Why is The New York Times so well respected in spite of it's obvious political slant?

[Grey's Anatomy]

It is true that really you don't matter until you're of voting age, but still it's a good idea to learn now and form an opinion that so then when you do have the power to vote it's an informed one.

Of course. I am starting to postulate my own opinions on political events, but I'm still seventeen, so it'd still be useless.
Also, it's nice to hear that someone else agrees with me. Everyone else just thinks I'm a lazy son of a bitch.

[SpoDaddy]

There is bias on both sides and it's generally overblown in most cases, though conservatives are the one who made 'media bias' into a buzz word.

Because more often than not with mainstream media, it's biased towards the left.

The same way morons base their entire political views on Bill O'Reilly and FOX News? Come on, it's just as bad on both ends. People carry biases, it's hard not to.

Yes, but you're comparing all the broadcast networks, the Daily Show, CNN, MSNBC, almost every major newspaper, almost every major magazine, and most of the education system to Fox News. And most people know that Fox News is a conservative channel anyway.

There's bias on both sides no question, but most of the mainstream media is biased towards the left.

[g0zen]

Because more often than not with mainstream media, it's biased towards the left.

Bullshit. You listen to talk radio, it's completely right-wing biased. The only remotely even left-leaning viewpoint is NPR. But, that's what the people who listen to radio want so that's what they get. If people didn't like it, they wouldn't listen to it. It serves the market.

There's bias on both sides no question, but most of the mainstream media is biased towards the left.

You show me, in any medium, a completely objective viewpoint. There's going to be a 'bias' no matter where you go because by taking a stand you inevitably end up being thrown in with others who take your stand. Really though the right-wing perception of a 'left-wing' bias only seems to come out when the media is criticizing something on the right; religion, government, military, etc.

Where was the right-wing outcry at the media for overblowing the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Ironic that then it wasn't the 'liberal media' anymore it was the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. Goes to show that if media has anything it's a populist slant. They pick at what ever they think will get people's attention.

That's the bottom line, really. Mass media doesn't have a political agenda, they have an economic agenda; to keep you sitting on the couch and watching TV, or flipping through 8 lbs of ads in the newspaper, listening to an hours worth of commericals over the radio, etc.

[SpoDaddy]

The Monica Lewinski thing wasn't overblown, the President of the United States had sex with someone working for him (sexual harassment) and then lied in court about it (perjury). And most of the media just focused on the sex aspect and ignored the perjury (the serious crime), and turned it into the whole "Does oral sex count?" thing.

There's more money to be made in a liberal media obviously, but the pursuit of money is not more noble than simple political bias.

[g0zen]

There's more money to be made in a liberal media obviously, but the pursuit of money is not more noble than simple political bias.

Tell that to the publishers of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Neal Boortz, and Michael Savage. Because they're all making big bucks off horridly bias books.

The idea that the news should be objective and bring an unbiased viewpoint to the people is ideal, not realistic. You go to Ted Turner OR Rupert Murdoch with that drivel and they'll laugh in your face. The 'pursuit of money' is what business does, and unapologetically so.

The Monica Lewinski thing wasn't overblown,

LOL, I shouldn't even bother debating with you if you think this is the case.

EDIT: You know for someone who talks so much about bias, you really can't seem to look past your own.

[SpoDaddy]

Tell that to the publishers of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Neal Boortz, and Michael Savage. Because they're all making big bucks off horridly bias books.


EDIT: You know for someone who talks so much about bias, you really can't seem to look past your own.

You keep naming the same people, the majority of the media is not offset by a few guys from Fox News and a few authors. I'm a conservative but I try to not approach things with any bias, and I don't see how you could say the President committing perjury isn't a big deal (the media blew the sex aspect out of proportion obviously).

[youandwhosearmy]

Let me say this, no matter what side your on, your going to see bias, and believe the country views the other side more favorably.

I'd almost agree with Spodaddy if this were only about TV news, but I live in Massachussetts, and I think you'd be shocked how dominate the right wing is on the radio here. Besides Air America and Howard Stern (which doesn't really count) every single morning radio show down to our sports shows, is so ridiculously right wing you'd think this was middle America. Believe me when I say, this isn't the market for it, but its still in our faces so to say.

And the Monica Lewinsky thing was ridiculously overblown. I think a lot of left wing people feel very outraged now because in their minds (and I'd tend to agree with them) If you swapped Clinton's Presidential legacy(balancing the budget, creating jobs, and a blowjob) with Bush's (lying to the American people to start a war, ruining the economy, ignoring the will of the people), Bill Clinton would be in jail right now and George Bush would laugh it off and still be considered a harmless idiot sitting on his ranch in Texas.

[SpoDaddy]

Talk radio is nothing compared to television, and satellite radio is in the process of making it even less relevant.

Your assessment of Clinton and Bush is worthless.

Come on dude, you can't be THAT brainwashed

[youandwhosearmy]

Talk radio is nothing compared to television, and satellite radio is in the process of making it even less relevant.

Morning commutes are where a lot of opinions get heard and transfered in waking life, and the workplace in general. And thats fine you think its irrelevant, but there is still way too much Republican talk radio.

Your assessment of Clinton and Bush is worthless.

So the Republicans would have let Clinton get away with the what Colin Powell did, after they tried to destroy his presidency (keep that in mind, "presidency" not just personal life, and don't give me the it was over "perjury" crap, cause the Right had as much to do with blowing up the sex part of the story as the media did) over a blowjob.

Also I stated thats how "most" left wingers feel. Your opinion on believing that comparison is not irrelevant if people believe it to be true, and they do. I sway that way, I don't believe the whole comparison to be true or fair, but I believe in the long run if Clinton had done what Bush "has" done, he wouldn't have survived the full term.

Come on dude, you can't be THAT brainwashed

Pot/Kettle/Black.




*The truth is, the media doesn't attack Bush like they attacked Clinton. They softball him. And in my honest opinion, Bush needs to be attacked, not because he's a Repbulican, not because he's Christian, but because he is a terrible President. Seperate the things that aren't his fault and the things that are, and he is still a terrible president. Take away the fact that he isn't even a real Republican, and that he just uses the platform to make policies that aren't even close to either side's views, and he's still a terrible president.

And it will be funny for people like me, who don't hate the man because he's a Republican, we hate him cause the country has gone to hell under his watch, (which despite his incredible inability to do any wrong in any of his supporter's eyes and how its all the Democrats fault, this track record and this legacy are his and his alone) to watch people like you remember him fondly five years from now, and how you seem to view him now, as the majority of the country seems to still view him, and that is as a man who has done no wrong in his presidency which just like this president, is absurd.

[SpoDaddy]

I've never said Bush has done no wrong, or that our problems are the Democrat's fault (most of them are terrorist's fault). He's made mistakes and does some things I don't agree with at all (like his policies on immigration). But this notion that he's this scheming mastermind that lied to the country to get into an oil war, that the economy is his fault (the economy started going down on Clinton's watch if you want to blame it on a President), or any number of other propaganda issues backed by exactly ZERO evidence, are so silly that it's hard to take the people that buy them seriously. If most of the left truly in their hearts believes all those things without asking for a shred of evidence then we're in deep trouble.

I understand that Bush is an easy guy to hate, he's a spoiled rich kid that got where he is largely because of his Dad. You want to have reasons to hate a guy like that, but it's irresponsible to make them up in as serious a time in our history as this.