"Society" (Society{at}feminism.is.invalid) writes:
> "Andre Lieven"  wrote in message
> news:d25g8v$3pd$1{at}theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> HombreVIII writes:
>>>
>>> Andre Lieven wrote...
>>>
>>> Basically I understand your [HombreVIII's]
>>> argument to be that it all boils down to the
>>> bottom line. Networks will air what they
>>> believe their viewers want to see because
>>> that's what will make them money. Correct me
>>> if I've misinterpretted that.
>>
>> No, thats pretty much it.
>
> And pretty much wrong.  Else, the Establishment
> Media would be throwing money at Mel Gibson
> and begging (on their knees, of course ;-) for any
> 'participation' they could get on any of his next
> projects.  Well, whaddya know, they ain't.

Yet, there are other major cash projects going ahead
that are similarly religiously themed: See " The
DaVinci Code ", with Tom Cruise, IIRC.

>>> That is what I used to believe. But in light
>>> of actually watching the US media day in
>>> and day out
>
> Getting in touch with your feminine side, HombreVIII?
>
> 
>
>>> and seeing how obviously right-wing it is,
>
> "Obviously right-wing"?!!  Lemmee check,
> I'll ask Dan Rather.  Yup, he's still got a job
> at CBS and Bernard Goldberg doesn't.  Thus,
> this "right-wing" stuff you see, HombreVIII,
> isn't so obvious after all.

Well, I was arguing that it's really neither.

> Were the Big Three US broadcast television
> networks "right-wing", would they have such an
> obsession with homosexuals in their choices
> of programming?  My orientation is to be doubtful.

Indeed, and it's because they'll sell anyone anything,
if they believe that it will get viewers and sales.

>>> I can't believe that anymore.
>>
>> Well, based on the actual results of the last
>> US election, thats what sells right now.
>> Nothing more than that.
>
> Television programming that appeals to the
> values of mainstream America might be "what
> sells right now" but there's not much of that
> on offer compared to the Lefty-agenda inspired
> trash produced by the bi-coastals.

Well, say what you will about the " Bush states ",
but from what I've seen " Friends " and " Will
And Grace " didn't do that badly there, either.

And, even up here, we have, on basic cable, two
100% religious channels. I dare say that that
theres similar available to folks in the " Bush
states ", too.

>>> [...] USA brought up Dan Rather. He made
>>> a very minor mistake, the kind of which is
>>> made every single day by newscasters on
>>> every channel.
>
> 
>
> That Dan Rather's "mistake" is "made every single
> day by newscasters on every channel" only adds
> to the heaps of evidence demonstrating a Leftist
> bias in the Establishment media.  (Sheesh.)

I have some doubts about that; See " What Liberal
Media; The Truth About BIAS And The News ", by
Eric Alterman. Theres a case there...

>> Naw, I don't much like Shrub's record there,
>> yet that wasn't a " minor mistake ". But, its not
>> necessarily proof of a liberal agenda, either.
>
> Agreed.  However it is strong evidence of a
> Leftist bias -- especially because Dan Rather
> has failed to openly admit to his mistake.

I seem to recall seeing a retraction and apology
on his part.

>> Rather, the pace of news flows in modern media,
>> tends to let a lot go through without even the most
>> basic fact checkers get a peek before airing.
>
> Yeah, but what's the excuse for Dan Rather and
> his sycophants in CBS news for clinging to a lie
> AFTER fact checkers DID have a chance to
> "get a peek" AFTER the airing of Rather's hatchet
> job?

Probably the same as Nixon's hanging onto his
lies...

>> I've seen recent pieces about the military
>> that claimed that F-16s land on carriers.
>> They can't, and *thats* a " basic mistake ".
>
> F-18, F-16, what's one little number?  ;-)

Well, one has one engine, the other, two. One
has a single tail, the other, two. Its very
easy to tell the two types apart, just by looking.
If one fails to do such an easy job, that suggests
that it's not ideology thats the cause, but simply
laziness.

> Remember, Andre, if there's someone even
> more stupid than a journalism major, she's
> a broadcast major.

Well, many, yes. I still see good journalism being
done, along with the crap.

>>> I had a friend who was talked about in the
>>> national media once[. ...] His age, his
>>> description, his name, and every detail about
>>> the situation was different in each report.
>>> To my knowledge, nobody was fired over this.
>>
>> Sure: Your pal wasn't US President at the time,
>> right ? Theres your difference...
>
> Uh, then explain why Jayson Blair was canned,
> Andre.

Different cases. Now every media outlet works
the same way, over differences of exposure.

> The uproar over the obvious double standards
> practiced by the _New York Times_ in the
> Jayson Blair case and at CBS by Dan Rather
> was what drove those organizations to be
> spanked in public.  In Dan Rather's case, he
> worked hard to manufacture a story about the
> President's National Guard service even if he
> had to swallow a tissue of lies to do it while
> he ignored the much more credible story of
> the Swift Boat veterans critical of John Kerry's
> military service and his easily documented lies.

Sorry, I looked over the swiftboatees stuff, and
it was solid ideological crap, too.

> How long has it been since the Establishment
> Media mentioned the failure of the junior senator
> from Massachusetts to keep his promise to sign
> Form SF-180 and make his military records
> as public as the President has?  Hmmm.  Looks
> like it's been 57 days and counting.

Isn't it over 57 days since the election was over ?

>>> So why was it such a big deal when Dan Rather
>>> got 1 thing wrong... er, kind of wrong?
>>
>> See right above.
>
> Rather's "mistake" was a big deal because
> after so many years of Big Dan getting away
> with his on-air lies and dramatic lurch to the
> Left, he'd been caught red handed.  Were
> this nothing more than an oopsie by a fearless
> seeker of the truth (as overpaid news readers
> like Dan Rather pretend to be), there would
> have been a correction aired no later than the
> following episode of the _60 Minutes_ program,
> instead of his producer insisting that the forged
> documents were "basically correct".

You mean, like the 18 minutes that Nixon never
explained ?

Its not an ideological issue, as sources and
commentators on right and left often do shoddy work,
and fail to do their homework. I think that it's a mistake
to take this issue, and deal with it as if only one side
does it.

For an example, which media is doing major stories about
the implications of the current huge US budget deficits, and
growing debt ? Theres a lot to say there, but I hardly see
any mass reporting on that issue.

Given that I live in the closest neighbour to the US,
and we have a balanced budget, a shrinking debt, and a
positive balance of trade, this issue is one that can
affect us, as well as all of you.

If the US media were really left wing, they'd be all
over this story. But, they're not.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 12:47:46 AM ---