Skip to main content

Link to Article the prompted Post


The link above only confirms what many, reasonable people, knew to be a fact. The fact that certain influential people in the media, people who are suppose to report the news, are extremely biased and actually will conceal or alter the reporting of news to achieve a desired outcome for their political party of choice or their own candidate.

Before the statement comes that "yeah both sides do that" first of all where is the proof? There is ample proof, now, that the liberal media does this as a standard operating procedure down to actually trying to eliminate a complete news organization that "will not do as they do and are conservative". They sought the elimination of FOX news because FOX was the only one, of any influence, that would actually dare to report the news as it was. These liberal bent editors actually want to make news and steer the news to favor their folks and that's dangerous. Any movement, in history, that has sought to take over a country or government gets to the media and controls the media.

You liberals out there that are so down on republicans should look in your own house as your own card carrying folks, in the news media, are dangerous to the freedoms you enjoy.

The other argument about both sides doing it fails when you look at the media as a whole. Newsprint, magazines, and TV and you see that Liberals own the media for the most part. There are only two examples of where Conservatives get a fair shake or at least can compete, on an intellectual level playing field. FOX News and to some extent Talk Radio and what are the two main targets of attacks by the "Fairness in media folks"? FOX News and Talk Radio. Most folks that rail against both of these usually are people that NEVER WATCH OR LISTEN and make their proclamations out of ignorance or worse what someone else says.

There is a fight for freedom today and it is at risk. There are, for once, people in power positions within our Government that seek to do away with our democracy and make America a Socialist nation. I wonder though if Socialism is their real agenda or if the desire a far more authoritarian government, one that approaches Communism. The real dangers to a democracy don't come knocking down the front door but sneak in the rear door by deception then, from the inside, do their damage.

Liberal or Conservative I do feel that the upcoming November Elections are one of the most critical and important in our nation's history and could be in our own personal lives.

Please VOTE!

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

There is a very simple equation in play with media in the US. TV, radio, newspaper and magazines all deliver what the highest possible number of people will consume. The more eyes and ears on their product, the more $ that can be made from ad revenue or subscriptions. Fewer eyes and ears? Less $. No eyes and ears? No $.
Certainly people are people and will, given the opportunity, bring their sensibilities (whether "conservative" or "liberal") to "news" or any other programming. However, any employee or agent of a media outlet will only be as "liberal" or "conservative" as their corporate directors view as being financially beneficial.
Every media outlet looks to fill their piece of the market and maximize revenue. Why is such a significant portion of media "Be afraid!" "Check out the freak show!", "Oh no, look what's coming!", "aren't those people crazy?!" or "Look-hot bodies!"? That's what the most people will look at / listen to.
More eyes and ears = more $. Nothing more. Nothing less. Ideology does not drive media, $s do.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by jefft:
Ideology does not drive media, $s do.


Well somebody needs to clue in MSNBC then...


Cute. 'Still doesn't change the facts though. If revenue tanks, programming will adjust to try to correct the loss. That's the way it works.

As much as some would love to attribute some overarching social or political agenda to mass media, the fact is that it is eye and ear candy and the only agenda is making money. Whatever the public finds tasty is what it will be fed without fail. Programming is aired to attract subscribers and/or facilitate advertisers moving product.

When you identify loyalty to a particular piece or channel of programming you are then scrutinized, branded and targeted to maximize your consumption habits.

Sorry to rain on your parade but media outlets are in business for the primary purpose of filling their wallets just like any other business.
Yes dollars drive business and media is a business but when you report that you are NEWS then expectations are that you will report rather than influence or veil your reporting in commentary. Sure FOX has commentary programs as Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck however they also have their News department and shows where news is reported. Trouble is many don't or will not see the difference. MSNBC is all about liberal bias with very little to no fairness or equal sides or coverage. I've watched CNN and MSNBC as well as FOX and there is a marked difference in their coverages and reporting. As for existing and altering programming based upon those dollars how would you explain Air America which never really existed on ad revenue? They were never popular and never altered their message.

Programs such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc ... are very Conservative and lean right, sometimes FAR Right however they don't veil their message or reporting and stories in secrecy and a hidden agenda and attempt to call it news. The counterpoint people that Fox also brings on to represent the alternative points are also talented people and they usually leave the interpretation up to the viewer. CNN and MSNBC end up reporting commentary as "news" and never give legitimacy to alternative views than their own. Rather than allowing the viewer to decide they deride any opposition and and consider detractors as lesser than intelligent or unable to make a rational decision. That is why FOX continues to humiliate CNN & MSNBC in the ratings. Even with the huge difference in viewership the other two fail to adjust their programming and continue to suppress stories that they consider to be favorable to Conservatives and harmful to liberals. There IS an agenda in most news organizations and when you limit what is reported or report in such a way to conceal facts or motives then that is wrong and dangerous to a free press. I say dangerous to freedom because no longer is there the variety of news outlets but rather there are only a handful of media outlets that control what is heard. They can therefore much easily control what is and is not reported. Just listen to various stories and how it's reported on CBS, NBC, and ABC. It's almost as if they were all working off the exact same script. There seems no independent reporting anymore.
This subject is too complicated to summarize in a few paragraphs. If you care to take the time, do a Youtube search for Malcolm Gladwell and find the lecture about spaghetti sauce. He describes one of the greatest innovations to affect food marketing in recent years. The summary could be stated that the goal of anyone selling a product isn't to create the singular perfect product, but to acknowledge that the majority of people tend to statistically cluster around a small group of preferences. In other words, create multiple, profitable products that satisfy all consumer needs.

When we compare this to the consumption of information, we have to acknowledge the same thing. It's not about who is the best. It's about satisfying the different groups seeking specific view points. People have different preferences in the medium they use to get information (internet, cable, radio, etc...) and they have different preferences in the viewpoints presented. Both Fox and MSNBC seem to be doing a sufficient job at meeting a demand. In the cable market, the demand is higher for a conservative viewpoint, thus higher ratings for Fox (this exists in the talk radio world as well). Meanwhile, liberal viewpoints are in higher demand amongst online readers. Huffington Post and MSNBC both outperform Fox online. None of the above are producing good journalism, but that's not what people want.
gbrk,

You confuse agenda with branding. In the days of just a handful of news outlets spread across tv, radio and newspaper, it was easy to "just report the facts" of the news. Each outlet would then depend upon the overall reputation of the station or a particular reporter's personality to differentiate themselves from the competition. Even if that didn't draw a stark line, there were very few outlets and any one piece of the pie couldn't really get too small.

In present times, there are hundreds of sources for anyone to get their news. If you want the direct, unfiltered facts, you can watch raw video from the source or pick directly from a newswire website server. If a network tried to "just report the facts" of the news, they would either 1) never be noticed because that has no sizzle or 2) get lost in the noise kicked up by the other outlets.

In order to survive in the "news" media now, an outlet must find their brand, reinforce that brand and be noticeable at all times. This is one of the major problems experienced by the old, broadcast network news departments. They have all tried to play mostly as generic news and have failed to create a clear, 21st century marketable identity in an increasingly specialized business. Consequently, they have bled numbers and have found themselves in an almost constant state of adjustment and refinement.

The directors of Fox found a hole in the market for right leaning tv news, filled it and have reaped the rating and revenue rewards. Msnbc saw a hole in the left and has done well financially filling that. Any outlet that wants to succeed will similarly look for their particular brand to be noticed and maximize their ratings and revenue. The financiers of Air America Radio postulated that there was a market for left-leaning talk radio. Like any group of investors, they tried to give their idea time to catch on if it was going to. Because there is obviously not a market for radio the way they did it, it did not catch on and it is now gone. That's the way things in media work.

If all of outlets suddenly assumed the characteristics of any one of them, the available audience for that type of approach would start to be divided among them, resulting in a smaller share of the same pie for each one. There would be a massive vacuum left in whatever segment of the market they abandoned. New choices would emerge and people would start to find them.

The fact that any media outlet has a particular branding tilt is understandable and even essential if thy are to try to survive among the increasingly media saturated public. If MSNBC, Fox, or any other network found their revenue consistently dropping because of slipping ratings, they would change in whatever way they thought necessary to stop the slide. As I said before, there are ideology facades framed in the effort to present a marketable media. The perceived ideology, however, only lasts as long as that brand is viable.

Again, the bottom line is the bottom line. Whatever attracts eyes, ears and, ultimately, dollars, is what will be on the air. If MSNBC research showed that they could substantially increase profits by being the 24/7 Republican Roundtable discussion network, they'd flip it tomorrow. If Fox saw that they could jack up revenue by being the Socialist Songbook Network, they'd be there ASAP. This is the way things in media work. To believe differently is at best terribly naive and misguided, perhaps by whatever branding you choose to consume.
quote:
Originally posted by jefft:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by jefft:
Ideology does not drive media, $s do.


Well somebody needs to clue in MSNBC then...


Cute. 'Still doesn't change the facts though. If revenue tanks, programming will adjust to try to correct the loss. That's the way it works.

As much as some would love to attribute some overarching social or political agenda to mass media, the fact is that it is eye and ear candy and the only agenda is making money. Whatever the public finds tasty is what it will be fed without fail. Programming is aired to attract subscribers and/or facilitate advertisers moving product.

When you identify loyalty to a particular piece or channel of programming you are then scrutinized, branded and targeted to maximize your consumption habits.

Sorry to rain on your parade but media outlets are in business for the primary purpose of filling their wallets just like any other business.


Again, someone should clue in MSNBC. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by jefft:
gbrk,

You confuse agenda with branding. In the days of just a handful of news outlets spread across tv, radio and newspaper, it was easy to "just report the facts" of the news. Each outlet would then depend upon the overall reputation of the station or a particular reporter's personality to differentiate themselves from the competition. Even if that didn't draw a stark line, there were very few outlets and any one piece of the pie couldn't really get too small.

In present times, there are hundreds of sources for anyone to get their news. If you want the direct, unfiltered facts, you can watch raw video from the source or pick directly from a newswire website server. If a network tried to "just report the facts" of the news, they would either 1) never be noticed because that has no sizzle or 2) get lost in the noise kicked up by the other outlets.

In order to survive in the "news" media now, an outlet must find their brand, reinforce that brand and be noticeable at all times. This is one of the major problems experienced by the old, broadcast network news departments. They have all tried to play mostly as generic news and have failed to create a clear, 21st century marketable identity in an increasingly specialized business. Consequently, they have bled numbers and have found themselves in an almost constant state of adjustment and refinement.

The directors of Fox found a hole in the market for right leaning tv news, filled it and have reaped the rating and revenue rewards. Msnbc saw a hole in the left and has done well financially filling that. Any outlet that wants to succeed will similarly look for their particular brand to be noticed and maximize their ratings and revenue. The financiers of Air America Radio postulated that there was a market for left-leaning talk radio. Like any group of investors, they tried to give their idea time to catch on if it was going to. Because there is obviously not a market for radio the way they did it, it did not catch on and it is now gone. That's the way things in media work.

If all of outlets suddenly assumed the characteristics of any one of them, the available audience for that type of approach would start to be divided among them, resulting in a smaller share of the same pie for each one. There would be a massive vacuum left in whatever segment of the market they abandoned. New choices would emerge and people would start to find them.

The fact that any media outlet has a particular branding tilt is understandable and even essential if thy are to try to survive among the increasingly media saturated public. If MSNBC, Fox, or any other network found their revenue consistently dropping because of slipping ratings, they would change in whatever way they thought necessary to stop the slide. As I said before, there are ideology facades framed in the effort to present a marketable media. The perceived ideology, however, only lasts as long as that brand is viable.

Again, the bottom line is the bottom line. Whatever attracts eyes, ears and, ultimately, dollars, is what will be on the air. If MSNBC research showed that they could substantially increase profits by being the 24/7 Republican Roundtable discussion network, they'd flip it tomorrow. If Fox saw that they could jack up revenue by being the Socialist Songbook Network, they'd be there ASAP. This is the way things in media work. To believe differently is at best terribly naive and misguided, perhaps by whatever branding you choose to consume.


You don't see a sort of symbiosis there?
quote:
Maybe... is that all?


I don't know what you're alluding to, but can only guess that you're suggesting that higher ratings=more popular; therefore Fox's high ratings means that conservative viewpoints are more popular in general. Conservative programming is more popular in the worlds of cable news and talk radio. Liberal viewpoints are more popular in other mediums, so that theory doesn't hold water.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Maybe... is that all?


I don't know what you're alluding to, but can only guess that you're suggesting that higher ratings=more popular; therefore Fox's high ratings means that conservative viewpoints are more popular in general. Conservative programming is more popular in the worlds of cable news and talk radio. Liberal viewpoints are more popular in other mediums, so that theory doesn't hold water.


So... you disregard every poll that at least implies that the majority of this nation is center right? Good job! Denial is so much more than a river... Wink
quote:
So... you disregard every poll that at least implies that the majority of this nation is center right? Good job! Denial is so much more than a river...


1) I'm pointing out, correctly, that Fox News' ratings are not an accurate barometer for measuring the political ideology of the public at large.

2) Beyond that, the most recent Gallup polling shows that no political ideology dominates the majority of Americans. Those who identify themselves as "conservative" make up the largest group at 40%, but last time I checked 40% does not constitute a majority.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×