Speaking of the Media's Liberal Bias

[Brassmask]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/

 While at Davos, Rupert Murdoch discusses the rise of the Internet and digital media, but tells us he used News Corp. to manipulate the news.

    Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution."

[sirs]

While at Davos, Rupert Murdoch discusses the rise of the Internet and digital media, but tells us he used News Corp. to manipulate the news.   Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution."
[/b]

Somewhere Brass must have missed the point that it's how the majority lean lib, while a token few, such as Murdoch's Fox News lean Bush.  Could someone remind him please.  Finding the one large news outlet that leans right Brass (and has been conceded as leaning right), in no way diffuses the vast majority of the rest that lean left.  Try finding the same Bush favored shaping of news anywhere outside Fox, WSJ, Washington Times, and NY Post.
 

[Henny]

Somewhere Brass must have missed the point that it's how the majority lean lib, while a token few, such as Murdoch's Fox News lean Bush.  Could someone remind him please.  Finding the one large news outlet that leans right Brass (and has been conceded as leaning right), in no way diffuses the vast majority of the rest that lean left.  Try finding the same Bush favored shaping of news anywhere outside Fox, WSJ, Washington Times, and NY Post.
 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that having lived outside of the U.S. for 7 months now with only CNN Europe to watch... the entire U.S. media leans way right. So right they've fallen over on their side. That's comparative, of course, but really you haven't lived until you've watched news outside of the U.S. You see so much MORE on your television that sometimes you really have to just turn it off, and definitely make sure little kids aren't watching some of it!

Now I'm going to test some emoticons, which I know BT hates, but I'll try not to do it again. (Nice forum, BTW!)
 

[BT]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that having lived outside of the U.S. for 7 months now with only CNN Europe to watch... the entire U.S. media leans way right. So right they've fallen over on their side.

Interesting. Could you provide examples or explain further?

[Henny]

[Interesting. Could you provide examples or explain further?

Yes, and I should have done so to begin with. The news that I have been watching - CNN Europe, as well as other regional news - shows things that we would never see on our news, like an excess of dead and dying people. Or an image of a person being shot in the head by a soldier (anywhere, anytime - this is not just Iraq) and dropping to the ground. And not just quick glances at the scenes, but lingering ones. I think American news is cleaned up a bit - there would be quite a bit of outcry for various reasons. Or perhaps Americans don't want another reaction like the one after the Tet Offensive?

Another example, when Saddam Hussein was hanged, some of the cell phone images got out and were broadcast on the evening news. I mean of him literally hanging, not just of the noose being put around his neck.

I also have an Israeli friend (peace activist) who lives between Tel Aviv and Atlanta, and she does some work for CNN. One thing we see on the news (ALL news) on a daily basis is the demolition of Palestinian homes, as well as the Israeli peace activist groups who work to help rebuild their homes. She inquired in Atlanta about WHY Americans don't see this happening on CNN U.S., because, quite literally, it's an everyday thing. She was told that it is against FCC regulations to broadcast images of Palestinian home demolitions. (And no, I haven't done any research to verify this, all I can verify is what we see here compared and what you see there.)

Receiving regional satellite broadcasts is also very enlightening. There are 2 conflicting channels - one we just call "Hizbollah TV," which broadcasts anti-Israel, anti-Jew, pro-resistance all the time. The other is a right-wing Israeli channel which broadcasts anti-Muslim, anti-Qu'ran all the time. Freedom of the press in the most interesting manner, as both channels - both the Israeli and Hizbollah - are filled with horrible images and hate that are completely at odds with each other.

The news here is all the time anti-Bush, and quite often anti-American. People seem to be fascinated to see everything that is happening in the U.S., but only to complain about it. LOL.

Living here and watching these things has given me a different perspective and has made me a bit more patriotic, but I can't deny the culture shock of watching the world from a perspective other than an American one.

[larry]

The U.S. media has not been liberal since the Communications Act of 1986. Since that time the conservative mineset has been centered on psychological programming, for the purpose of achieving a desired result. That has been the format for entertainment as well as news and information. The result of that is a philosophical bias. What we have seen happen over the years is the liberal welfare state mentality has given way to conservative authoritarian mentality.

Conservatives see communications, i.e. news print, TV and radio as tools of psychological programming. Liberals tried to condition the public with programs like "Father Knows Best. Conservatives are trying to condition the public with programs like "The shield" . This is how the general public are being condition to accept The police state mentality and the destruction of civil liberties and constitutional protects. The intent of programming is to habituate the public to the undesirable policies of authoritarian rule. The U.S. Media is far right wing conservative today.

[Universe Prince]

I am curious as to why not showing as much violence is supposed to be an indicator that American media is so far "right they've fallen over on their side." In what way is that inherently a right-wing decision?

[sirs]

The news here is all the time anti-Bush, and quite often anti-American. People seem to be fascinated to see everything that is happening in the U.S., but only to complain about it. LOL.   Living here and watching these things has given me a different perspective and has made me a bit more patriotic, but I can't deny the culture shock of watching the world from a perspective other than an American one.

Henny, it's great to see and read your words.  Let's get to those words.  I'm absolutely sure, that foreign news is much more anti-Bush/anti-American than here.  So, from that perspective, it would seem that bias here leans right.....IN COMPARISON.  However, from a pure domestic standpoint, which is my whole thesis, the vast majority of the media leans left, when you look & chroncile all the stories, all the op-eds, all the forms of "questioning" politicians & pundits.  What you've described is kinda-like the "Bernie Goldberg phenomenon"  Basically you get a large group of folks thinking the same way, and even if it's decidedely 1 sided, because everyone there is believing it, and they believe themselves to be of a perfectly reasonable mindet, they can concluded that their mindset is the norm (Hey, everyone's thinking my way", thus anything that isn't of that mindset is outside the mainstream.  This is how he accurately can assess the mainstream news, having been a member for so long.  They believe their biases are pretty much moderate, mainstream, thus anything to their right is "far right".  Doesn't make it so, just their perception.  Taken together though, it most decidely leans left, when you look at what's reported, and more notably what's not reported. 

Yet, in comparison to the foreign news you've described, it would be perceived as leaning right.  I suppose it's no shocker then when you have such international polls stating how negative they view America & Bush.  If only there were a Democrat in the WH, things would be all better       

[Henny]

I am curious as to why not showing as much violence is supposed to be an indicator that American media is so far "right they've fallen over on their side." In what way is that inherently a right-wing decision?

Hey Prince,

I guess I was trying to show 2 different things in my post. First that the news here is simply different. Second that it is extremely liberal compared to U.S. media. The blood and gore, in general, is just different. But the fact that you are not seeing the carnage is Palestine or Iraq, or during the war in Lebanon, in full color - LIVE TV - takes me to the point about conservative persuasion, hence my reference to not wanting a repeat of the reaction to the Tet Offensive on the 6:00 news.

[Henny]

So, from that perspective, it would seem that bias here leans right.....IN COMPARISON. ...
Yet, in comparison to the foreign news you've described, it would be perceived as leaning right.  I suppose it's no shocker then when you have such international polls stating how negative they view America & Bush.  If only there were a Democrat in the WH, things would be all better       

Sirs, from this perspective, all of America leans right. 

As for a Democrat being in the WH making things better... piffle. Perhaps different foreign policy from any president at any time could make things better. And maybe that is in the works right now, but people are having "growing pains."

I thought I should mention that not everything is only critical of Bush. While inside Iraq there is an obvious... ummm... resistance to our forces and it may APPEAR that more troops are not wanted there, the countries bordering Iraq, in public opinion polls, would prefer Bush's agenda of sending in more troops to clean up the mess. Why? A sincere fear that the chaos is going to spill over the borders into other countries. So in that regard, you see "people" upset about some of the actions of the majority of Dems.

[Lanya]

Henny, I'm so glad to see you posting.
I will read more later, I have to run, but the CNN International news is a bit different from most news I see. We get it during the day here on our regular CNN channel. But certainly no views of dead bodies. 

[Universe Prince]

Hey Henny.  I'm glad to see you about once more. How are things?

Anyway, I'm still unclear as to why not showing more of the violence of war in the news is a sign of right-wing bias. It is not as if we got full and uncensored coverage of the conflicts in Kosovo or Bosnia, which surely would have benefited the political right during Clinton's administration. I'm not trying to make a "Clinton did it too" argument. I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.

[Henny]

Hey Henny.  I'm glad to see you about once more. How are things?

Anyway, I'm still unclear as to why not showing more of the violence of war in the news is a sign of right-wing bias. It is not as if we got full and uncensored coverage of the conflicts in Kosovo or Bosnia, which surely would have benefited the political right during Clinton's administration. I'm not trying to make a "Clinton did it too" argument. I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.

Prince, things are good. How about you?

I see your point on that, and perhaps the news is just cleaned up. But I still think the reaction to seeing current wars on television, that are already in question in the States, versus Kosovo or Bosnia, which were largely uncontested, would cost the right a lot.

[Universe Prince]

Things are progressing well here, Henny. At least, I'd like to think they are.

But I still think the reaction to seeing current wars on television, that are already in question in the States, versus Kosovo or Bosnia, which were largely uncontested, would cost the right a lot.

I thought the U.S. military efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia were contested. As has been pointed out elsewhere, back then the political roles were reversed. Republicans claimed the efforts were not in American interests and the conflicts were unwinable, while Democrats defended the efforts as completely necessary for things like region stability and preventing a wider war from breaking out. There was even debate about when to bring the troops home and what goals must be met to declare victory. Clinton got a lot of grief over not meeting deadlines to bring troops home and having goals that were too vague to prevent the conflicts from turning into expensive, military quagmires for the U.S. Seeing the violence there would have cost Clinton and his supporters a lot. Yet, we did not see in American media people being shot and killed in those conflicts. (In fiction, however, we did see a lot of deaths. Apparently people faking being shot and killed is more palatable then people actually being shot and killed.)

There may or may not be a right-leaning media bias in the U.S. I just don't agree that the level of images from the war is a gauge of that.

[Henny]

I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.

I read your most recent post on the topic, but jumping back one and regarding the quoted statement, what do you think the reason is?