Defining the "Liberal Media" and the "Mainstream Media"

[HuskerNation1]

Sure. To turn this around, why is influence bad? I've been influenced by a lot of people -- including posters on here who I think make great arguments. I wasn't born politically active and I still am far from an expert in any policy matter.

I've been influenced by Barack Obama. It didn't occur to me, for example, that Iran might not be an evil country we should never deal with. Even that the Iraq war and the American policy of nation-building were mistakes.

I've been influenced by a number of outlets that do good journalism. I think Glenn Greenwald does a great, earnest job with The Intercept and pushed me in a different direction on Snowden. I think Paul Krugman is a very smart guy and he's shaped my views in his area of expertise, economics. Various influences, media and otherwise, which I respect have swayed my opinion on the current administration's drone war. I don't agree with everything from the NYT, or WaPo, etc, even on these topics, but on balance I think they offer a lot of valuable, critical thinking.

There's a big difference to my mind between that and the organized, cohesive messaging machine of the right that we're criticizing here and which you seem to be defending. Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, the New York Post. These are intentionally dishonest swillers and sellers of partisan programming. If that's a judgment, I'm happy to stand by it.

Did you even read what I wrote above. I'm not a big fan of Rush and others on the right, and am distrustful of many media types, including the MSM. I'm not disagreeing that different media outlets try to use their influence to get viewership up or to meet their own personal agenda, but where I disagree is with BRB's insinuation (which you seem to have jumped on board with) that I allow right wing media to sway my opinions.

Let's take the topic in the other thread regarding the Iran ransom. I posted a piece that came from the NY Post but that you can read in Politico and many other outlets now, and rather than focusing on the issue, you dismissed the topic by discrediting the source it came from. You just proved you are guilty of not thinking independently by refusing to acknowledge an issue based upon the source provided.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Just because you didn't listen to Rush and get the idea from him doesn't mean you weren't influenced by them. Conservative radio is where the idea originated about this MSM liberal bias...bla bla bla. It spread from there. It's like if you get the Zika virus, it doesn't mean you came in contact with the first few people that ever had it. But...hey...you still got it.

Sorry BRB, you are 100% wrong on this one. I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest. I don't identify with the alternative fringe right or with the "establishment" part of the GOP. I agree that there are many on both sides of the aisle influenced by media, whether its talk radio, print media, television media, social media, or what is instilled into the entertainment media of our time.

Ok....that is you. You came up with this through your own observation.

That's not true with the masses though.

Conservative radio is where it all started.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Just because you didn't listen to Rush and get the idea from him doesn't mean you weren't influenced by them. Conservative radio is where the idea originated about this MSM liberal bias...bla bla bla. It spread from there. It's like if you get the Zika virus, it doesn't mean you came in contact with the first few people that ever had it. But...hey...you still got it.

Sorry BRB, you are 100% wrong on this one. I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest. I don't identify with the alternative fringe right or with the "establishment" part of the GOP. I agree that there are many on both sides of the aisle influenced by media, whether its talk radio, print media, television media, social media, or what is instilled into the entertainment media of our time.

Ok....that is you. You came up with this through your own observation.

That's not true with the masses though.

Conservative radio is where it all started.

I can agree that Conservative radio is what called out the liberal bias that exists in the MSM. I don't agree with the idea that there is no liberal bias in the MSM and it's just something invented by the right. On the latter we may just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mierin]

"I'm not influenced by anyone."

Unironically, he said, while regularly offering up Trump surrogate party lines nearly verbatim.

You go on with your judgmental self zoogs. We can make an argument that everyone on here is influenced by some media outlet.

We can make that argument. The thing is, nobody here made the claim that they aren't influenced by anyone. Except for you.

If you actually read the thread above, a specific accusation was made by BRB that I am influence by right-wing media/propaganda which I refuted, and then went on to make the point that everyone is influenced by media in one way or another. I simply pointed out that I am not influenced by a certain type of media as BRB was suggesting, so nice try.

Oh, I did actually read it. I'm responding to this:

Sorry BRB, you are 100% wrong on this one. I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest.

That's what you said. What BRB specifically asked isn't relevant.

 

[zoogs]

This has been an attempt at your part to equate Rush, Breitbart, et. al. with the continued myth of a dangerous "MSM", the topic of the OP. A false equivalency that has been routinely criticized by many, and defended by you.

There's not that much mystery to this; please stop attempting to obfuscate.

 

[HuskerNation1]

This has been an attempt at your part to equate Rush, Breitbart, et. al. with the continued myth of a dangerous "MSM", the topic of the OP. A false equivalency that has been routinely criticized by many, and defended by you.

There's not that much mystery to this; please stop attempting to obfuscate.

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Here's a prime example of the MSM bias that many on here claim does not exist. Loisiana has once again ravaged by flooding as in 2005. The Red Cross has indicated this is the worst disaster since Hurricane Sandy in 2012. With Katrina in 2005 when Bush was slow to respond and visit, the MSM networks spent a great deal of time focusing negative attention on Bush. Lets now fast forward to the current day and the MSM media is not giving that same scrutiny to Obama who has chosen to stay on vacation.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2016/08/18/nets-compare-louisiana-flood-katrina-ignore-obama-vacation

 

[Creighton Duke]

This has been an attempt at your part to equate Rush, Breitbart, et. al. with the continued myth of a dangerous "MSM", the topic of the OP. A false equivalency that has been routinely criticized by many, and defended by you.

There's not that much mystery to this; please stop attempting to obfuscate.

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

This has been an attempt at your part to equate Rush, Breitbart, et. al. with the continued myth of a dangerous "MSM", the topic of the OP. A false equivalency that has been routinely criticized by many, and defended by you.

There's not that much mystery to this; please stop attempting to obfuscate.

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

Is this Donald Trump's next chart? And does this really explain anything other than people having similar interests marrying each other? I'm not surprised that somebody in the news media is married to someone responsible for relaying news. I'm not surprised that family members have shared interests. When I declared a Psychology major, my sister--a dissatisfied Pre-Health major switched to Psychology. This past year my sister enrolled in a Human Resources Management program, undoubtedly influenced by my enrollment in an Industrial and Organizational Psychology program.

Might their current careers been influenced by nepotism, cronyism, etc? Maybe. But then again, Donald Trump probably doesn't get to where he is today without the same process. It's pretty hard to attack a process that you yourself have benefited from.

 

[zoogs]

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

Totally fine by me. All this criticism of right-wing media and their "MSM" campaign, you can disagree with it. You can throw your lot in with them and fight fervently for the same goals, in an attempt to legitimize what most groupthink is quack.

That's great. Just own it.

What Sykes said was a problem for you. You need to be able to continue trumping up Zero Hedge and what is it lately, 'newsbusters.org'?

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based inReston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III.[1] Its stated mission is to "prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values."[2]

 

[Landlord]

I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest.

We can make an argument that everyone on here is influenced by some media outlet.

a specific accusation was made by BRB that I am influence by right-wing media/propaganda which I refuted, and then went on to make the point that everyone is influenced by media in one way or another. I simply pointed out that I am not influenced by a certain type of media as BRB was suggesting, so nice try.

I simply pointed out that I am not influenced by a certain type of media as BRB was suggesting, so nice try.

I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest.

Anyone else wildly confused and entertained?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest.

We can make an argument that everyone on here is influenced by some media outlet.

a specific accusation was made by BRB that I am influence by right-wing media/propaganda which I refuted, and then went on to make the point that everyone is influenced by media in one way or another. I simply pointed out that I am not influenced by a certain type of media as BRB was suggesting, so nice try.

I simply pointed out that I am not influenced by a certain type of media as BRB was suggesting, so nice try.

I'm a highly educated guy that prides myself on not being influenced by anyone to be honest.

Anyone else wildly confused and entertained?

So, he is influenced by media but in no way shape or form could he possibly by influenced by media in the way I describe.

PS.....meanwhile, he uses the term Main Stream Media which is a term created by the conservative radio personalities who he claims to not have been influenced by.

 

[HuskerNation1]

You are easily confused LOMS. Sorry to hear that. It's really not that complicated.

1. Point 1-Media bias exists everywhere (including the MSM), not just with "right-wing" media. So I agree that all of us can be influenced in some way by what we read, listen to, or view on television. The difference is how we form our own objective thoughts and opinions based upon those influences.

2. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush and others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Again, if that's hard for you to grasp, I will repeat it. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush or others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Do you understand or should I repeat again?

3. I provided an example just happening this week of the hypocrisy of the MSM in terms of how they critiqued Bush 43 during Katrina, but have waited several days to offer any criticism of Obama. Are you going to admit that they have a double standard in these two examples or simply choose to rehearse your talking points because you don't want to admit the MSM has bias?

As for BRB's point on use of the term MSM, when something has been discussed at length it becomes part of the normal vocabulary. The phrase "war on terror" didn't really become commonplace until Bush 43 began using it, and soon Dems referred to that as well. The word "Impactful" was never really a word accepted as commonplace until recent years. And on and on.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You are easily confused LOMS. Sorry to hear that. It's really not that complicated.

1. Point 1-Media bias exists everywhere (including the MSM), not just with "right-wing" media. So I agree that all of us can be influenced in some way by what we read, listen to, or view on television. The difference is how we form our own objective thoughts and opinions based upon those influences.

2. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush and others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Again, if that's hard for you to grasp, I will repeat it. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush or others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Do you understand or should I repeat again?

3. I provided an example just happening this week of the hypocrisy of the MSM in terms of how they critiqued Bush 43 during Katrina, but have waited several days to offer any criticism of Obama. Are you going to admit that they have a double standard in these two examples or simply choose to rehearse your talking points because you don't want to admit the MSM has bias?

Let me ask you this.

Do you think it was the media criticizing Bush or do you think they were reporting on criticism of Bush? Big distinction.

And....like has been pointed out, comparing Katrina to these floods is completely ridiculous.

 

[HuskerNation1]

You are easily confused LOMS. Sorry to hear that. It's really not that complicated.

1. Point 1-Media bias exists everywhere (including the MSM), not just with "right-wing" media. So I agree that all of us can be influenced in some way by what we read, listen to, or view on television. The difference is how we form our own objective thoughts and opinions based upon those influences.

2. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush and others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Again, if that's hard for you to grasp, I will repeat it. Whatever propaganda is coming from Rush or others on right-wing talk radio, I do not let that form my judgments and opinions which is where the 1st and 5th quotes you highlighted came from. Do you understand or should I repeat again?

3. I provided an example just happening this week of the hypocrisy of the MSM in terms of how they critiqued Bush 43 during Katrina, but have waited several days to offer any criticism of Obama. Are you going to admit that they have a double standard in these two examples or simply choose to rehearse your talking points because you don't want to admit the MSM has bias?

Let me ask you this.

Do you think it was the media criticizing Bush or do you think they were reporting on criticism of Bush? Big distinction.

And....like has been pointed out, comparing Katrina to these floods is completely ridiculous.

I think the media is criticizing Bush by injecting their negative coverage time to him during Katrina. They could have taken it easy on Bush as they have with Obama so far but they chose not to.

Regardless if it's apples to apples, as you said earlier you felt in both cases there should not have been a negative spotlight on Bush or Obama, yet that spotlight was very much on Bush and has been lacking on Obama. If you want to continue to believe there is no bias in the MSM reporting so be it. We will just have to disagree on this, but I will continue to provide examples in this thread as they arise.