Why We Are Hated

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
I just read an interesting article on the USA Today site about bloggers. Well, I don't know if you can call a message board a blog but since I visit freerepublic.com and many of you may visit other discussion forums like DU we're all the mainstream media's enemies.

What made me post this and think of writing about the topic was a pretty good point; that the mainstream media this election cycle is going to be known for 2 things, beating to death 30 year old biographies and document forgeries. I mean think about it, what else has been on the front pages? Where have discussions been about entitlement spending? Where have debates been for privitizing social security? School choice? Illegal immigration?

Now this isn't a rant that the issues aren't being discussed. They are, by us and groups and boards like us. Six weeks to go in this election year and what has the mainstream media brought to us? Nothing. They have not swayed anyone, enlightened anyone or brought us information none of us didn't know. If that's not a sign of uselessness I don't know what is.

I can't even say I get my news predominately from TV anymore. I read probably 70-100 articles a day from english language papers, websites, news organizations, opinion sites etc. I think many of you probably do the same thing. That being said what is the mainstream media?

Would the Drudge Report that got almost 12 million visitors yesterday, 264 million in a month and over 2.8 billion in the last year be mainstream? I can tell you that if even 9 million of those daily visitors are unique Drudge has more readers than any of the alphabet networks have viewers for their evening newscasts, more readers than any newspaper in America and beat the weekly viewership of MSNBC (I think your local access cable channel beats MSNBC so that's not saying much.). Rush Limbaugh claims 20 million unique listeners (That listened at least 15 minutes.) a week, is that mainstream? I don't know what DU or Freerepublic's readership is, let's pin it at 2 million each for the sake of argument. That makes those two sites bigger than all newspapers in the U.S. besides the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and all editions of the NY Times.

Long and short of it, the media habits of people like us are the deathknell of the mainstream media. I don't think any single one of us trusts any single source of information entirely. As much as I watch FOX News I know they have spin, I frequently like to see commentary on MSNBC, CNN or BBC International. I hear enough varying points of view from all of you to drive me insane at times yet I don't come here to be in lockstep with everyone and I don't think you do either.

The bottom line with all of this though is we are hated and feared by those who controlled the 6 Mghz of network bandwitdh delivering video over the air, on your dish or through your coaxial cable. As much as I disagree with some of you and you with me if we were united in an effort or cause, wanting to prove something, someone or some event wrong and inaccurate we could. I've worked in newsrooms and I will say one thing, internet posters are more driven, determined and do more investigative work to back up their opinions and beliefs than 99% of local, regional or national producers.

I would put the best 5 researchers on any given site up against any national newsroom to get to the bottom of something and I guarantee you that the internet bloggers/posters would get deeper in facts than the professionals. If you gave them a budget they'd shame the investigative abilities of any traditional news organizations. That being said, I think it's obvious why the CBS story isn't dying easily. This scares everyone to death. Not just from credibility but viewership and advertising fallout. Not only that but would a reluctance by NBC or ABC to cover this story result in a halo effect where people remembered they tried to sweep troubles with broadcast journalism under the rug?

That said, you are feared, you are hated and so am I. There is no love lost for people that not only don't depend on traditional media but question nearly any piece of information sent down the pike short of the current temperature and sports scores.

USA Toady Article that sent me off on my rant.
 
Mainstream media are basically all corporations now so of course they are gonna hate and try to get rid of the competition like bloggers, websites, etc.

Corporations are taking over everything and that is one of the reasons I am not a republican.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']We are hated because we hate.[/quote]

Yes I believe that is the main reason the terrorists attacked us.

We hate.
 
I don't care if people hate us. How you feel is up to you, unless I know you and feel for you, I don't care if you like me, hate me, whatever. The fascist Democrats haven't quite got the ability to make everybody 'like' each other yet, although they're certainly trying to.
It only becomes an issue when you start flying planes into my buildings, or take over my kid's school shouting your psycho 'religious' mantras.
Mainstream media is mostly corporate, same thing with music industry, book industry, movie industry, etc. Almost everyone is involved or affected with at least one of those industries, even if just as a consumer. It's ironic to say that that's why you're not a Republican, since I'm sure many people who are Democrats or anything else are profiting from those corporations. Not to mention, the output from Hollywood, music, and the newsmedia is predominately liberal, and the biggest shakeups the 'mainstream' media have gotten in the last few years were Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, and Murdoch's Fox News Channel, both of which were pretty much the only/major mainstream non-liberal examples of their industry.
 
The major media is definitely NOT liberal. They are corporate. If they were liberal, or at the very least, accurate, the swift boat liars would not have gotten any play in the media, since a little work would have shown that they are full of crap. Our media now is lazy, and just looking to make a buck. Most do not fact check anymore, because that costs money. They would rather spit back some nice sounding sound bites instead of providing some insight.
 
The MoveOn.org ad, Child Pay, was deemed innapropriate because it showed political bias.

Viacom got a huge anti-trust break.

SwiftVets for Truth continue to enjoy high priority access to airtime.

fucking liberal bias!

[quote name='Scrubking']Mainstream media are basically all corporations now so of course they are gonna hate and try to get rid of the competition like bloggers, websites, etc.

Corporations are taking over everything and that is one of the reasons I am not a republican.[/quote]

Yeah, right.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']The major media is definitely NOT liberal. They are corporate. If they were liberal, or at the very least, accurate, the swift boat liars would not have gotten any play in the media, since a little work would have shown that they are full of crap. Our media now is lazy, and just looking to make a buck. Most do not fact check anymore, because that costs money. They would rather spit back some nice sounding sound bites instead of providing some insight.[/quote]

The suits paying the bills may be 'corporate'. The majority of the talking heads, bylines, 'journalists', those who 'report' the news, are liberal.
 
[quote name='dtcarson'][quote name='ZarathosNY']The major media is definitely NOT liberal. They are corporate. If they were liberal, or at the very least, accurate, the swift boat liars would not have gotten any play in the media, since a little work would have shown that they are full of crap. Our media now is lazy, and just looking to make a buck. Most do not fact check anymore, because that costs money. They would rather spit back some nice sounding sound bites instead of providing some insight.[/quote]

The suits paying the bills may be 'corporate'. The majority of the talking heads, bylines, 'journalists', those who 'report' the news, are liberal.[/quote]

Journalists don't get to decide what they report on, the editors and owners do. If you want proof the media is not liberal, look at the big stink they are making over the CBS forged documents as compared to the forged Niger documents.
 
They're making a stink because they've been found out that they are liberal, and now they're trying to backpedal and say 'No we're not, see, look at this!' As long as the owners see positive dollar signs, they don't really care what is reported. Which is why this is an issue--this can result in a loss of income, which then gets the suits involved.
Most journalists/talkingheads--liberal.
Most editors--liberal.
Most owners--interested in whatever sells and keeps their ad revenue flowing.

Not every person, no, but much like in the public university environment, the culture of journalist, especially newspaper and network television news, is predominately liberal or at least left-leaning.
The internet, perhaps as a backlash to this, has arisen mainly as the source for conservative voices [FNC and WSJ notwithstanding.]
 
[quote name='dtcarson']They're making a stink because they've been found out that they are liberal, and now they're trying to backpedal and say 'No we're not, see, look at this!' As long as the owners see positive dollar signs, they don't really care what is reported. Which is why this is an issue--this can result in a loss of income, which then gets the suits involved.
Most journalists/talkingheads--liberal.
Most editors--liberal.
Most owners--interested in whatever sells and keeps their ad revenue flowing.

Not every person, no, but much like in the public university environment, the culture of journalist, especially newspaper and network television news, is predominately liberal or at least left-leaning.
The internet, perhaps as a backlash to this, has arisen mainly as the source for conservative voices [FNC and WSJ notwithstanding.][/quote]

The opposite of what he said.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']They're making a stink because they've been found out that they are liberal, and now they're trying to backpedal and say 'No we're not, see, look at this!' As long as the owners see positive dollar signs, they don't really care what is reported. Which is why this is an issue--this can result in a loss of income, which then gets the suits involved.
Most journalists/talkingheads--liberal.
Most editors--liberal.
Most owners--interested in whatever sells and keeps their ad revenue flowing.

Not every person, no, but much like in the public university environment, the culture of journalist, especially newspaper and network television news, is predominately liberal or at least left-leaning.
The internet, perhaps as a backlash to this, has arisen mainly as the source for conservative voices [FNC and WSJ notwithstanding.][/quote]

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. If you look at what stories are covered NO WAY can you claim the media is liberal. Here's another one for you: Compare and contrast how the Gary Condit story vs Joe Scarborough story was covered.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Especially when he referred to bandwidth in hertz instead of bits/bytes.[/quote]

Hey, I didn't say it was great, just better than the norm.
 
[quote name='Backlash']Joe who?[/quote]

Joe Scarborough, was a congressman from Florida. Around the same time as Gary Condit was being harrassed, one of Joe's employees was found dead in his office die to a blow to the head.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/archive/news/01/010721news1.html

Joe now has a tv show on MSNBC. So now the press hounded a dem, who at the time may or may not had something to do with her death, and ignored a repub who had an actual dead body in his office.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Backlash']Joe who?[/quote]

Joe Scarborough, was a congressman from Florida. Around the same time as Gary Condit was being harrassed, one of Joe's employees was found dead in his office die to a blow to the head.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/archive/news/01/010721news1.html

Joe now has a tv show on MSNBC. So now the press hounded a dem, who at the time may or may not had something to do with her death, and ignored a repub who had an actual dead body in his office.[/quote]

Nice conspiracy theory like mind you have going there buddy. Too bad you don't seem to pay attention to details. Scarborough ha dno motive and in the very article you linked it said foul play was not involved in the death of the woman. Condit on the other hand had a big motive (an affair, mind you) and there was suspiscion by the police that her disappearence originally involved foul play. Condit brought all that attention on himself by not saying anything for so long, when there was clear motive. Innocent people usually talk to the police and it's the guilty ones who usually don't, so don't go saying all that media coverage wasn't totally unjustified.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Backlash']Joe who?[/quote]

Joe Scarborough, was a congressman from Florida. Around the same time as Gary Condit was being harrassed, one of Joe's employees was found dead in his office die to a blow to the head.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/archive/news/01/010721news1.html

Joe now has a tv show on MSNBC. So now the press hounded a dem, who at the time may or may not had something to do with her death, and ignored a repub who had an actual dead body in his office.[/quote]

Nice conspiracy theory like mind you have going there buddy. Too bad you don't seem to pay attention to details. Scarborough ha dno motive and in the very article you linked it said foul play was not involved in the death of the woman. Condit on the other hand had a big motive (an affair, mind you) and there was suspiscion by the police that her disappearence originally involved foul play. Condit brought all that attention on himself by not saying anything for so long, when there was clear motive. Innocent people usually talk to the police and it's the guilty ones who usually don't, so don't go saying all that media coverage wasn't totally unjustified.[/quote]

I'm just talking about media coverage, not whether or not he did it. There are other articles I could link to, such as the ME who examined the body was fired in two states due to shoddy work. If Joe had been a dem, you would have seen a lot more of it in the papers. That was my point. Look at all the crap about Clinton that made the papers that had little or no evidence.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Backlash']Joe who?[/quote]

Joe Scarborough, was a congressman from Florida. Around the same time as Gary Condit was being harrassed, one of Joe's employees was found dead in his office die to a blow to the head.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/archive/news/01/010721news1.html

Joe now has a tv show on MSNBC. So now the press hounded a dem, who at the time may or may not had something to do with her death, and ignored a repub who had an actual dead body in his office.[/quote]

Nice conspiracy theory like mind you have going there buddy. Too bad you don't seem to pay attention to details. Scarborough ha dno motive and in the very article you linked it said foul play was not involved in the death of the woman. Condit on the other hand had a big motive (an affair, mind you) and there was suspiscion by the police that her disappearence originally involved foul play. Condit brought all that attention on himself by not saying anything for so long, when there was clear motive. Innocent people usually talk to the police and it's the guilty ones who usually don't, so don't go saying all that media coverage wasn't totally unjustified.[/quote]

I'm just talking about media coverage, not whether or not he did it. There are other articles I could link to, such as the ME who examined the body was fired in two states due to shoddy work. If Joe had been a dem, you would have seen a lot more of it in the papers. That was my point. Look at all the crap about Clinton that made the papers that had little or no evidence.[/quote]

You're still jumping to conclusions that aren't even there and you clearly hinted at the fact that he should've been suspect at least via the media. Clinton's deal is the same as Condit's bascially, there was an affair, which he openly lied about at first. Condit did just as well as lie by stupidly keeping his mouth shut and painting himself as a prime suspect. Anytime you're in the limelight and you fuck up like that the media will be on you. Face the facts of your argument, Scarborough had no real connection to that case other than the lady working for him and she died in his office. Does it look bad?...yeah it probably does. Does it call for a media frenzy?...not really because there's no real story there. However, a congressman who had an affair with a woman that mysteriously disappeared, a disappearence that appeared to be linked to foul play at that, and on top of that the congressman won't say anything, well comes around as a much better news story doesn't it? In cases like this, it has to do with what makes the best news to sell papers and get ratings, it has nothing really to do with what politcial party they are affilated with. Hollywood celebrities get the same treatment, are you going to say Hugh Grant's whole prostitution problem shouldn't have been covered so much because he was a democrat?
 
bread's done
Back
Top