"HombreVIII" (NoThank{at}You.com) writes:
> "Andre Lieven"  wrote in message
> news:d24pbo$lh5$1{at}theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> Basically I understand your argument to be that it all boils down to the
> bottom line. Networks will air what they believe their veiwers want to
> see because that's what will make them money. Correct me if I've
> misinterpretted that.

No, thats pretty much it.

> That is what I used to believe. But in light of actually watching the US
> media day in and day out and seeing how obviously right-wing it is, 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.

> Yes, the bottom line probably has something to do with it,
> but I don't know that they aren't being subsidized by the GOP, (the Bush
> administration has been caught paying people to say good things about them
> before),

Not at the rates of money flowing through pop media coffers. Next to
that, the GOP has nothing more than chicken feed.

> or given orders by the FCC which could shut any network down any
> time it wants. Don't forget, even assuming the voting machines with
> consistantly magical results did count the votes acurately, that still
> means 48% of the demographic voted liberal. Why are all major US media
> outlets ignoring that market?

How are they ignoring it ? Loads of " liberal " POV fiction shows on
the air, and the NYTimes is still in business...

> 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.

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.
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. I've seen recent pieces about the military that claimed that
F-16s land on carriers. They can't, and *thats* a " basic mistake ".

> I had a friend who
> was talked about in the national media once, and I've personally witnessed
> how they got detail after detail wrong about him and the situation.

Sure. But, not as much when it's a Really Big Story, on which the network
is hanging *lots* of cred on. Anyone remember " The Hitler Diaries " ?

> One
> major paper claimed that he worked for Microsoft, (he was actually working
> for a company called Microtech), and that he was "on vacation at
the time".
> 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...

> So
> why was it such a big deal when Dan Rather got 1 thing wrong... er, kind of
> wrong?

See right above.

> I mean what the source said was correct even though the source itself
> was forged. Why did Dan Rather's source describing the absentses in Bush's
> military record being forged outshine all other important news at the time
> including the actual absentses in Bush's military record themselves? Why
> was sooo much of CBS fired over it? How can this possibly be explained if
> there's no right wing control of the media?

Because, when it's late in a seemingly close election campaign and you're
the network airing what turns out to be BS, you get seen as having no cred,
thus fewer viewers, thus fewer ad bucks...

> Further, as the site I linked to earlier http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.
> htm asked, Where is exhibit B? It lists 38 right wing media pundits and
> asks for the left wing ones.

See " The New York Times "... Not the same as radio, but different
strokes for different folks, I guess.

> Well, where are these left wing pundits?

Is Air America still on the air ? Perhaps it's listeners are too busy
watching Oprah and tuning in to Will And Grace...

The right and left, as groups, aren't mirror images of each other...

> I don't
> consider staring a gay person in Will and Grace as "providing the left wing
> view", nor do I consider Howard Stern jacking off on a microphone as
> strippers sit topless in his booth "liberal viewpoint being
aired" either.

Yeah, but a lot of " liberal " media viewers do... See their Neilsens.

> Where in this extraordinary left wing media USA says we have, or the one
> looking to draw in the most veiwers in a country that's 48% left-wing to
> bring in a larger revenue stream, can I find any liberal arguments?

See " The New York Times ". Not exactly a weekly Pennysaver publication.

Besides, when marking for effort, I'd have to say that the libDems
did a really crappy job of communicating what they were about, now
for two elections in a row. Thats no one's fault but theirs. They
really do need to sit down and figure out what they want to do, and
how they want to do it, while remembering that, if they can't get
enough voters to accept their plan, it'll stay as fictional as The
West Wing is.

I've seen a really crappy Conservative election campaign here in
Canada, back in '93. Party went, in one go, from 157 seats to *2*.
So, this isn't a lib or tory thing, its simply knowing what you are
offering and to whom. And, as of late, the US rightist party does
that far better than the US relatively leftist party.

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} 3/27/05 4:46:22 AM ---