American News Media: Independent or Biased?

Overheal

None of the major media outlets have discussed the Internet Fast Lane/New Net Neutrality issue. Certainly less coverage than the LA Clippers.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

There is no effort to pin blame for the attack on the administration.

A lie, and a particularly delusional one. Five minutes spend watching Fox News or listening to congressional republicans shows exactly that.

The attack was a coordinated effort of terrorists, and not some spontaneous protest brought on by a youtube video. I think we all agree on that.

In that case, you're not thinking.

Kindly educate yourself before presuming again.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

Now failing to provide adequate security for the facility and staff, failing to send help, covering up of the missteps of the administration, withholding and ignoring requests by Congress, and lying to the American people about the circumstances and events... well that's another thing.

But, of course, those things didn't actually happen.

Lying makes for boring discourse.

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

None of the major media outlets have discussed the Internet Fast Lane/New Net Neutrality issue. Certainly less coverage than the LA Clippers.

Agreed, the only place where it's a prominent issue seems to be the front page of Reddit.

Jonny7

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Agreed, the only place where it's a prominent issue seems to be the front page of Reddit.

True, but reddit itself also falls victim to supply and demand for it's own demographic

Worldnews was simply Snowden-news for an unhealthy amount of time

Maid of the Mist

Interesting thread. I think the question will become moot in the coming decades as dinosaur media is in terminal decline while independent internet based media is becoming more popular. The public are reporting on events via Youtube and twitter. This was seen to great effect during the Syrian government shelling of Homs where locals uploaded videos of the bombings when the established media couldn't get reporters on the ground.

In keeping with a worldwide trend, most American newspapers have seen their circulation figures nosedive in recent years. Only the mighty New York Times and Wall Street Journal buck the trend. I personally haven't bought a paper in years and I've always been weary of columnists. Why is one man's opinion so special that he is granted a soapbox to espouse his views to hundreds of thousands of people? It gives extra weight to the columnist's opinion and validates them to a certain extent, no matter how radical those views may be. Internet message boards such as this one have levelled the playing field in recent years however. Maybe Boards.ie should be paying us to post?

As for American TV news reporting: Neutral fact-based reporting has gone out the window in favour of personality-led opinion shows, whether it's the insufferable Al Sharpton (left-wing MSNBC) or the short-tempered Bill O'Reilly (right-wing Fox). However, these TV stations are only providing what the people want. Ratings talk, and it seems the more controversial and over-the-top the host is, the more viewers the station rakes in.

I look forward to the day the dinosaur media finally croaks. In years gone by, newspaper editors held too much sway over public opinion. At the moment, the can be no doubt that the pendulum favours the Left. The media portrayed Bush as a bumbling fool, caricatured him as a monkey and loved to recall the many infamous "Bushims" ("Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" ). The truth is that Bush is an Ivy League graduate and is quite articulate and intelligent. Meanwhile Obama is getting an easy ride despite his poor performance as President. The national debt has tripled and is climbing, the NSA fiasco, his weak handling of Syria and Ukraine etc. And can you imagine any media outlet portraying Obama as a monkey?

Amerika

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

In keeping with a worldwide trend, most American newspapers have seen their circulation figures nosedive in recent years. Only the mighty New York Times and Wall Street Journal buck the trend.

Stop the presses! (always wanted to say that )

Just out today… Apparently things aren’t all peaches and lollipops at the NYT according to an internal memo. In fact they’re rather dire.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mylestanzer/exclusive-times-internal-report-painted-dire-digital-picture

Maid of the Mist

The comments under that buzzfeed article regarding the NYT make for interesting reading. One in particular resonates with me:

"They (New York Times) think the political center is abortion on demand, 90% tax rates, govt run health care, a gun ban, a ban on oil/natural gas and a $25 minimum wage. And when someone says, whoa, hold on, maybe this isn't such a good idea, those people are labeled as right wing extremists"

It's quite scary how far the Democrats have moved to the Left in recent decades too. The whole political spectrum in America has been polarised. There's no middle ground anymore. Obama tried to portray himself as the great uniter during the 2008 election but he quickly learned that Republicans wanted nothing to do with him. Usually huge landmark legislation will be passed with bipartisan support to some degree but not one single Republican voted for Obamacare.

In 1962, JFK gave a speech at the New York economic club. At the time, the top marginal tax rate was a staggering 91%. Not many people paid it but that's what it was. Kennedy proposed an economic reform package of massive tax cuts, in a speech that could have been made by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Kennedy was assassinated before the proposal was passed, but the legislation was eventually passed with bipartisan support after his death, partly in honour of the dead President. My point is, there is a world of difference between Old School Democrats and New Age Liberals like Obama. The Democratic party of 50/60 years ago is equivalent to the GOP today. The Dems have moved drastically to the Left - how anybody could be blind to this I don't know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

The comments under that buzzfeed article regarding the NYT make for interesting reading. One in particular resonates with me:

Since all of it it laughably and demonstrably untrue, why would it resonate w/you?

It's quite scary how far the Democrats have moved to the Left in recent decades too.

It is? Why? Nothing that I've seen indicates that they've moved more to the left than they've always been. If anything, they became more conservative since Clinton.

The whole political spectrum in America has been polarised. There's no middle ground anymore. Obama tried to portray himself as the great uniter during the 2008 election but he quickly learned that Republicans wanted nothing to do with him. Usually huge landmark legislation will be passed with bipartisan support to some degree but not one single Republican voted for Obamacare.

That speaks volumes about the right and republicans, but very little about Obama or the dems.

In 1962, JFK gave a speech at the New York economic club. At the time, the top marginal tax rate was a staggering 91%. Not many people paid it but that's what it was. Kennedy proposed an economic reform package of massive tax cuts, in a speech that could have been made by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Kennedy was assassinated before the proposal was passed, but the legislation was eventually passed with bipartisan support after his death, partly in honour of the dead President. My point is, there is a world of difference between Old School Democrats and New Age Liberals like Obama. The Democratic party of 50/60 years ago is equivalent to the GOP today. The Dems have moved drastically to the Left - how anybody could be blind to this I don't know.

LOL! There is nothing, nada, zip, that's "New Age Liberal" about Obama; to maintain that there is is either to admit ignorance of the history of Dems for the last, oh, 50 years or so or to have happily indulged in the juice that the republicans are pouring out.

The dems simply haven't moved 'drastically' to the left. Quite the opposite to any honest analysis of their recent history.

How anyone rational could maintain otherwise is quite beyond me.

Brian?

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

The comments under that buzzfeed article regarding the NYT make for interesting reading. One in particular resonates with me:



It's quite scary how far the Democrats have moved to the Left in recent decades too. The whole political spectrum in America has been polarised. There's no middle ground anymore. Obama tried to portray himself as the great uniter during the 2008 election but he quickly learned that Republicans wanted nothing to do with him. Usually huge landmark legislation will be passed with bipartisan support to some degree but not one single Republican voted for Obamacare.

In 1962, JFK gave a speech at the New York economic club. At the time, the top marginal tax rate was a staggering 91%. Not many people paid it but that's what it was. Kennedy proposed an economic reform package of massive tax cuts, in a speech that could have been made by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Kennedy was assassinated before the proposal was passed, but the legislation was eventually passed with bipartisan support after his death, partly in honour of the dead President. My point is, there is a world of difference between Old School Democrats and New Age Liberals like Obama. The Democratic party of 50/60 years ago is equivalent to the GOP today. The Dems have moved drastically to the Left - how anybody could be blind to this I don't know.

I'd be interested to hear some examples of this drastic move left.

eire4

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

The comments under that buzzfeed article regarding the NYT make for interesting reading. One in particular resonates with me:



It's quite scary how far the Democrats have moved to the Left in recent decades too. The whole political spectrum in America has been polarised. There's no middle ground anymore. Obama tried to portray himself as the great uniter during the 2008 election but he quickly learned that Republicans wanted nothing to do with him. Usually huge landmark legislation will be passed with bipartisan support to some degree but not one single Republican voted for Obamacare.

In 1962, JFK gave a speech at the New York economic club. At the time, the top marginal tax rate was a staggering 91%. Not many people paid it but that's what it was. Kennedy proposed an economic reform package of massive tax cuts, in a speech that could have been made by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Kennedy was assassinated before the proposal was passed, but the legislation was eventually passed with bipartisan support after his death, partly in honour of the dead President. My point is, there is a world of difference between Old School Democrats and New Age Liberals like Obama. The Democratic party of 50/60 years ago is equivalent to the GOP today. The Dems have moved drastically to the Left - how anybody could be blind to this I don't know.

For those thinking the New Your Times is some bastion of left wing views only why then would they lie about the recent FCC vote:






As for the Democratic Party moving to the left. I cannot say I agree. I think today in the US we have a Democratic Party that leans left but not significantly and a Republican Party that is to the political right but is having a major problem with a segment of its base that leans extreme right.
The biggest problem I see is that both parties collude to protect the current political status quo and prevent any creditable political alternatives from emerging.

Jonny7

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

Interesting thread. I think the question will become moot in the coming decades as dinosaur media is in terminal decline while independent internet based media is becoming more popular.

The "coming decades" is right, because as of yet I haven't come across any independent internet-only news media that is

a) independent or b) actual news

ChicagoJoe

Jonny7 wrote: »

The "coming decades" is right, because as of yet I haven't come across any independent internet-only news media that is

a) independent or b) actual news

The US media, like Ireland, has increasingly become concentrated in the hands of a few corporate entities. Since owners and editors determine content, a right wing viewpoint is mostly pushed with a token left 'alternative' columnist or two. TV advertising now takes a large amount of the budget of an average statewide campaign. And, despite the fact that the public does not like negative advertising they remember it longer and it affects their opinion and so it has been on the increase.

Overheal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Agreed, the only place where it's a prominent issue seems to be the front page of Reddit.

Jonny7 wrote: »

True, but reddit itself also falls victim to supply and demand for it's own demographic

Worldnews was simply Snowden-news for an unhealthy amount of time

The problem is now, that while the FCC is dicking around with these neutrality rules, the Comcast/Time Warner merger will create a system whereby Comcast owns the entire means of content supply for the majority of Americans. They don't care if people cut the TV cord, since they're about ready to own the country's internet access. And when you own divisions like NBC and Hulu, CNBC MSNBC and can charge a bandwidth premium to sites like Netflix and Amazon and HBO, who is really able to stop you or get a word in edgewise to the masses?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

The problem is now, that while the FCC is dicking around with these neutrality rules, the Comcast/Time Warner merger will create a system whereby Comcast owns the entire means of content supply for the majority of Americans. They don't care if people cut the TV cord, since they're about ready to own the country's internet access. And when you own divisions like NBC and Hulu, CNBC MSNBC and can charge a bandwidth premium to sites like Netflix and Amazon and HBO, who is really able to stop you or get a word in edgewise to the masses?

The comcast merger is also scary from a customer service quality standpoint. They already have awful customer service ratings. So if they are alllowed to become even bigger I can only imagine how little they will care about giving quality customer service.

Maid of the Mist

Mjollnir wrote: »

The dems simply haven't moved 'drastically' to the left. Quite the opposite to any honest analysis of their recent history.

This gave me a chuckle. Can you provide evidence for the above statement? I've already explained how the Democrats have moved further Left in recent years, facts which you've failed to counter and choose to ignore. Even other Democrats acknowledge this shift. In his book My Life, Bill Clinton described Robert F. Kennedy as the first "New Democrat" - he believed in giving poor people a hand up rather than a handout: work was better than welfare.. On the other hand, the new far-left radicals like Obama are all about continually raising the national debt to give out free money and "Obamaphones" to minorities as bribes for votes. Unemployment is at an all-time high.

If you honestly can't see a difference between Old Democrats like the Kennedys (not afraid to stand up to Castro's Cuba) and Obama (cowering in front of Al-Assad and Putin) then I'm wasting my time talking to you.

PopePalpatine

The "Obamaphone" is a right-wing myth. It started under - shock horror! - the Reagan Administration! Also, the scheme doesn't actually provide free phones, unless the mobile company chooses to do so.

As for "unemployment at an all-time high", the highest unemployment rate since the end of World War II was under the Reagan Administration, reaching 10.8% in November and December 1982.

By the way, the budget deficit is set to fall under the $500 billion mark this year, or about 2.8% of the US GDP, down from a peak of nearly 10% in 2009 - a budget submitted by Bush.

Mjollnir

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

This gave me a chuckle. Can you provide evidence for the above statement?

Ah, so you're not actually familiar with how this works. You made what's known as an 'assertion in the positive'. If I deny that assertion, it's not up to me to substantiate my disclaimer; it's up to you to defend it by supporting it.

That, and any rational review of the dems record doesn't indicate an overall leftwards movement.

I've already explained how the Democrats have moved further Left in recent years, facts which you've failed to counter and choose to ignore.

No, you haven't. Again, since you seem to be having trouble with this, let me assist you: you're making what are known as 'bare assertions', and you're expecting people to simply let them slide. I've ignored nothing since you've offered nothing of substance to ignore in the first place.

Even other Democrats acknowledge this shift. In his book My Life, Bill Clinton described Robert F. Kennedy as the first "New Democrat" - he believed in giving poor people a hand up rather than a handout: work was better than welfare..

So what? That's not even remotely evidence that your rather breathless claim is valid or supported by evidence.

On the other hand, the new far-left radicals like Obama are all about continually raising the national debt to give out free money and "Obamaphones" to minorities as bribes for votes. Unemployment is at an all-time high.

More delusional lies? Please cite anything about Obama that's either 'far left' or 'radical', let alone being both.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Oh, and unless you can tie the unemployment rate in any rational way to Obama being either 'far-left' or 'radical', spare me the red herrings, Sport.

If you honestly can't see a difference between Old Democrats like the Kennedys (not afraid to stand up to Castro's Cuba) and Obama (cowering in front of Al-Assad and Putin) then I'm wasting my time talking to you.

No, you're wasting the board's time with irrational, emotional claims of him 'cowering', and blathering nonsense about needing to 'stand up' to Castro's Cuba.

Go ahead: walk the walk instead of just blathering the blather.

Maid of the Mist

Mjollnir wrote: »

Ah, so you're not actually familiar with how this works....

Go ahead: walk the walk instead of just blathering the blather.

Wow, so much aggression in one post. Are you upset that I disturbed your pro-Obama echo chamber? Good job I don't take this place seriously.

I can't post links but even the most blinded Democrat should be able to admit his party has drifted further Left in recent years. Would JFK's Democratic Party be pro-abortion on demand? Gays in the military? Turn a blind eye to the invasion of a sovereign European nation by Russia?

I'm not affiliated to any party. I can therefore objectively see that the GOP has drifted further to the Right while the Democrats have gone more to the Left. The whole political spectrum has become polarised as I described earlier. You're obviously an Obama fanboy so here's some advice: don't be afraid to criticise your own party. Obama is not a God. He makes mistakes like everyone else (Obamacare rollout anyone? Arrogantly telling Putin that he will have more leeway to accommodate his demands when he gets a second term?). I vote for whoever's policies make sense at the time. I don't blindly follow any man.

Brian?

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

Wow, so much aggression in one post. Are you upset that I disturbed your pro-Obama echo chamber? Good job I don't take this place seriously.

You obviously don't read this forum very often if you thnk it's pro Obama. Even the posters who are ideologically sympathetic to the Dems, like myself, aren't really pro Obama. I do however find myself defending him due to the hyperbolic nonsense thrown around by the right.

I can't post links but even the most blinded Democrat should be able to admit his party has drifted further Left in recent years. Would JFK's Democratic Party be pro-abortion on demand? Gays in the military? Turn a blind eye to the invasion of a sovereign European nation by Russia?

And there we have it. You don't actually understand what you meant by a "dramatic shift left".

I'm not affiliated to any party. I can therefore objectively see that the GOP has drifted further to the Right while the Democrats have gone more to the Left. The whole political spectrum has become polarised as I described earlier. You're obviously an Obama fanboy so here's some advice: don't be afraid to criticise your own party. Obama is not a God. He makes mistakes like everyone else (Obamacare rollout anyone? Arrogantly telling Putin that he will have more leeway to accommodate his demands when he gets a second term?). I vote for whoever's policies make sense at the time. I don't blindly follow any man.

In amongst this nonsense is one point worth debating. Is the political system more polarised than ever? If so, why?

I believe most of the polarisation is actually perceived due to media coverage.

Jonny7

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

If you honestly can't see a difference between Old Democrats like the Kennedys (not afraid to stand up to Castro's Cuba) and Obama (cowering in front of Al-Assad and Putin) then I'm wasting my time talking to you.

About half a century.

Apparently a president who won't contemplate unilaterally evoking a third Middle Eastern quagmire and fully reigniting the Cold War is "radical far-left".

Thanks to the recent Ukrainian situation we've been hearing a lot from pro-Russian ultra-nationalists popping up here on boards, it's always interesting to hear from their US counterparts.

Mjollnir

Maid of the Mist wrote: »

Wow, so much aggression in one post. Are you upset that I disturbed your pro-Obama echo chamber? Good job I don't take this place seriously.

No, not upset in the least, since I'm not pro-Obama and it's hardly 'aggression'. I'm asking you to back up your statements. You're whining about me having asked you.

I can't post links but even the most blinded Democrat should be able to admit his party has drifted further Left in recent years. Would JFK's Democratic Party be pro-abortion on demand? Gays in the military? Turn a blind eye to the invasion of a sovereign European nation by Russia?

You're really struggling with this. All of that is irrelevant to the claims you've made and I'm not a Democrat. Just a rationalist who sees through your inability to prove your points.

Again: step up to the plate, make your case. Thus far you've just sputtered you're way into frothy mess.

I'm not affiliated to any party. I can therefore objectively see that the GOP has drifted further to the Right while the Democrats have gone more to the Left

Oh, boy. Neither am I. It's how I know you're bloviating and not backing up your claims. I notice you parroting republican talking points, though. What an odd coinky-dink.

The whole political spectrum has become polarised as I described earlier. You're obviously an Obama fanboy so here's some advice: don't be afraid to criticise your own party. Obama is not a God. He makes mistakes like everyone else (Obamacare rollout anyone? Arrogantly telling Putin that he will have more leeway to accommodate his demands when he gets a second term?). I vote for whoever's policies make sense at the time. I don't blindly follow any man.

Yawn. More claptrap from a liar.

Here's a helpful hint for you: when you reference Obama not being a god, it's laughably clear where you get your marching orders.

Either address what I've asked you to and stop dodging or just admit you're not up to the task.

Corkfeen

Gays in the military is the work of a far left radical? Obama is still on the right,the democratic party is merely more left wing than the Republicans. Poster's idea of what constitutes radical is what's pretty normal in the rest of the globe.

eire4

The idea that Obama is some far left radical is laughable. Sounds like something you would hear on Fox News.

Carcharodon

Colbert will be missed when his show ends, he really does make a mockery out of the pathetic "news" media in this country
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video-playlists/8y90is/the-colbert-report-10156-highlights/yupbhd
It's the one about boots on the ground that made me laugh and nearly cry both for different reasons

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ddLIebGOYFg