Thread: What the Media Would Look Like If It Were Actually Liberal

No, this is what truly liberal media looks like:

In the immortal words of Megatron in Transformers: The Movie, Herman Cain’s speech at CPAC really is bad comedy. As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.

When race minstrelsy was America’s most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the “black” coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow. Adding insult to injury, in a truly perverse and twisted example of the power of American white supremacy black vaudevillians would often pretend to be white in order to denigrate black people for the pleasures of the white gaze.

Herman Cain–an ironic name if ever, and one more suited to a tragic figure in a Harlem Renaissance era novella–is not “blackening twice” as some race minstrels chose to do.

...

We always need a monkey in the window, for he/she reminds us of our humanity while simultaneously reinforcing a sense of our own superiority. Sadly, there are always folks who are willing to play that role because it pays so well.

Black History Month is Herman Cain Playing the Race Minstrel for CPAC SpeakEasy

From the very same alternet site.

Originally Posted by ConLib

If there were a truly liberal media, we would all know exactly where we stand in the world,

Really? Liberals are champions of equivocation as shown on this forum daily. Liberals cannot even tell which culture, Christian or Muslim, a 14 year old is more likely to be whipped to death for having an affair.

Originally Posted by ConLib

exactly what are our problems

Other than it is all Bush's fault Liberals have no idea other than perhaps not enough government.

Originally Posted by ConLib

and get some idea of what could be done to affect these problems.

More government. I heard a news broadcast the other day of an interviewer looking far and wide for support in Eqypt for Obama's help. No one said anything positive. The reporter concluded that "on the ground" people are relieved that Obama is supporting their movement even though none of the people he interviewed said anything remotely like that. If anything, they said Obama was irrelevant and changed his support from one week to the other.

Originally Posted by ConLib

A liberal media would not make us feel good all the time, but would poke at us and challenge us to be better parents, better neighbors, better people.

On the contrary, with the self esteem movement and multiculturalism, making us feel good all the time is EXACTLY what you'd expect from a Liberal media - other than to feel guilty that we have a higher life style than other people in the world.

Originally Posted by ConLib

If there were a truly liberal media, we would all know exactly where we stand in the world, exactly what are our problems and get some idea of what could be done to affect these problems. ...
A liberal media would not make us feel good all the time, but would poke at us and challenge us to be better parents, better neighbors, better people.

Sounds like a church newsletter to me.

My, someone who thinks a rebuttal is a couple of images they found, one quoting from a fantasy movie, and of course, the one that must always bash liberals, regardless of the topic, and the last one that even on topic, but not much in the way of any constructive pro or con.

How about someone with even an intelligent rebuttal?

Originally Posted by ConLib

How about someone with even an intelligent rebuttal?

Okay... great idea!

You rebut and defend the racism on this liberal site of yours.

My browser will not let me get near the link. Malware...

Could just be poorly formed code to peek at who the heck is visiting the site.

Originally Posted by ConLib

The show might lead with pictures of starving children all over the world, so that while you sat down to breakfast, you’d be reminded of just how lucky you were to have been born in the U.S., and how others are still very much in need.

Viewers would be encouraged to send in at least some of their morning latte money to feed a baby for a week. Each morning, the number of children who had been moved out of poverty would also be shown. If there were truly a liberal media, that number would be growing, daily, by leaps and bounds.

You would see pictures of the war -- really horrible, tragic pictures, showing not just death, but the maiming, the suffering, the devastation to innocents we currently think of solely as “collateral damage.” Each day, the grievances of both sides would be fully aired.

None of that is news, though. What's being described would quite possibly be the worst "news" network ever created, throwing aside the spreading of unbiased information in favor of social causes appealing to emotion.

Honestly, I'd picture a network that showed how women not shaving their legs or armpits is extremely healthy, and how owning a dog and being a vegetarian is the best thing imaginable. Once again, not a big seller, since for the most part people that fit that description aren't heavy TV watchers.

Simply an opinion piece, with no rebuttals. Guess it must be too close to the truth for some. I find it does cause one to think, maybe that the problem. Far too many can't began to think and must be spoon fed their ideas.

Originally Posted by ConLib

Simply an opinion piece, with no rebuttals. Guess it must be too close to the truth for some. I find it does cause one to think, maybe that the problem. Far too many can't began to think and must be spoon fed their ideas.

I offered a rebuttal. Nothing he lists in the article that would be on this theoretical "Liberal News Network" constitutes any sort of news. It's all mostly opinion, human interest stories and emotional appeals. Basically, the liberal equivalent of FOX News opinion shows. I don't want any more of that and I lean to the left, myself. I want unbiased news that just delivers the cold hard facts and lets me draw my own conclusion. Showing starving babies and then asking for donations being passed off as news is absurd.

Whoever first pushed forward the "media is liberal" idea was a marketing genius.

If you're able to convince a large portion of the population that the media is somehow monolithic enough to be an industry that favors liberalism over conservatism, this means you can be as conservative in your slant as you like without this same group ever thinking you're too conservative.

As a columnist once put it, it's a classic case of "working the ref."

Rationally, one has to acknowledge the wide range of corporate interests connected to modern mass media. If there's any true bias to media nowadays, it has little to do with left/right politics and more to do with ratings and corporate sponsors.

Sensationalizing a story grabs the attention of people faster than a logical analysis, and more viewers means more ad revenue.

By the same token, media outlets have to be careful when dealing with the interests of their sponsors and corporate ownership. Several sources are part of much larger corporations with connections to various other industries. Not surprisingly, this filters out stories of corporate corruption oftentimes. Beyond that, some corporations have long term advertizing relationships with certain sources.

Of course, observing these biases requires more research than kneejerk assumptions about political favoritism, because most bias in media is not about what's reported on but rather what's omitted.

Originally Posted by ConLib

Simply an opinion piece, with no rebuttals. Guess it must be too close to the truth for some. I find it does cause one to think, maybe that the problem. Far too many can't began to think and must be spoon fed their ideas.

You think preachy self-righteous media that tells people how they should feel about a story being reported is something we don't see?

I stand by my assertion that the fictional LNN network sounds an awful lot like a church newsletter.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I offered a rebuttal. Nothing he lists in the article that would be on this theoretical "Liberal News Network" constitutes any sort of news. It's all mostly opinion, human interest stories and emotional appeals. Basically, the liberal equivalent of FOX News opinion shows. I don't want any more of that and I lean to the left, myself. I want unbiased news that just delivers the cold hard facts and lets me draw my own conclusion. Showing starving babies and then asking for donations being passed off as news is absurd.

And I want the same thing you want. News that has no bias, and reports the facts, so that my brain can decide, instead of being bombarded with talking heads and experts who explain, and try to mold my opinion. That is nothing more than propaganda, and I depise propaganda with a passion.

I hear that the media prior to Fox was biased, and only reported with a left leaning slant. That is one helluva distortion of facts, IMO. I think the media prior to FOX was more down the middle than left or right. When FOX was created to be the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, hiding behind the "fair and balanced" lie, this created MSNBC to balance out FOX. To give the other side.

Yet, I watch FNC, during the day, Sheperd Smith I think is his name. I don't see bias there, just reporting. He is followed later on by Cavuto who is a partisan hack job. And then of course the nutjob Beck comes on and is followed later on by another partisan hack job, Hannity. When it was Hannity and Colmes, it was at least a show that had a Liberal on to argue with Hannity. Then they ditched Colmes! Fair and Balanced my ass! No doubt the viewers could not tolerate any other opinion besides Hannity's. Yeah, fair and balanced.

I have no problem with editorials, but when editorials and the news are combined you don't get information so much as you get one side's opinion, given as news. Given our problems with education, the dumbing down of America, this sort of news can indeed be propaganda, and it seems to be really effective for the Cons. It is still detestable for anyone who hold the truth in high regards. Too much spin leads to dizziness. And we all seem to just have gotten off a merry go round and can't think straight. Which is the purpose of the spin I reckon. To confuse, because only out of confusion do we get the grand mess today, in politics, in economic questions, etc.