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?