Media "Control" of the Elections?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Hmm, well, personally I would prefer completely unbiased media either way. You know news sources that you can actually trust...

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:Hmm, well, personally I would prefer completely unbiased media either way. You know news sources that you can actually trust...
Do you know such a person? Take that American paragon of objective journalism Walter Cronkite. He declared the Vietnam war lost exactly when the Communist thought it was lost too. Only they thought they had lost it.

Better to know the biases than to pretend there is no bias.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

If you're informed to some minimum and have some critical thought, you can know who's biased regardless what the amplitude of bias is for some news outlet. Given that, it's better to have news reported unclouded by shameless bias. That windowdressing is absolutely useless. It's nothing but a waste of time for the viewer. Ditch the hairpieces and over the top mannerisms and just spill the info beans. Newspeople should be held by the balls by the public as mercilessly as politicians.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Betruger wrote:If you're informed to some minimum and have some critical thought, you can know who's biased regardless what the amplitude of bias is for some news outlet. Given that, it's better to have news reported unclouded by shameless bias. That windowdressing is absolutely useless. It's nothing but a waste of time for the viewer. Ditch the hairpieces and over the top mannerisms and just spill the info beans. Newspeople should be held by the balls by the public as mercilessly as politicians.
Fox News is growing and the other networks are shrinking.

And the internet is getting more eyeballs.

We do have them by the balls. But it may be too late. They may never get up to what they used to be again.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Hey, I was not the one who started a thread about the medias control of the election(s).
I am well aware of the bias of the media and what direction each of them comes from. It is pretty obvious in all cases anyway.
I was just simply stating, that IDEALLY they would all be unbiased and that this would make life a lot easier and politics a lot more fair.
Dont you think?
Besides, I want to point out that the previous president was a conservative and he was elected twice. So the power of the media can go both ways I guess (as in Fox versus ABC).
Anyway, I dont like it either way. Give me my news without some prechewed and easy digestable opinions.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:I find it absuletely hillarious, that the republican candidate for vice president, Sarah Palin is now working for the oh so unbiased Fox news...
I guess that influence can go both way, cant it?

Fox news isn't unbiased. "It's fair and Balanced." That's not the same thing. Fox news allows opposition people to come on it's shows and make their case.

To sum it up, it means that Fox News personalities ADMIT they have a political persuasion, but are willing to let people who disagree with them have a fair chance to speak. The other networks DO NOT DO THIS!

Every other network would have you believe that their personnel are all objective, when in fact they are foaming at the mouth EXTREME Liberals who vote (and are married to, related to, work for, went to school with, go to partys with) DEMOCRATS! Read the other articles i've posted in this thread. The media and the Democrats are truly incestuous, and are truly (genetically) a family.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:Hey, I was not the one who started a thread about the medias control of the election(s).
I am well aware of the bias of the media and what direction each of them comes from. It is pretty obvious in all cases anyway.
I was just simply stating, that IDEALLY they would all be unbiased and that this would make life a lot easier and politics a lot more fair.
Dont you think?
Besides, I want to point out that the previous president was a conservative and he was elected twice. So the power of the media can go both ways I guess (as in Fox versus ABC).
Anyway, I dont like it either way. Give me my news without some prechewed and easy digestable opinions.
The previous president was NOT a conservative. He made conservatives grit their teeth with anger because he campaigned as a conservative but spent money and expanded government programs like the worst big spending Liberal since LBJ.

The conservative movement took the blame because everyone in the Media kept repeating Bush was a conservative, and nobody would point out that what Bush was doing in many cases was the very opposite of conservatism.

In any case, my point has been all along that the media probably modify every election in the country by between 5% and 10%. If they weren't skewing the polls through their biased reporting, it is doubtful that a Democrat could win election in the US anywhere outside of New York and San Francisco.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:Hmm, well, personally I would prefer completely unbiased media either way. You know news sources that you can actually trust...
I think that's impossible. In the absence of truly objective people, I would prefer that the News people announce their political preferences so people can understand they are on one side or the other. I have long said that News anchors should be required to have a "(D)" or "(R)" next to their name the same way they do with Politicians. When people started noticing that everyone who isn't on Fox news always has a "(D)" next to their name, then they would get the idea of how things really work in the Newsrooms of America.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I would prefer that the News people announce their political preferences so people can understand they are on one side or the other.
I like that thought!

One more thing and that is an honest question (because I dont know):
Do Kerry, or Al Gore have a show on ABC, Cnn, etc?
Is there a former Dem candidate with a show on Fox (in regards to "It's fair and Balanced")?

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
I would prefer that the News people announce their political preferences so people can understand they are on one side or the other.
I like that thought!

One more thing and that is an honest question (because I dont know):
Do Kerry, or Al Gore have a show on ABC, Cnn, etc?
Is there a former Dem candidate with a show on Fox (in regards to "It's fair and Balanced")?
Chris Mathews is on NBC I think. He was former assistant to Democrat Tip O'neil, idiot liberal speaker of the house in the 1980s.

Chris Cuomo does a show on ABC (I think). He's the Son of Mario Cuomo, former Democrat Governor of New York.

Cokie Roberts is the Daughter of a Democrat Senator. She does shows on ABC.

I presume you are asking about this in the context of Mike Huckabees show on Fox ?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I presume you are asking about this in the context of Mike Huckabees show on Fox ?
Nope, I was referring to Sarah Palin's future show on Fox, actually.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jan/1 ... ahoo_feeds
The former Republican vice presidential candidate will do political commentary for Fox News and be occasional host of "Real Americans," described as inspirational tales of ordinary citizens overcoming setbacks.
I guess we will finally meet "Bill the plumber" and "Joe sixpack" ;)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
I presume you are asking about this in the context of Mike Huckabees show on Fox ?
Nope, I was referring to Sarah Palin's future show on Fox, actually.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jan/1 ... ahoo_feeds
The former Republican vice presidential candidate will do political commentary for Fox News and be occasional host of "Real Americans," described as inspirational tales of ordinary citizens overcoming setbacks.
I guess we will finally meet "Bill the plumber" and "Joe sixpack" ;)


I haven't looked at the details of this, but I recall reading something to the effect that it's not going to be a regular show like O'reilly, or Hannity, etc. As far as I know it's going to be an occasional thing. Since I don't watch any of the news programs and instead get my news off the internet, I only pay attention to news I find interesting.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Hmm, well, personally I would prefer completely unbiased media either way. You know news sources that you can actually trust...
Bias is inherent in the choices of what to cover and the words used to describe what is covered. It would be a fine razor indeed that could cut precisely down the middle.

Trust is something else. I'd settle for sources that are honest, both in terms of factual accuracy and their own prejudices. Too much of our media pretend to be objective.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Since I don't watch any of the news programs and instead get my news off the internet,
TV news is just too low-bandwidth for me. I can absorb data much faster reading it over the Net that I can hearing it spoken on TV.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Same here, but that does not mean the masses do so and I am just saying it again: I am not the one who started this thread.

Post Reply