have thought a sensible way to go woild be a paper ballot which is marked with a pencil for the Presidential election, and maybe a couple more choices, and a multiple-choice one with punch-cards for the rest.

From a dictionary: Chadband n. Unctuous hypocrite (person in Dickens's Bleak House) That seems about right to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 07:29 PM

sure, some media tend towards 'liberal'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

and others are 'more' conservative..
http://www.washtimes.com/ (owned by the Unification church of Rev. Moon)

...I do often wonder... if those who fret about a 'biased' liberal media were to find a conservative paper or TV network, would they refer to it as a 'biased' conservative media?

I do suspect that many forms of serious media do 'tend' toward liberalism, just as many of the Mudcat/folk community 'tend' the same way...and I see in that an echo of what they DO...
The media are ostensibly in the business of finding and reporting truth, and although they are often influenced by their advertisers, etc., you can often see that they'd LIKE to 'tell it like it is'...and this, to me, is a 'liberalish' attitude of wanting the public to know how the world is going...(boy, it is hard to boil this notion down to a few sentences!)

In the same way, folkies 'tend' to sing songs and reflect concerns of the 'people'...(I don't think I KNOW many Company Ballads)...and if there is ANY truth to the notion that conservatives and Big Business have some ideological parallels, then of course folkies and Mudcatters tend toward 'liberal'. Since 'conservative' can mean a wide variety of things..(social, religious, fiscal...etc.), there is no inconsistancy in having folks who like the songs, but have different ideas about government,money, religion, and behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 07:56 PM

My list of terms earlier in this thread was trying to show how a phrase like Liberal Media or liberal media is usually (in the USA anyhow) intended to make a negative and completely dismissing point about "those people". Similarly, liberal is used, often by R. Limbaugh, to utter s curse of sorts that manages to make a negative value judgment about ALL persons left of center and ALL of their points of view. (To me, that is demonizing). In many circles, saying something is politically incorrect is enough to cause at least laughter and, at most, a complete dismissal of everything a person might say or stand for.

And the word fascist is similarly used in liberal society to denegrate those we dislike.

Accepting that a single word "says it all" about those we may not agree with, is causing the polarization of these times. It made the climate that allowed impeaching a U.S. president for daring to get a blow job & then daring to say say that it hadn't happened.

The only really amazing part to me is the 50-50 percentage split in the vote tally. Statistically, it was bound to possibly happen of course. But my wife's religion is always predicting when the world will end. I am fond of telling them that, "Yes, keep trying. You're bound to get it right one of these days."

And then I add, "But with my last breath I will never feel it was an anything but dumb luck !"

Love,

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 08:48 PM

Armageddon tired of all these doomsayers

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Lucius
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 09:09 PM

OK, let me see if I get this. It is being called a "liberal media" by conservatives, when its views are not in alignment with their own beliefs. Bush workers are allowed to go in to 4700 absentee ballots and amend them so they will be counted for George Bush (while doing nothing with thee Gore ballots). This goes mostly unreported. Paid Bush thugs break into Miami-Dade courthouse to stop a recount. The co-chair of the Florida Bush for President committee refuses to consider recount totals while acting in "official" capacity. Bush's brother promises to sign a bill giving Florida electorates to Bush, if offered. Bush got his hand recount in New Mexico without comment by the press. Most media talking heads have already set a deadline for Al Gore to concede. Sounds to me like someone is biting the hand that feeds them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 09:17 PM

well, to be accurate, all they did on those absentee ballots was to put correct voter registration #s on them, thus allowing them to BE counted...sort of like looking at a dimpled ballot to 'discern the voters intent'...no real fraud or anything, as they were real ballots....but it still may have not been strictly 'legal'...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Lucius
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 10:36 PM

My understanding from reading the Concord (NH) Monitor--and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that this was done by a partisan group, and only for voters that selected Bush. The rest were discarded.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 12:05 PM

No, Lucious,I would describe the liberal press as one that did not espouse the conservative view. The conservative press does not espouse the liberal view. Simple.

Bill D., yes, I would describe any newspaper that favored the conservative point of view as being biased toward the right.

I believe in my posting above I made that clear. George Will is a conservative, and promotes conservative points of view, as does Robert Novak, as do many other conservative columnists. Margaret Carlson, of Time Magazine, is a liberal and she promotes the liberal point of view, as many other liberal columnists do.

If there is a television news personality (news anchor or show host) who could be described as a conservative, however, I am not aware who it might be. Only my opinion, of course. Oops, I take that back. Tony Snow and Oliver North are conservatives.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 12:26 PM

As I pointed out, people do seem to be putting "liberal" and "conservative" instead of "Liberal" and "Conservative" - which makes it confusing.

I mean, do all people who say they are Conservatives really want to be assumed to be "illiberal"? "Not befitting a free man; without liberal culture; vulgar, sordid; narrow-minded; stingy" as it has it in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. (Which is in its way an extremely conservative publication, as befits a dictionary.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 02:35 PM

MaGrath: I think the problem probably is due to how those two terms are used in different countries. Conservative and Liberal does not, as I'm sure you know, serve as a definition for either of the major political parties in the United States. It refers to the philosophy of the individual. Each of the political parties have both "liberal," and "conservative" thinkers as members.

Does that make this issue clearer?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Wavestar
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 02:54 PM

I'll confess now that I haven't read the entire thread, but I wanted to offer this - for anyone looking for sensible, non partisan reporting on issues throughout the US, and (*gasp*) the rest of the world as well, _The Christian Science Monitor_ is honestly the best English language international newspaper I've ever seen, and gets awards for it. It isn't conservative, or liberal. It doesn't only give the bad news. It doesn't cover just one side of the story. And despite the Christian in the name, there is only one religiously oriented article in each daily paper, and it's small. It is dedicated to the avoidance of yellow journalism and falling standards, not the support of any agendas.

It's available in Britain too, but only as the weekly international version.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Gary T
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 03:14 PM

If I may jump in to augment and fine-tune Doug's point, here in the U.S. we generally use capitalized words only for proper nouns and their derivative adjectives. If we had a political party named the Liberal party, we would talk about a Liberal politician or viewpoint. Since we don't, we talk about a liberal politician, etc. In the context of these discussions, I think it's safe to say Americans are using "liberal" to mean politically liberal, as opposed to the other dozen or so definitions in the dictionary.

Mcgrath's point has merit, if all understood Liberal to mean politically liberal it could remove doubt about the poster's intent and avoid potential confusion. Unfortunately, however, I don't think it's realistic to expect that Americans will adopt that practice. I would go so far as to venture that unless context clearly suggests otherwise, it's safe to assume that Americans using "liberal" or "conservative" mean politcally so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 03:28 PM

I offer apoligies for the "quaint" comment. It was silly. But if you take a look at the history in this country of the abuse and fraud asasociated with the paper ballot you may better appreciate the comment. It wasn't just broken. In a lot of States it was a joke. The history of the written ballot in the US is full of anecdotes. One I remember was the good old days in New Yory when the Tammany Hall machine would decide who would win and what the vote spread would be in a particular precinct. An Lo, it was so.

Consider 50 million pieces of paper floating around. A logistic nightmare. The County I live in had 60,000 people vote. Some of the precients have 5000 plus voters. And this is a small County.

BTW, I concur. Folk music is clearly not quaint. Those who claim so are clearly misguided, ill-(or un)educated, ill-informed and lack even the basics of aesthetic values. They probably put catsup on their oatmeal and drink Guiness out of a paper cup. Over ice.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 07:51 PM

Another dictionary definition - :

liberal a. & n. 1.directed to general enlargement of mind, not professional or technical;generous, open-handed, not sparing of; ample, abundant; not rigorous or literal; open-minded, candid, unprejudiced; (pol) favourable to democratic reforms & abolition of prejudice; cf. Liberal Conservative - a member of the Conservative party not ill disposed to reforms...[ME, f. OF f. L liberalis - free man.)

Sounds pretty good to me. "liberal" is a good word for a lot of very good things. I can't think of another word that adequately replaces it those kinds of meanings. To try to turn it into a word of abuse is a kind of linguistic vandalism.

People often talk with regret about the way in which the word "gay" has been appropriated for a new meaning in a way that robbed the language of a word that was had an important role already (and a very handy rhyme). But at least there was a reasonable excuse for this - a group of people under attack who felt they needed a label for themselves that wasn't an insult.

The way that "liberal" has been degraded into an insult doesn't have this excuse. And in fact I think it is something which should be repugnant to anybody with a conservative temperament. Fortunately it hasn't really caught on as an insult too widely outside the confines of the USA.

Moreover, as I said in an earlier post, it appears that where the word is used in this way, there is a spin-off into other contexts, so that it is seen an somehow inconsistent for someone to be both liberal and conservative at the same time. And most unfortunately there are people who describe themselves as "conservative" who seem to take pride in that.

Using capital letters at least reduces the damage a little. I am sure that everybody would find it disturbing if people started to use the term "democrat" and "democratic" in the same kind of way.

My understanding is that most Republicans in the USA would be insulted to be told they were not democratic; and I would hope that most of them would feel equally insulted to be told that they could not be termed "liberal".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 09:30 PM

Skeptic, I thought that you never apologized for things; that your mother made excuses for you.
On the other hand you are quite correct that the paper-and-pencil type ballot would be a nightmare for this country.
It would seem to me that a paper ballot would require very small precincts so that the ballots could be counted quickly . Since ballots in this country typically have, in addition to the various candidates for a half-dozen or so offices, a variety of referendums (referenda?) and special local issues to be considered, the opportunity for honest error -not to mention fraud- would be enormous.
I use liberal (samll "l") as a description of attitude and consider "intollerant" to be its' opposite. Liberal (large "L") is a political philosophy. The use of lower case and upper case in the proper places would certainly help to avoid confusion.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 11:42 PM

McGrath, I don't understand why you feel that our (Americans) us of the word "liberal" to describe one's point of view is degraing or insulting. Am I missing somethin?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:34 AM

I disagree with troll on quite a lot of things it seems, buity I think he is spot on here.

And Doug, I thought the last post I wrote was pretty clear, but I'll flesh it out.

That standard dictionary definition is a good definition of something that needs a good word. I don't like to see a word which has a whole lot of positive meanings for qualities that are shared across much of the politrucal sprectrum (though not across it all, sadly) being distorted and dragged into a political squabble like this.

Obviously there is room for disagreements about policies and political philosophies and such. But the qualities decribed in that definition I hope are ones which are common to people who disagree about a lot of politucal issues.

Surely any conservative minded person who shared those kind of qualities wold object to having the word used to apply to their political adversaries, either either as a compliment or an insult. Thefre are lots of more sopecific and accurate words to describe the duifferences you have.

Is there really anything in that dictionary definition which you would not wish to see applied to yourself?

Even when it comes to the (pol)definition, would you really unalterably opposed to "democratic reforms" and in favour of "preserving privilege"? I don't mean that there mightn't be room for a lot of disgreenment about what reforms were democratic, and about what sort of things counted as privilege. But what is all that rhetoric people spout in poltical campaigns and debates on bioth sides, if it isn't a claim to be in favour of proper democratic reforms and opposed to unjust privilege?

It's a bit as if people who were critical of "Do Gooders" had extended that into using "good" as an insult. I'd call that very dangerous indeed. It would directly feed into intolerance and hate and fanaticism.

You'd be inviting a situation where people on one side would be taking pride in being against "the good"; and everyone else would very reasonably feeling that people who are self-proclaimed enemies of "the good" have to be seen as enemies of humanity. Does that sound a bit famiiar?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:41 AM

A few too many typing errors in there, so I'll post it again:

I disagree with troll on quite a lot of things it seems, but I think he is spot on here.

And Doug, I thought the last post I wrote was pretty clear, but I'll flesh it out.

That standard dictionary definition is a good definition of something that needs a good word. I don't like to see a word which has a whole lot of positive meanings for qualities that are shared across much of the political sprectrum (though not across it all, sadly), being distorted and dragged into a political squabble like this.

Obviously there is room for disagreements about policies and political philosophies and such. But the qualities decribed in that definition, I hope are ones which are common to people who disagree about a lot of political issues.

Surely any conservative minded person who shared those kind of qualities would object to having the word used to apply only to their political adversaries, either as a compliment or an insult. There are lots of more specific and accurate words to describe the differences you have.

Is there really anything in that dictionary definition which you would not wish to see applied to yourself?

Even when it comes to the (pol)definition, would you really claim to be unalterably opposed to "democratic reforms" and in favour of "preserving privilege"? I don't mean that there mightn't be room for a lot of disgreement about what reforms were democratic, and about what sort of things counted as privilege. But what is all that rhetoric people spout in poltical campaigns and debates on both sides, if it isn't a claim to be in favour of proper democratic reforms and opposed to unjust privilege?

It's a bit as if people who were critical of "Do Gooders" had extended that into using "good" as an insult. I'd call that very dangerous indeed. It would directly feed into intolerance and hate and fanaticism.

You'd be inviting a situation where people on one side would be taking pride in being against "the good"; and everyone else would very reasonably be justified in feeling that people who are self-proclaimed enemies of "the good" have to be seen as enemies of humanity. Does that sound a bit familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:19 AM

I think you'd find that the demonization of the "Liberal Media" goes back further than the Nixon/Watergate era to that saintly old Conservative, Senator Joseph McCarthy, and his moral crusade against things "un-American"- according to his personal definition. For those who think his was only an "anti-Communist" effort I recommend checking the record, where he rails against the media, Hollywood films, homosexuals, actors, institutions of higher learning, as well as those Spiro Agnew would later characterize as "effete intellectual snobs". Its also well to remember that McCarthy's right-hand man throughout the witch-hunt was- yep! Tricky Dick Nixon.

I think part of the difficulty is that Americans by & large have no knowledge of or experience with REAL Left politics- as an example, the two moderate Republican candidates currently vying for the White House. A population that can still stigmatize health care for its citizens as "the menace of Socialized medicine", advocates of Women's Rights as "femiNazis" or pacifists as "Communist sympathizers" with a straight face obviously doesn't know what its talking about.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 09:01 AM

Joe McCarthy was a demagogue. No question about it. The funny thing is that Nixon was responsible for opening up relations with China so I'm afraid that you'll have to find other things to demonize him for. It shouldn't be hard.
As for "REAL Left politics", no, we've been spared that!
Health care for all is not "the menace of Socalized Medicine". I know first-hand what the British system is like where people have to wait for months for needed surgery and the lack of a routine x-ray leads to death from cancer. Our system isn't perfect, but don't hold up systems like the British have as the ideal.
Rush Limbaugh's "FemiNazis" comprise a very small number of the women who were and are active in womens rights. They are the ones who ridicule women who just want to stay at home and raise a family. They seem to think that EVERY woman should aspire to be the CEO of a multi-national corporation and they look down on those who don't. THOSE are the "FemiNazis" and my definition is taken pretty much from Limbaughs own definition. He coined the phrase.
Lastly,during the Cold War, the "Peace at any price-unilateral disarmament" type of pacifist certainly aided, at least verbally, the avowed communist aim of world military superiority. Since the communism has pretty well gone bust, this no longer applies.
However, the world being what it is and people being what they are, total disarmament and world peace seem as far away as ever.One has only to look at East Timor or Nigeria or the former Yugoslavia to realize that.
Peace is a much desired goal but it cannot be preached to one side only. Nations do not trust one another and disarmament, even on a small scale, comes only after much negotiation any many years.
" What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!" is a great slogan for chanting at rallys in the park but has little to do with the actual process.
It isn't that we don't know what we are talking about, Greg. It's that you have been listening to the wrong people.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 10:23 AM

Troll: Nixon was responsible for opening up relations with China True enough!- suppose no-one is all bad; I understand Hitler was fond of dogs and Pinochet is kind to his friends, etc.

...Greg. It's that you have been listening to the wrong people. This could cut both ways- I might suggest the same!   ;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 10:34 AM

Oh, and Troll- interesting that you chose to include yourself in the group I referenced- I wouldn't necessarily have done so. Until now.  ;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:18 AM

Greg: I certainly didn't intend to group myself with that group but I can see why you might think so.
Re: Nixon. As youstated, no ane is all bad. I'm sure you yourself have many redeeming qualities.
As far as listening goes, I read five or six newspapers on line daily including The Guardian and The Washington Post. I also check out several web sites that provide links to all manner of news sources. Some right, some left.
I strive for a balanced view of the news. If I read only those publications which supported my particular predjudices, I would be one-sided indeed. By knowing what the other side is saying, I can better formulate an opinion as to the validity of what MY side is saying.
If everyone would do this -look at both sides- there wouldn't be so much misunderstanding of motives. But, over the years, I've found that people really DON'T want to know anything that goes against what they have always believed. It's a case of 'better a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth'.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:25 AM

troll,

I never apologize to you. So far it hasn't been necessary. Of course, as part of my onging personal campaign to help the rationally challanged, I will continue to apologize FOR you.

As easy as it is to demonize McCarthy as a demagogue, lets all remember how effective he was, and why. Most politicians of the era share whatever blame is heped on McCarty, as sins of commission and of omission. Even Edward R. didn't take on Joe until he was on the way out.

Limbaugh continues to remind me of the guy who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater and then apologizes after the riot. Or the liberal newspaper that makes some wild accusation and prints a retraction on page 12 of section e. Both lack a sense of responsibility. Ironic since the decline of personal responsibilty is decried by both.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:28 AM

If everyone would do this -look at both sides- there wouldn't be so much misunderstanding of motives.

I don't think any rational person could argue with you there, Troll. And, as you do, I try to listen to as much info from different perspectives as I can- always have. Just goes to show ya that two people can look at the same evidence & draw totally different conclusions. Too many variables in the human psyche, I guess. Best regards- I'm outa here for a bit-I don't want to turn the thread into a 2-person discussion-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:35 AM

Thanks Greg.
Now Skeptic; if I have said or done things that made you feel you had to appologize for me,GOOD!
It keeps you on your toes, wondering what I'll do next, what else I'll say to embarrase you since you were so foolish as to ADMIT that you know me personally.
Serves you right I say. You could have kept your mouth shut but NOOOOO! you had to stick your oar in the water.
Pity you only have the one oar.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 12:04 PM

Troll,

I fail to see why Nixon's record with Red China has anything to do with what he did with Joe McCarthy. Are you saying that his opening up China to the West in the 1970s proves he wasn't a red-baiting demagogue in the 1950s? If so you need to supply the missing premises because as it stands the argument isn't terribly convincing.

Secondly, Yugoslavia still exists. It consists of Serbia and Montenegro.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:28 PM

Alex,

Red-baiting in the 50's was popular. Not that "well everybody else is doing it" makes it right. But is standing by and doing/saying nothing worse than open support? I seem to remember that JFK was absent from the Senate when they voted to censure McCarthy.

By the time the Senate got around to censuring McCarthy, he'd become almost a caricature. Didn't take a lot of courage to vote against him. Of course there was Papa Joe, who apparently made McCarthy seem like a Liberal in comparison. Can you fault a man for not wanting to hurt daddy's feelings?

And lets remember that stuff coming out of the Kremlin indicates that there was an active effort by the USSR to infiltrate and disrupt the US. Not particularly effacious, but it was there.

troll, one oar yes, but a damned impressive one.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:55 PM

"I know first-hand what the British system is like where people have to wait for months for needed surgery and the lack of a routine x-ray leads to death from cancer. Our system isn't perfect, but don't hold up systems like the British have as the ideal."

I don't know anyone who'd say that the National Health Service is ideal. It suffered a lot under the ideologically driven changes imposed by that Nineteenth Century Liberal Mrs Thatcher. It needed changes, it got changes - but not the right ones. It's tuirning itself round now, but there's a long way to go.

Things go wrong anywhere, under any system. If the American system really does measn that fewer people have to wait months for neweded surgery, or never get it at all, and don't have routine x-rays so that they die of cancer, I'm very pleased.

That isn't how I've heard it is for millions of people who haven't got adequate health insurance, but then maybe I've heard it wrong.

But I'll tell you one thing - any time there is an election here, and somebody suggests that the Conservatives would abolish the NHS, and replace it with something more like the American system, they will very angrily deny that they will never do anything of the kind, and they will say that it is a foul and filthy libel.

And if anybody ever did do that, I think there quite literally would be blood on the streets. And remember, this is a populace that gets most of its news from papers which are pretty rightwing. The Guardian is very much the exception. (And that is hardly a left-wing publication.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 02:01 PM

Ah, so Nixon was a coward AND a hypocrite? Now I feel a LOT better about him.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 03:31 PM

Alex, are you familiar with Harry S. Truman on Dick Nixon? (may not be 100% correct, but close):

"Richard Nixon is a lying son of a bitch. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at once, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."

Personally, I think Harry was being way too kind.
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 05:10 PM

The media per se shows no real liberal bias since it has given hours to Bush and Cheney as well as to the position of Gore. I think Gore's point is strong and the reaction against it needs to be tempered with consideration whether you agree with it or not.

I believe that the so-called "conservatives" have given up a conservative view a long time ago and should be properly named reactionaries. That suggests reacting rather than being proactive.

Another aspect of reaction is to deominze those who you don't agree with by referreing to them as liars or dishonest and making loud moral proclamations about them as if they were minions of the devil. Thus we have loud individuals shrieking about "stealing" votes. The rhetoric is pretty high in reactionary circles these days.

I can see the case for an honest disagreement about how issues should be resolved that doesn't entail rhetoric and reaction.

"Liberal" as Studs Terkel has pointed out means "generous". "Conservative" means "cautious or measured".

"Reactionary" means reacting to and rejecting out of hand anything that someone doesn't agree with. (Usually accompanied by loud moral pronouncements placing the exhorter in an exalted god-like position in their own minds).

The media looks for hot potato issues that will awaken a soporific audience. It's bias is about selling products for sponsors, creating show business personalities such as Cokie, Sam and George Wills and making money.

I welcome a reasoned, clear explanation of of the important issues of the day which excludes the demonizing rhetoric and sticks to the facts. You don't get this too much from media these days.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:20 PM

McGrath,

Thirty million Americans have no health insurance, a portion of the rest that do have minimally adequate coverage. Until recently preventative medicine was rarely covered at all by health plans.

If you have no insurance and are close to a major urban center, maybe you can get seen/treated more than purely symptomatically and maybe not.

Having a bit more background on the situation troll refers to, and having banged around the medical field in my not nearly misspent enough youth, I can match troll story for story, although knowing the story, its certainly an incitement of the individuals providing the care (or lack thereof).

Is it the people or the system. I can think of examples on this side of the Atlantic to support either side of the argument.

Lets remember that the only reason an Emergency Room can't turn away an indigent patient who's having a heart attack because they can't pay is that they lost the lawsuit (back in the 70's in New York). As I remember the patient died and his family sued, won and established the principal of universal emergency care, regardless of ability to pay. But i fits not an emergent (immediately life threatening problem) they can and do.

It's sad, to me, that we are the richest country on Earth and 30 million people have access to health care that's extremely limited: i.e overworked and understaffed and under- funded public clinics.

Also interesting that our liberal media says so little about it, to sort of get back on thread.

Regards John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 07:26 PM

Well, the main point I was making was that getting rid of the National Health Service would be a very extreme position indeed here. In no way "conservative" ("cautious or measured"), or for that matter Conservative, for whom it would be suicide.

If I can suggest a parallel case - I believe you don't get many American Conservatives calling for the Declaration of Independance to be abrogated.

As I've said before, my dearest dream would be to live in a society where I could be passionately in favour of preserving the status quo, because the status quo was OK. Roll on the age of real conservatism. But it's got a long way to go before that'll be here. And it's not going in the right direction too much of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:23 PM

Alex
If you will read GregF's posting of 12/4/00 at 0819 you will see the begining of the Nixon thing. I simply meant that no one is wholly bad and that even a scoundrel like Nixon can do positive things.
Frank.
I concur that the opposition should not be demonized by refering to them in perjorative terms. That is why I use "Conservative" instead of "Reactionary", and "Liberal" instead of "Bleeding Heart".
Skeptic
A damned impressive oar indeed. And it propells you in damned impressive CIRCLES!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:37 PM

But in principle Reactionary and Conservative are in mkst ways opposite philosophies; and when Mrs Thatcher was correctly identified as being ideologically a Nineteenth Century Liberal, noone took that as meaning she was a Bleeding Heart.

A "Conservative" (using that as a label for a philosophy rather than a party) would surely disagree with political adversaries because he or she thinks what they do or propose to do is wrong, at this time and in these circumstances, not because it falls into a particular category.

After all, in 10 or 5O or 100 years, the very same policies will have been incorporated into the philosophy, if they proved reasonably successful and enduring. Like the American and French Revolutions and the NHS.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 10:17 PM

One question I don't see addressed here;

What media outlets/personalities are considered authoritative in a sense that is suppose to cross ideological boundaries?

Another question;

Accepted that Will, Novak et. al. are Conservatives...uh...who are the Liberals? Why doesn't "This Week (with Sam D and Cokie R)" have a Liberal voice to balance Will's extreme rhetoric?

It seems obvious that it's elementary--anyone can point out the Conservatives in the mainstream authoritative media--they are labeled as such. There are no anchors, editors, or commentators who are labeled as Liberals. Therefore the media is obviously dominated by Conservatives.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:40 PM

Troll, if you are afraid that I am going to make the mistake of thinking any one person can be 100% bad with no good at all, you may rest your mind at ease. But thanks for worrying about me, all the same.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 09:02 AM

Thanks, everyone, for weighing in on this one -- all in all it's been a remarkably civil discussion. I think the exploration of the words themselves is interesting (the "liberal" vs. "Liberal" discussion started by McGrath). I also appreciate the thoughtful comments offered by troll and DougR, which help balance the discussion and offer opposing points of view to the generally liberal leanings of the Mudcat. This has been educational for me -- I honestly wanted to know how people felt about this, and despite my own liberal leanings I had no particular axe to grind in asking the question. It's nice to have discussions about these kinds of things without throwing stones at each other -- thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 10:21 AM

John, this should be a no-brainer. The reason the "Consrevatives" are labeled is that everyone ELSE is Liberal.
Sorry buddy. You left yourself wide open for that one.

troll ***BG***

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:34 PM

I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into this world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative

Except of course that's not true, either with Upper Case or lower case...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:38 PM

McGrath, Your point in defining liberal vs. Liberal I think is well taken. This is why I often refer to myself as progressive. I would like to see greater progress made in matters of economics, that is movement toward elimination of poverty, progress in cleaning up the environment, progress in improvment in peoples' health, progress in education and literacy. And if that takes legislation by Congtresses, or Parliaments, then so be it.

Conservative philosophy, as I understand it says that the above is not the province of Legislatures, but rather the function of the Free Market. I disagree. The purpose of the Free Market, is to make money. The health, education, and welfare of the Citizenry cannot be effectively turned into a profitable business. And it shouldn't be, in my humble opinion.
Jim Krause

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 02:06 PM

John H.

I've always understood that it wasn't so much that you could point to specifics and say "this is Liberal and proves the bias" as it is a feeling of implication by the media that Conservativism = bad, Liberal = Good.

This idea of a penumbra of Liberalism in the media is avidly supported by the same group that decires the idea of a penumbra of implied rights in the Constitution but why look for consistancy.

Studies on the bias of the media that I recall always seemed to contradict one another. Probably methodilogically flawed as a snapshot of a given time makes a lot of assumptions.

The days of the authoratative media figure seems past. Cronkite was probably the last who a lot of people respected. Edward Morrow being a better but earlier example. sadly, the days of the demagogic media figure linger on.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 02:46 PM

Jim Krause:
My brand of conservatism feels that health, education and welfare should be the province of state and local govt since they are WHERE the problems are and would know how to best allocate the available funds. Dealing with local problems at a national level seems mostly to create expensive beauracracy and endless rules which are mainly designed to cover someones ass rather than help the needy.
Whlie there probably should be some oversight to make sure that fraud doesn't take the place of help, it shloud be more in the form of an auditor and less in the form of national control.
I agree that the job of the Free Market is to show a profit. Enlightened self-interest is rare in these days of multi-nationals and giant corporations; where a company takes an interest in ALL the citizens in the area of its location.
Thanks, though for a well thought-out and, above all - brief post.
Skeptic. Well done lad! Another of those flashes of rationality. If we could only increase the frequency...*sigh*

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 08:49 PM

JK

With what product will the health, education, and welfare of the citizenry be maintained if not that created BY the free market?

What better incentive is there to progress in the health field, education, literacy, science and any other endeavor than profit? I doubt that many of us have spent many hours working for no reward. It does not benefit the farmer to muzzle the ox that plows the field.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 02:24 PM

John H,

Conversely, or so studies show, very few people spend a lot of time working only for money. Its usually 5 or 6 on the list of "reasons why I work where I do".

The question goes to the priority of motive. The profit motive sees no problem with doing cost benefits analysis on things like, Do we recall the care or is it cheaper to pay off the lawsuits? What is the minimum level of care we can provide to indigents before the cost of insurance/lawsuits is greater than the cost of providing the care?

Another side of the issue is to consider that while Hoover Dam was built by private companies (who made a profit), its purpose wasn't to make money. Nor were other products of the bureaucracy like the Blue Ridge Parkway or the Panama Canal.

"Senior Management" in any company, can isolate itself behind numbers. Much like running a war from well behind the lines. Its so much easier to send people out to be killed when they're just little colored pins on a map. Or numbers on a spreadsheet?

Or my favorite example of the profit motive at work. Windows Operating System (pick a version). Microsoft products are designed to make money. Sad that mediocrity can do that

troll,

The problem with leaving the issue to local governments is that health care providers are regional, national or international. With commensurate resources. In the good old days, local social controls worked fine. Because the health care providers depended entirely on the local economy. Abuses could be countered with local sanctions (formal or informal). That is no longer possible.

Governments do have a lot of redundancy. Advisedly so. How many stockholders know or are comfortable with the idea of "opportunity costs". While government, at least in Florida, must be open to the public, business can hide their little (or big) mistakes behind a wall of numbers. Most stockholders ask the question "What are the dividends?" Few ask "What would they be if all those opportunity costs and $100 dollar dinners were better controlled".

The Government has to account for every penny. In part as a matter of acting as trustee for public funds, in part because when the didn't have all the controls in place, you go things like the Teapot Dome scandal or the excesses of Tammany Hall

I'm am, btw, deeply concerned that you recognize rationality when you see it. Hardly fits you personality or intellectual abilities

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 03:03 PM

"It does not benefit the farmer to muzzle the ox that plows the field." Oxen work hard and get modest returns. All enterprises have people like that - they aren't ones who get the big rewards, but they are the ones who do most of the work. And there are "farmers" who do in fact attempt to muzzle them, if they can get away with it.

But I've been thinking again about the different meanings a word like liberal can have, and how to distinguish. It's complicated.

In a country like the USA where there isn't a Liberal Party, then using it with a capital latter to mean a political philosoph, and a small letter to mmean a gernal attitude to life works.

But when you've got a Liberal Party, then capital L Liberalism will inevitably mean the policies of that party. So I suppose sticking it in quotes "liberalism" or "Liberalism" to mean the political philosophy is the best you can do, with small l when you're talking non-politically.

But the bottom line is, it's all so fluid that liberal really isn't a word that is very efficient in politucal discourse, and it'd be much better if it was retired.

For example: "Conservative philosophy, as I understand it says that the above is not the province of Legislatures, but rather the function of the Free Market." Actually I'd say that is a good definition of the classical "Liberal" position, which is miles away from the current viewsd of the Liberal Party in England (or even the Liberal Democrat Party), and is pretty illiberal, in the dictionary meaning of that word.

Wouldn't it be better if we just tried to say what it is we disagree with or agree with in the policy/practice if a paper, person or party, rather than trying to tie it up in a package and attach a highly misleading and contentious label?

For example, if I was explaining why I think Mrs Thatcher was to be deplored, I might mention that her political philosophy was "Economic Liberalism", but that's not the reason I deplore her time in office. (It's much more the other way - Mrs Thatcher provides an example of how Economic Liberalism is a badly flawed philosophy.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:05 PM

Skeptic, My major objection to govt. oversight all the way to the top is the seemingly inbred tendency of beauracracies to multiply and form multiple levels with each level siphoning off just a little more money. By the time the dollar reaches the intended recipient, said recipient is lucky if he doesn't OWE the govt. for the priviledge of being helped. Most of the funds wind up going for "administrative costs".
Always remember that the first job of a beaurocrat is to protect his job.
BTW, how strange that YOU should mention personality. I shouldn't have thought you'd be familiar with that.
Oh yes, my wife wanted to know how the adult education class was going. Are you still having problems with long division?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 04:48 PM

troll,

An argument that can be made against any institution. Not just government. In the private sector there isn't any public oversight so its not as apparent and the assumptions and requirements are different.

Certainly there is a tendency of any organization to grow but public and private entities respond to different stimuli. The idea of a bureaucracy growing because that is the nature of the beast is flawed (IMO). As interesting as Dr. Parkinson's studies were, there were a number of other factors at work in the institutions he studied.

The over-abundance of checks and balances, the direct cause of bureaucratic bulge in the public sector, are more properly laid at the feet of the legislature. Knee-jerk response to the demands of special interest groups keeps adding levels of people to regulate programs. The law is written to require that the public entity proves to the public that they are (or aren't) protecting this or that sacred cow. When the government grants money to WHO but adds the caveat that the money can't be used to fund birth control, then the bureaucracy had better develop forms and a structure to monitor same. All it takes, literally, is one letter to a legislator accusing one dollar of going to a legislatively forbidden program and the appropriate bureaucrat had better give up his three hour lunch and get his staff (three times as large as it needs to be, to be sure) to produce proof that such is not happening. Ask Microsoft (as a stockholder) which candidates and issues the corporation gave money to in the last election and they go to court to get a ruling so they don't have to answer. Or require that corporation inform stockholders of what they are paying their CEO's. More lawsuits. And more growth in the public sector to make sure the latest law is followed.

The tendency to build a personal empire isn't limited to the public sector. If anything, its more prevalent in the private sector. Conversely, as the public body is governed by law, prioritizing (or letting things slide, if you will) isn't a real option. It all has to be done because it's the law. In a private company you can decide not to do something and the results are less profit, not a grand jury investigation.

The private sector can add employees in anticipation of some new way to generate profits, or to "gear-up" for a new marketing campaigns. Public sector is more reactive. Another element that plagues the public sector is that many of the functions are "station filled". It doesn't matter if one person or fifty come in to renew car registration, someone has to be there. I've always found it curious that people who complain bitterly about the government "bureaucracy" tolerate far worse service levels from almost any private company. Illustrative an anecdotally, my office used to be next to the Vehicle Registration Counter at the County Admin building. One day I happened to watch a man complaining loudly about all "long wait" (3-5) minutes, the over-staffed bureaucracy and all the rest. The epitome of the indignant taxpayer. I happened see the same man later that day at a McDonald. Waiting patiently for over ten minutes, then finding out his order was wrong, waiting another five minutes and paying, leaving with a cheerful "have a nice day". Maybe at the Registration Counter he was running late. Maybe not.

The nice lady who asked about my progress in school wasn't your lovely wife. She was one of your "special friends". You know, like when you have long arguments with Ivan the Terrible or swapping cake recipes with Maire Antoinette.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

ps: There is no need to be civil. It won't work anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 05:37 PM

Since they sold off British Rail the amount of public subsidy has gone through the roof, the quality of service has gone through the floor, and the fares have skyrocketed, and the timetables are a laughing stock, and the trains are filthy. And the shareholders are doing very nicely indeed, as are the executives.

You've even got Conservatives calling for re-nationalisation. The only reason the "Labour" Government doesn't do it is because it thinks that, if it renationalised, the Government would be having to carry the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 05:38 PM

Since they sold off British Rail the amount of public subsidy has gone through the roof, the quality of service has gone through the floor, the fares have skyrocketed, and the timetables are a laughing stock, and the trains are filthy. And the shareholders are doing very nicely indeed, as are the executives.

You've even got Conservatives calling for re-nationalisation. The only reason the "Labour" Government doesn't do it is because it thinks that, if it renationalised, the Government would be having to carry the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 09:06 PM

Ah yes. Marie Antoinettes cake recipe.
"Let them eat cake." she said.
If it was made from the recipe she gave me, it's no damned wonder the French revolted!

troll

Oh,I don't argue with Ivan. Ever.

Happy Solstice,

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 10:23 AM

McGrath,

When we tried to create a semi-public rail system in the US (called AmTrak), the privately owned railroads cheerfully sold the unprofitable passenger lines and poorly maintained tracks to the new corporation and kept the profitable freight lines (that had been subsidizing passenger trains). And then Congress puzzled over why AmTrak kept not making money. Why they had to poor money into upgrading and repairing and why, as services and schedules kept getting cut (due to budget cuts) rider ship declined.

Conversely, on the private side, some years ago (after the bureaucracy finally got some control over medicare so hospitals couldn't pad bills as easily) one of the major private hospital ownership companies collected all their hospitals that weren't making much money, or losing money, and spun off another corporation of doubtful value. They used the pension fund of the employees in the new corporation to pay the old parent company for their interest in the new company.

Fortunately they got caught. Strangely the liberal media that covered the failure of AmTrak, (and blamed the Liberals for it, barely mention the second incident.

Or when the liberals proposed and passed the highly controversial (at the time) minimum wage increase, the liberal press failed to mention that there was 125 billion included in tax breaks and so on for corporations

Then we come to the latest "evidence" of the liberal media conspiracy. Never mind that the vast majority of the media outlets arfe run by fairly conservative and Conservative men and women, or that the Boards are dominated by same. Instead, lets find/manufacture clear evidence of liberal bias. Or at least claim it exists.

But why? One reasonable answer is that if you characterize the press as a liberal conspiracy, you don't have to answer the charges. Just fall back on "There they go again". If you can't win on the facts, baffle them with bullshit.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

troll, only you would have a discussion with a hallucination about a recipe whose antecedents have no basis in fact. Sorry to, for of course you don't argue with Ivan as you tend to support his methods of government, social interaction and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 12:09 PM

Skeptic. As usual you are only partially correct. While I may agree with Ivan on certain portions of his theories of government,etc, the MAIN reason I don't argue with him is that when people argue with him, he gets PISSED.
Ivan's a real sweetheart but you wouldn't like him when he's angry.
He breaks things.
Re: your defense of the Media; there you go again.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 12:47 PM

troll, Even if you cqan't keep your arguements comphrehensible, at least keep track of your own hallucinations.

There I go again? I expected better. (A little better)

Anyway, I'm OOT for the weekend.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John