The amazing thing is that most ditto-heads have no idea of what a "liberal" media would look like. Self described liberals HATE the established media outlets. They even hate most products from hollywood for being insipid and all-around dumb.
What we ned is a program to demonstrate what a REAL liberal media would look like. I propose a show called "that liberal show" where liberals would vociferously attack conservatives for any reason despite their nature to the contrary. In effect, it would be the anti-Rush.
No such show or media outlet exists. Al Franken is trying to start a liberal radio network. Though, his would be thougtful and progressive, not like "that liberal show". Perhaps they could include a token program to show what a vicious liberal media would really look like.
And calling FOX news centrist is just funny, afterall the only openly liberal (and a poor one at that) in that whole organization is Colmes"
He's actually the best "liberal talking head" in television today, as he is able to make convincing arguments without becoming another human cartoon like...
The best "liberal" talking head is Michael Kinsley. Though, they don't allow him on telivision anymore. He's too convincing.
It's worth noting that Fox presents a fair number of NPR correspondents and former hosts. This doesn't mean they have liberals. Liberals hate those particular correspondents. It means NPR is Fair and Balanced.
The fact that they do 2 and 3 minute stories instead of 10 and 15 second stories is just a bonus. The fact that people don't shout over each other on NPR is a bonus as well.
The LA Times was in Arkansas investigating "Troopergate" before David Brock. David Brock published first because he wasn't as concerned with 'fact checking' at the time.
The talking heads only read whats written on the script. The editor controls that.
The difference would be commentary shows. CNN commentators are NOT liberals by any stretch of the imagination. Larry King is often considered liberal, but his job is to interview guests.
It's free trade's fault that all our jobs are gradually being shipped to captive labor pools. People in southern countries are just as smart as we are. They just lack the democracy and freedom necessary to bargain for human rights and a fair piece of the pie.
Stop free trade NOW. It is enslaving the US worker.
BTW, there is virtually NO difference between Democrats and Republicans on trade policy. Nader was right, they are both the same. What the country needs is a hybrid party with more conservative social policies, progressive tax policies, stringent regulatory policies (to establish ethical rules of business conduct) and protectionist trade policies. It's the perfect marriage between good ole boys and practical progressives (though not libertarians).
It got Bush elected didn't it. It got Republicans in control of all three branches of government. Give yourselves credit, it's been pretty fucking successful.
Facts have never gotten in the way of conservative ideology.
Steps in Conservative discourse methodology: 1) Conclude 2) Ignore contrary evidence. Label it liberal. 3) Demonize anyone who holds contrary views. 4) Refuse to LISTEN to anything that is contrary to your viewpoint. 5) Cover your ears and yell LALALALLALALA, I CANT HEAR YOU. 6) Take over the media. 7) Label your own media as having a "liberal bias". 8) Relish the fact that anything that is negative to your viewpoint will now be considered "liberal bias" despite the fact that big corporations own it.
It's unfair to call Bryant Gumbel a house n****r. He does pretty good reporting. After all, he's primarily a sports journalist. How liberal or conservative can you be (SportsCenter Rush aside).
It's also unfair to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom n*****r. Clarence Thomas doesn't have have half the wit or compassion as Uncle Tom. Uncle Tom refused to lay a hand against his fellow man on the word of his master. He ultimately died for it. Uncle Thomas is ever so willing;-)
You're smoking crack right??? Many words could describe public school teachers, powerfull isn't one of them.
I don't know how anyone got the idea that teachers who are paid dick are so powerful. How they master the agenda. Lawyers, well they have a lot of power due to free legal representation. Teachers are pretty powerless.
The things that teachers advocate is smaller class sizes and better pay. Yeah, conservatives will crowe about how top executives have to be paid millions to do their jobs (which consist of shmoozing, backstabbing and golf) but school teachers in the trenches don't need financial incentives.
Actually, teachers don't get in the trade for money. The money sucks!!!! They get into it because THEY CARE!!!!!
Yes, teachers are against vouchers. They are against taking funds for EVERYBODY and redistributing them for a few. If private schools want public funds, they can play by the same rules. That is they have to take EVERYBODY and it's hard to kick anybody out (you'll find teachers willing advocates of laws that help them get rid of problem children).
So please everybody, stop with the teacher bashing!!!!!
Yeah, the liberal bias in Lord of the Rings, Matrix: Revolutions, Episode 2, Bridges of Madison County, Freddy vs Jason, Charlies Angels, Toy Story, Spiderman, Oceans Eleven, Hulk and Elf are absolutely horrible.
Puh-Lease!!!!!!
There are actually films out there that present liberal topics in a positive viewpoint. There are plenty that present conservatives positively as well.
Ahh, they are anti-family right. Well duhhhhh... They don't give a shit about your family. And next time you flip channels just check who owns those media outlets. They aren't jobless pinko lefto hippies. They're rich conservatives.
Any well spoken and researched opinion is certainly welcome. I would listen to William F Buckley any day of the week (even through is stammering). Buckley is dignified and courteous.
At the end of the day, I disagree with him. I'm more of a Michael Kinsley guy. But there does seem to be a big difference in attitude and demeanor. Being loud and obnoxious gets ratings. Being unfair and insulting gets ratings.
The media outlet that is most varied, most in depth is NPR. They get slammed as being a "left-wing" government subsidy. Some people believe that anyone who presents ANY viewpoint contrary to your own is biased. The measure of good journalism is presenting ALL sides of the story as completely as possible.
BTW, a lot of liberals accuse NPR of being right-wing because of a few reporters. I think having variety on staff is good, Nader liberals all the way through Buchannan Nazis. I'll sort it out for myself thank you. And I'm happy to hear views that don't affirm my existing viewpoints especially if they're truthful, accurate, courteous and respectful. I wish others would find a same perspective.
Well actually there ARE some CONSERVATIVE media outlets. Richard Mellon Scaife's paper, the Pittsburgh Gazette. Reverend Moon's (yes of moonie fame) paper the Washington Times. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and virtually all the analysts on CNN as well as virtually all editorial page writers and almost all the "analyst" hosts. Add to that most of talk radio especially Laura (nudie picture, mother hating) Schlessinger.
The biggest secret is that conservative think tanks and corporate PR departments are doing a LOT of the reporting these days. How, it's very simple. They write articles and fax them into media outlets with an unrestricted license. Then lazy reporters cut and paste them into stories without doing any research. It's quick and easy, someone else pays to write the copy. If it sells papers, who gives a shit????
I give a shit, and I think it sucks. I also think it sucks when the media pats itself on the back for collectively labelling itself "liberal". How convenient. Meanwhile, Fox is "fair and balanced" even though it's loaded with staffers from National Review, Weekly Standard, and the first Bush administration.
When the newsmedia speaks about the 1994 "assault weapons ban" and shows a picture of a man firing a machine gun, thats a grotesque distortion of the realities with that law, and clearly demonstrates the agenda of the media that is unwilling to report factually about politcs, the law, or events that occur.
It demonstrates an agenda of sensationalizing stories in order to sell advertising. There is nothing either conservative or liberal about that. It's just business.
It is NOT good journalism. The next time you criticize Walter Cronkite, remember that journalism is his bias.
Al Franken is a satirist. What is truly disturbing about his book is the "funny guy" does much better research than most of the news media.
Everyone has been happy to engage in personal attacks against Franken. What they haven't done is challenge his material. Why, because conservatives aren't interested in facts.
Unlike some (Bill O'Reilly) Al doesn't claim to be unbaised. I wouldn't say that his book "debunks" the myth of liberal media bias. But it does explain why it's a stupid thing to say in the first place.
The media is a business. They look out for their bottom line. I keep hearing about one poll where 80% of reporters voted for Clinton. Who gives a shit. They don't decide whats printed.
The owners and editors decide what is printed. They do what is in their own best interest. They have been a big friend to Bush since Bush has been a friend to them. The FCC de-regulation was a BIG help. Even better help was a war. WAR = Ratings!!!!!!
As you pan through the radio spectrum, you'll have a hard time finding any of those pinko liberals they love to bitch about. Search the number one news network, Fox any liberals their. Hardly. How about the major networks. The only one that hasn't sold old to being a corporate conservative shill is CBS.
The most telling fact of a liberal media myth is that real liberals HATE the media. You would think they would be pleased with the New York Times. Check out some REAL lefty liberal sites like Buzzflash.com and OpEdnews.com and my favorite DailyHowler.com. They hate the media even more than "conservatives" do.
As Al Franken said. Asking whether the media is liberal or conservative is like asking if Al Queda uses too much oil in their Hummus. The question really doesn't apply. They have their own agenda and it doesn't have SHIT to do ideology.
At the end of the day, their bias is revealed in accepting news articles written by third parties and think tanks. They don't sufficiently research their content. They go to press before they've checked their facts just to get scoops. They write stories to sell advertising.
The basic gist is that the media has lower standards for content. That is their bias, sloppy, cheap, profitable.
The media butters it's own bread. They've shilled Bush partially because of FCC deregulation and partially because war is good business for the media.
Oh yea, and the fact that the guys who call the shots at the media conglomerates vote for Bush is probably relevant as well. A reporter can write whatever he likes, it won't get printed unless the editor approves.
Most people I know didn't Episode I. Far more people liked Episode II. A similiar number didn't like "Return of the Jedi". And I do agree that Jar-Jar was annoying in episode I. C3P0 was equally annoying in Episode II.
My ultimate take is that people see a film they like and get their own ideas about what should happen before or after. Too often we judge on what we want instead of the story that the writer or director had in mind.
Everyone is perfectly free too like or dislike Episode I & II. They are equally free to like or dislike "Revolutions". However, I find it very disengenous to shower someone with praise for their original vision and subsequently call them an idiot for concluding the story in a way that doesn't satisfy you.
I absoluetly loved "Elizabeth". However, most of my friends didn't care for it. I take it that it was because it lacked action and contained a lot of political drama. I am keenly interested in politics.
Episode 1 & 2 are largely about politics. It's about the method that false icon uses to seduce the people into willingly giving up their freedoms. It is in fact, a good lesson that we should all heed given the nature of our current president and his attorney general. They too are asking us to give up our freedom for our "security". They too have formed an unholy alliance with both business and religion.
Ultimately, it's a different tale then the bang, bang, shoot-em-up run from the guy in the black hat story in Star Wars (4). There is absoluetly NOTHING unique about it except it has space ships instead of wagons horses and wagons.
The old wizzened mentor. The fallen father and the prodigal son. These are all old stories repackaged as most stories are. If Lucas is guilty of one thing, it's trying to raise his story to a higher level of significance. I'm sorry if it didn't fit your mold.
Some would speculate also that Saurons eye was turned outwards towards his war efforts. He might have assumed that the ring was in Minas Tirith.
Then again, this could be a lesson about purity. Frodo is portrayed as a virtuous simple creature. Indeed, this is the defining feature of most hobbits. They have no ambition, only a reverence for simple pleasures.
Samwise Gamgees is in a a way, the purest creature in Middle Earth. He has no personal ambition beyond serving Frodo. He doesn't even care about the ring beyond the context of Frodo. The complete lack of any ambition or desire is perhaps the way to nullify the rings power.
In the Prancing Pony, Frodo was curious about the spirit world and actively looked. That is when the eye noticed him. Frodo in a way used it's power of farsight.
The question certainly is a profound one. This is proof that even Tolkien can have internal contradictions.
You're assuming that you could do as well as Peter Jackson. The guy really has a lot on his mind.
Your'e also assuming a studio would go for 6 movies. Actually, Peter Jackson PITCHED it as two. The studio execs told him to do three.
We will forgive Peter Jackson for being a good director and knowing how to put together a movie that will sell AND is a very good adaptation. As I write, "Queen of the Dammed" is playing on TV. If you want to bitch about a bad adaptation, theres a good start.
We will futher forgive JRR Tolkien for knowing dick about movies. His failure to write a decent screen play instead of an epic is truly dissapointing.
Slashdot Mirror
Normal americans wouldn't have a problem with a reincarnated Hitler. As long as they have TV, plenty of food, etc. most of them will be happy.
Thats unfair and out of line.
Hitler was far too competent. Try Moussalini.
The amazing thing is that most ditto-heads have no idea of what a "liberal" media would look like. Self described liberals HATE the established media outlets. They even hate most products from hollywood for being insipid and all-around dumb.
What we ned is a program to demonstrate what a REAL liberal media would look like. I propose a show called "that liberal show" where liberals would vociferously attack conservatives for any reason despite their nature to the contrary. In effect, it would be the anti-Rush.
No such show or media outlet exists. Al Franken is trying to start a liberal radio network. Though, his would be thougtful and progressive, not like "that liberal show". Perhaps they could include a token program to show what a vicious liberal media would really look like.
And calling FOX news centrist is just funny, afterall the only openly liberal (and a poor one at that) in that whole organization is Colmes"
...
He's actually the best "liberal talking head" in television today, as he is able to make convincing arguments without becoming another human cartoon like
The best "liberal" talking head is Michael Kinsley. Though, they don't allow him on telivision anymore. He's too convincing.
Strange, does that mean Dubaya has Alzheimers too???? ;-)
It's worth noting that Fox presents a fair number of NPR correspondents and former hosts. This doesn't mean they have liberals. Liberals hate those particular correspondents. It means NPR is Fair and Balanced.
The fact that they do 2 and 3 minute stories instead of 10 and 15 second stories is just a bonus. The fact that people don't shout over each other on NPR is a bonus as well.
The LA Times was in Arkansas investigating "Troopergate" before David Brock. David Brock published first because he wasn't as concerned with 'fact checking' at the time.
The difference is the liberal viewpoint comes across as "unbiased" news, while the conservative point comes across as a conservative viewpoint.
No, conservative media comes from a "Fair and Balanced" viewpoint.
The talking heads only read whats written on the script. The editor controls that.
The difference would be commentary shows. CNN commentators are NOT liberals by any stretch of the imagination. Larry King is often considered liberal, but his job is to interview guests.
It's free trade's fault that all our jobs are gradually being shipped to captive labor pools. People in southern countries are just as smart as we are. They just lack the democracy and freedom necessary to bargain for human rights and a fair piece of the pie.
Stop free trade NOW. It is enslaving the US worker.
BTW, there is virtually NO difference between Democrats and Republicans on trade policy. Nader was right, they are both the same. What the country needs is a hybrid party with more conservative social policies, progressive tax policies, stringent regulatory policies (to establish ethical rules of business conduct) and protectionist trade policies. It's the perfect marriage between good ole boys and practical progressives (though not libertarians).
It got Bush elected didn't it. It got Republicans in control of all three branches of government. Give yourselves credit, it's been pretty fucking successful.
Facts have never gotten in the way of conservative ideology.
Steps in Conservative discourse methodology:
1) Conclude
2) Ignore contrary evidence. Label it liberal.
3) Demonize anyone who holds contrary views.
4) Refuse to LISTEN to anything that is contrary to your viewpoint.
5) Cover your ears and yell LALALALLALALA, I CANT HEAR YOU.
6) Take over the media.
7) Label your own media as having a "liberal bias".
8) Relish the fact that anything that is negative to your viewpoint will now be considered "liberal bias" despite the fact that big corporations own it.
It's unfair to call Bryant Gumbel a house n****r. He does pretty good reporting. After all, he's primarily a sports journalist. How liberal or conservative can you be (SportsCenter Rush aside).
;-)
It's also unfair to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom n*****r. Clarence Thomas doesn't have have half the wit or compassion as Uncle Tom. Uncle Tom refused to lay a hand against his fellow man on the word of his master. He ultimately died for it. Uncle Thomas is ever so willing
ultra-powerful teacher's unions
You're smoking crack right??? Many words could describe public school teachers, powerfull isn't one of them.
I don't know how anyone got the idea that teachers who are paid dick are so powerful. How they master the agenda. Lawyers, well they have a lot of power due to free legal representation. Teachers are pretty powerless.
The things that teachers advocate is smaller class sizes and better pay. Yeah, conservatives will crowe about how top executives have to be paid millions to do their jobs (which consist of shmoozing, backstabbing and golf) but school teachers in the trenches don't need financial incentives.
Actually, teachers don't get in the trade for money. The money sucks!!!! They get into it because THEY CARE!!!!!
Yes, teachers are against vouchers. They are against taking funds for EVERYBODY and redistributing them for a few. If private schools want public funds, they can play by the same rules. That is they have to take EVERYBODY and it's hard to kick anybody out (you'll find teachers willing advocates of laws that help them get rid of problem children).
So please everybody, stop with the teacher bashing!!!!!
Yeah, the liberal bias in Lord of the Rings, Matrix: Revolutions, Episode 2, Bridges of Madison County, Freddy vs Jason, Charlies Angels, Toy Story, Spiderman, Oceans Eleven, Hulk and Elf are absolutely horrible.
Puh-Lease!!!!!!
There are actually films out there that present liberal topics in a positive viewpoint. There are plenty that present conservatives positively as well.
Ahh, they are anti-family right. Well duhhhhh... They don't give a shit about your family. And next time you flip channels just check who owns those media outlets. They aren't jobless pinko lefto hippies. They're rich conservatives.
Any well spoken and researched opinion is certainly welcome. I would listen to William F Buckley any day of the week (even through is stammering). Buckley is dignified and courteous.
At the end of the day, I disagree with him. I'm more of a Michael Kinsley guy. But there does seem to be a big difference in attitude and demeanor. Being loud and obnoxious gets ratings. Being unfair and insulting gets ratings.
The media outlet that is most varied, most in depth is NPR. They get slammed as being a "left-wing" government subsidy. Some people believe that anyone who presents ANY viewpoint contrary to your own is biased. The measure of good journalism is presenting ALL sides of the story as completely as possible.
BTW, a lot of liberals accuse NPR of being right-wing because of a few reporters. I think having variety on staff is good, Nader liberals all the way through Buchannan Nazis. I'll sort it out for myself thank you. And I'm happy to hear views that don't affirm my existing viewpoints especially if they're truthful, accurate, courteous and respectful. I wish others would find a same perspective.
Well actually there ARE some CONSERVATIVE media outlets. Richard Mellon Scaife's paper, the Pittsburgh Gazette. Reverend Moon's (yes of moonie fame) paper the Washington Times. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and virtually all the analysts on CNN as well as virtually all editorial page writers and almost all the "analyst" hosts. Add to that most of talk radio especially Laura (nudie picture, mother hating) Schlessinger.
The biggest secret is that conservative think tanks and corporate PR departments are doing a LOT of the reporting these days. How, it's very simple. They write articles and fax them into media outlets with an unrestricted license. Then lazy reporters cut and paste them into stories without doing any research. It's quick and easy, someone else pays to write the copy. If it sells papers, who gives a shit????
I give a shit, and I think it sucks. I also think it sucks when the media pats itself on the back for collectively labelling itself "liberal". How convenient. Meanwhile, Fox is "fair and balanced" even though it's loaded with staffers from National Review, Weekly Standard, and the first Bush administration.
Fair and Balanced, yeah right.
When the newsmedia speaks about the 1994 "assault weapons ban" and shows a picture of a man firing a machine gun, thats a grotesque distortion of the realities with that law, and clearly demonstrates the agenda of the media that is unwilling to report factually about politcs, the law, or events that occur.
It demonstrates an agenda of sensationalizing stories in order to sell advertising. There is nothing either conservative or liberal about that. It's just business.
It is NOT good journalism. The next time you criticize Walter Cronkite, remember that journalism is his bias.
Al Franken is a satirist. What is truly disturbing about his book is the "funny guy" does much better research than most of the news media.
Everyone has been happy to engage in personal attacks against Franken. What they haven't done is challenge his material. Why, because conservatives aren't interested in facts.
Unlike some (Bill O'Reilly) Al doesn't claim to be unbaised. I wouldn't say that his book "debunks" the myth of liberal media bias. But it does explain why it's a stupid thing to say in the first place.
The media is a business. They look out for their bottom line. I keep hearing about one poll where 80% of reporters voted for Clinton. Who gives a shit. They don't decide whats printed.
The owners and editors decide what is printed. They do what is in their own best interest. They have been a big friend to Bush since Bush has been a friend to them. The FCC de-regulation was a BIG help. Even better help was a war. WAR = Ratings!!!!!!
As you pan through the radio spectrum, you'll have a hard time finding any of those pinko liberals they love to bitch about. Search the number one news network, Fox any liberals their. Hardly. How about the major networks. The only one that hasn't sold old to being a corporate conservative shill is CBS.
The most telling fact of a liberal media myth is that real liberals HATE the media. You would think they would be pleased with the New York Times. Check out some REAL lefty liberal sites like Buzzflash.com and OpEdnews.com and my favorite DailyHowler.com. They hate the media even more than "conservatives" do.
As Al Franken said. Asking whether the media is liberal or conservative is like asking if Al Queda uses too much oil in their Hummus. The question really doesn't apply. They have their own agenda and it doesn't have SHIT to do ideology.
At the end of the day, their bias is revealed in accepting news articles written by third parties and think tanks. They don't sufficiently research their content. They go to press before they've checked their facts just to get scoops. They write stories to sell advertising.
The basic gist is that the media has lower standards for content. That is their bias, sloppy, cheap, profitable.
The media butters it's own bread. They've shilled Bush partially because of FCC deregulation and partially because war is good business for the media.
Oh yea, and the fact that the guys who call the shots at the media conglomerates vote for Bush is probably relevant as well. A reporter can write whatever he likes, it won't get printed unless the editor approves.
Technology should serve mankind, not the other way around.
I know who my media serves, they serve themselves.
China's media serves the masters of the state. Whether they are benevolent or malevolent masters is a matter of debate.
Agreed, Sauron and the Wizards were equal. But there were five wizards and just one Sauron.
Most people I know didn't Episode I. Far more people liked Episode II. A similiar number didn't like "Return of the Jedi". And I do agree that Jar-Jar was annoying in episode I. C3P0 was equally annoying in Episode II.
My ultimate take is that people see a film they like and get their own ideas about what should happen before or after. Too often we judge on what we want instead of the story that the writer or director had in mind.
Everyone is perfectly free too like or dislike Episode I & II. They are equally free to like or dislike "Revolutions". However, I find it very disengenous to shower someone with praise for their original vision and subsequently call them an idiot for concluding the story in a way that doesn't satisfy you.
I absoluetly loved "Elizabeth". However, most of my friends didn't care for it. I take it that it was because it lacked action and contained a lot of political drama. I am keenly interested in politics.
Episode 1 & 2 are largely about politics. It's about the method that false icon uses to seduce the people into willingly giving up their freedoms. It is in fact, a good lesson that we should all heed given the nature of our current president and his attorney general. They too are asking us to give up our freedom for our "security". They too have formed an unholy alliance with both business and religion.
Ultimately, it's a different tale then the bang, bang, shoot-em-up run from the guy in the black hat story in Star Wars (4). There is absoluetly NOTHING unique about it except it has space ships instead of wagons horses and wagons.
The old wizzened mentor. The fallen father and the prodigal son. These are all old stories repackaged as most stories are. If Lucas is guilty of one thing, it's trying to raise his story to a higher level of significance. I'm sorry if it didn't fit your mold.
Some would speculate also that Saurons eye was turned outwards towards his war efforts. He might have assumed that the ring was in Minas Tirith.
Then again, this could be a lesson about purity. Frodo is portrayed as a virtuous simple creature. Indeed, this is the defining feature of most hobbits. They have no ambition, only a reverence for simple pleasures.
Samwise Gamgees is in a a way, the purest creature in Middle Earth. He has no personal ambition beyond serving Frodo. He doesn't even care about the ring beyond the context of Frodo. The complete lack of any ambition or desire is perhaps the way to nullify the rings power.
In the Prancing Pony, Frodo was curious about the spirit world and actively looked. That is when the eye noticed him. Frodo in a way used it's power of farsight.
The question certainly is a profound one. This is proof that even Tolkien can have internal contradictions.
You're assuming that you could do as well as Peter Jackson. The guy really has a lot on his mind.
Your'e also assuming a studio would go for 6 movies. Actually, Peter Jackson PITCHED it as two. The studio execs told him to do three.
We will forgive Peter Jackson for being a good director and knowing how to put together a movie that will sell AND is a very good adaptation. As I write, "Queen of the Dammed" is playing on TV. If you want to bitch about a bad adaptation, theres a good start.
We will futher forgive JRR Tolkien for knowing dick about movies. His failure to write a decent screen play instead of an epic is truly dissapointing.