|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: DID U.S. TV MEDIA LAUNCH A CRUSADE TO ELECT OBAMA? |
 |
|
Just finished listening to a fascinating interview with Bernard Goldberg, the former CBS News and NY Times reporter, who has written extensively on liberal media bias in recent years.
You can hear the radio broadcast here:
http://www.jimbohannonshow.com
Go to the Show Archives and click on January 29, 2009 to access the interview.
In two separate interviews broadcast live to students during lecture, Goldberg was told in no uncertain terms by a professor of political science at American University and professor of political journalism that the role of media is to effect social change. When he dared asked just what kind of change they had in mind, neither was able to give an answer.
Evidently brainwashed by their own thinking, they hadn't bothered to pose the question to themselves. Truly pathetic.
When I took elective courses in journalism three decades ago at the University of Wisconsin, then well regarded for its school of journalism, I never heard this kind of talk. The job of journalists, we were told, was to report the news as objectively as we found it, unless writing an editorial. Now it's all about vague but usually leftist notions of social justice.
Anyhow, Goldberg also revealed that in a panel discussion of prominent mainstream news reporters after the general election, they admitted not only to having a liberal bias but of seeking to effect change in Washington in their coverage of events. One stood and declared matter-of-factly: "That's just the way it is."
This leaves me with a chill running down my spine and is irrespective of my ultimate decision to vote for Obama. Had the same happened in support of McCain I'd be just as appalled.
Jim Bohannon, the radio host and interviewer, observed that unfortunately most Americans prefer "predigested news." In other words, they tune in to hear what they want to hear rather than to be truly informed (of course the same charge can be levied at other groups as well). "If you hew the line, you don't get ratings."
Goldberg then put forward an equally damning albeit partial explanation: "We live in the United States of Entertainment." "Who wants to listened to balanced commentary these days?" he then asked, not rhetorically but with genuine chagrin.
Finally, consider this: during the recently completed election campaign, Chris Matthews was appointed director of NBC's coverage. During one broadcast he said with a straight face, "If you don't feel like crying after hearing this man [Obama] speak, you're not an American." He also spoke of having a tingle go up his leg in a moment of Man Crush. As Goldberg commented, "This is not only dangerous for someone in that position of responsibility but insane."
Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time?
Is social activism a legitimate aim of professional (as opposed to tabloid) journalism?
And how does this recent phenomenon bode for a free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent?
Was the election of Barack Obama bought? (as liberals were so quick to accuse conservatives of doing in 2000 and 2004)
Pick and choose, but try to be cogent when you opine. And please, no bloviating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time?
Is social activism a legitimate aim of professional (as opposed to tabloid) journalism?
And how does this recent phenomenon bode for a free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent?
Was the election of Barack Obama bought? (as liberals were so quick to accuse conservatives of doing in 2000 and 2004)
Pick and choose, but try to be cogent when you opine. And please, no bloviating. |
This is a common complaint of the losers. Lots of people felt the media pushed Reagan into the White House in '80. There are plenty of reasons why McCain lost...a lackluster campaign, the financial meltdown, an unpopular war, identification with a seriously unpopular president. No need to resort to liberal conspiracies to explain a perfectly understandable loss.
Social activism is not a new phenomenon. Ask Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and Jacob Riis. It has its place, which is not to admit that it was happening in the recent election.
Since Obama represented fairness and dissent in the election, it looks like they are still healthy principles in the Republic.
There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of articles floating around about Republicans being in danger of becoming a permanently minority regional party after having dominated politics for 3 decades or more. Rather than blaming the media for recent failures, perhaps the thing to do is some serious naval gazing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is a common complaint of the losers. Lots of people felt the media pushed Reagan into the White House in '80. There are plenty of reasons why McCain lost...a lackluster campaign, the financial meltdown, an unpopular war, identification with a seriously unpopular president. No need to resort to liberal conspiracies to explain a perfectly understandable loss.
Social activism is not a new phenomenon. Ask Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair and Jacob Riis. It has its place, which is not to admit that it was happening in the recent election.
Since Obama represented fairness and dissent in the election, it looks like they are still healthy principles in the Republic.
There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of articles floating around about Republicans being in danger of becoming a permanently minority regional party after having dominated politics for 3 decades or more. Rather than blaming the media for recent failures, perhaps the thing to do is some serious naval gazing. |
Yeah, but beyond all that...............................answer the quetions.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What? Did I type too fast for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, who the media decides to back has a lot to do with winning presidential elections. W. Clinton, for example, acutely sensed this as C. Powell and 1996 loomed over his first administration's future.
This was and is especially the case with B. Obama. Just ask this fawning member of the White House press corps...
| Quote: |
| The situation came to a close when a cameraman in the room interrupted, declaring: "I'd like to say it one more time: 'Mr. President...'" |
Fox News Reports
So did Hollywood, by the way, from M. Damon to T. Fey, and multiple others. Ignoring these kinds of social-activist dynamics, that is, the media's conscious attempt to shape public opinion according to its own, self-righteous version of "justice," etc., strikes me as the most asinine, disingenuous, and/or naive form of denial I can imagine.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:35 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sarbonn
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: Re: DID U.S. TV MEDIA LAUNCH A CRUSADE TO ELECT OBAMA? |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time? |
No. The mainstream media is no different than it's always been. It's been doing the same things since media has been around. The first newspapers were partisan. It only bothers people when they realize their own party affiliation is in the minority when it comes to news coverage.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Is social activism a legitimate aim of professional (as opposed to tabloid) journalism? |
No, it's a legitimate byproduct. Those political scientists are wrong. I have a Ph.d in political science, too, and not all of us agree with someone from American University.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| And how does this recent phenomenon bode for a free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent? |
Madison warned about it. Either organize to compensate or be part of the treadmarks that run you over.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Was the election of Barack Obama bought? (as liberals were so quick to accuse conservatives of doing in 2000 and 2004) |
Not at all. My vote was against the Republican Party, not for Obama. I wasn't swayed by the media one iota. People are far more capable of free thought than partisan people want to give them credit. There were a lot of people who cast a vote to change things rather than cast a vote for one person. Some people were satiated with just putting one party out of power for at least four years to give the other party a chance to screw things up themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sarbonn wrote: |
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time? |
No. The mainstream media is no different than it's always been. It's been doing the same things since media has been around. The first newspapers were partisan. It only bothers people when they realize their own party affiliation is in the minority when it comes to news coverage. |
I partly agree. Historian D. Waldstreicher explores this in In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes.
On the other hand, you do not seem to be aware of differences between mere partisanship and social-activism or crusadership, which emerged post1960s and postVietnam. Thus, for example, the media, including Hollywood, treated presidents markedly differently between, say, Dwight D. Eisenhower and JFK, on the one hand, and R. Nixon, B. Clinton, and George W. Bush on the other.
What changed? The Drew Pearsons and Jack Andersons were always around. Now they are the norm, however. And the Walter Cronkites find themselves marginalized and/or gone. Not sensational enough to keep up with the Anderson Coopers and Keith Olbermanns.
Further, commercialism, sin verguanza. This also is new. Go to CNN now and get your B. Obama t-shirt. Obama raises a hand and lifts a nation; change has arrived. Blah. You can also go to Amazon.com and preorder your B. Obama inaugural DVD. Hurry while supplies last...! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Straphanger
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Location: Chilgok, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:30 am Post subject: Re: DID U.S. TV MEDIA LAUNCH A CRUSADE TO ELECT OBAMA? |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time? |
I wish this question made more sense. I don't know how to respond to it because there aren't any metrics for "off the deep end."
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Is social activism a legitimate aim of professional (as opposed to tabloid) journalism? |
Of course not. But what is social activism? If you're swimming in a lake full of man-eating sharks (I know, just go with it), and somebody on the shore goes "Hey man, there's a buncha sharks up in that water, if you don't get out, one of em's gonna eat ya." are you going to look up on shore scream "Don't tell me how to live my life!!!"
Same question: If the media is repeatedly saying how bad things are, are they trying to affect social change, or are they simply stating the obvious?
If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, are you a man, or do you simply not understand the situation?
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| And how does this recent phenomenon bode for a free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent? |
The United States was founded on rhetoric and inflammatory speech. Think about it: Wasn't the Declaration of Independence just a manifesto at the end of it all? They were colonists, rebels, terrorists, and they were trying to tell the most powerful empire the world had ever known to cram their taxes up the dooter chute.
Fairness and dissent? Everyone has an axe to grind. They have from the beginning. That's why we all need to examine all the (ultimately biased) evidence and make up our own minds.
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
| Was the election of Barack Obama bought? (as liberals were so quick to accuse conservatives of doing in 2000 and 2004) |
Bought how? Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-Ta Boy replied:
| Quote: |
| This is a common complaint of the losers. Lots of people felt the media pushed Reagan into the White House in '80. There are plenty of reasons why McCain lost...a lackluster campaign, the financial meltdown, an unpopular war, identification with a seriously unpopular president. No need to resort to liberal conspiracies to explain a perfectly understandable loss. |
I see, so how do you square that with the fact that I voted for Obama? You're missing the point again. Goldberg makes it abundantly clear in his interview (did you bother to listen to it?) that the media slant campaign this time around was unprecedented.
It is one thing to report bad tidings and quite another to interpret them off the editorial page in favor of a particular candidate. It is both disingenuous and arrogant to suppose that journalists have the truth and that their version of it will somehow set us free.
It has nothing to do with who won or lost the election, regardless. Yes, McCain's campaign bungled things. But that's beside the point.
Straphanger philosophized:
| Quote: |
| Fairness and dissent? Everyone has an axe to grind |
Yes, that's all very well and fine when you're talking about news commentary and editorials which are actually labeled as such but otherwise journalism should rise to a higher standard.
They can't expect us to buy their storyline if they don't tell the whole story.
Case in point: a couple of people get wind of an allegation that McCain had an affair with a former staffer. It appears on the front page of the New York Times within two days.
Obama is known to have attended Wright's church for two decades but after the "good" Reverend's "damn America" tirade--er--sermon, the story gets buried in the NYT.
What I object to is the double standard, and the liberal press corps' belief that they have a monopoly on virtue.
You (in its collective usage here) can bet your sweet ass that if McCain had been elected and then proceeded to nominate candidates who hadn't paid their back taxes, he would have been scoured in the press.
sarbonn fancied:
| Quote: |
| No. The mainstream media is no different than it's always been. |
Let me finish your sentence: "it's always been, on the side of the liberal agenda."
Actually if you go back and read the front page stories in the NYT from a couple decades ago, they did not editorialize to the extent that they do today. And on TV you didn't have soon-to-be news anchors like Chris Matthews waxing poetic about that warm tingle in his leg every time he hears Obama speak.
Revolting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-Ta Boy replied:
| Quote: |
| This is a common complaint of the losers. Lots of people felt the media pushed Reagan into the White House in '80. There are plenty of reasons why McCain lost...a lackluster campaign, the financial meltdown, an unpopular war, identification with a seriously unpopular president. No need to resort to liberal conspiracies to explain a perfectly understandable loss. |
I see, so how do you square that with the fact that I voted for Obama? You're missing the point again. Goldberg makes it abundantly clear in his interview (did you bother to listen to it?) that the media slant campaign this time around was unprecedented.
It is one thing to report bad tidings and quite another to interpret them off the editorial page in favor of a particular candidate. It is both disingenuous and arrogant to suppose that journalists have the truth and that their version of it will somehow set us free.
It has nothing to do with who won or lost the election, regardless. Yes, McCain's campaign bungled things. But that's beside the point.
Straphanger philosophized:
| Quote: |
| Fairness and dissent? Everyone has an axe to grind |
Yes, that's all very well and fine when you're talking about news commentary and editorials which are actually labeled as such but otherwise journalism should rise to a higher standard.
They can't expect us to buy their storyline if they don't tell the whole story.
Case in point: a couple of people get wind of an allegation that McCain had an affair with a former staffer. It appears on the front page of the New York Times within two days.
Obama is known to have attended Wright's church for two decades but after the "good" Reverend's "damn America" tirade--er--sermon, the story gets buried in the NYT.
What I object to is the double standard, and the liberal press corps' belief that they have a monopoly on virtue.
You (in its collective usage here) can bet your sweet ass that if McCain had been elected and then proceeded to nominate candidates who hadn't paid their back taxes, he would have been scoured in the press.
sarbonn fancied:
| Quote: |
| No. The mainstream media is no different than it's always been. |
Let me finish your sentence: "it's always been, on the side of the liberal agenda."
Actually if you go back and read the front page stories in the NYT from a couple decades ago, they did not editorialize to the extent that they do today. And on TV you didn't have soon-to-be news anchors like Chris Matthews waxing poetic about that warm tingle in his leg every time he hears Obama speak.
Revolting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
Actually if you go back and read the front page stories in the NYT from a couple decades ago, they did not editorialize to the extent that they do today. And on TV you didn't have soon-to-be news anchors like Chris Matthews waxing poetic about that warm tingle in his leg every time he hears Obama speak.
Revolting. |
Chris Matthews is revolting. But then so are Bill O' Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh et al.
Then again, you probably think Fox news really is fair and balanced.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but the media were right to be biased: McCain ran a horrible campaign. His response to an economic crisis was to cut capital gains tax rates. To illustrate how asinine an approach that is, consider that almost everybody in the market, from rich to humble, is suffering from an aggregate capital gains loss this year.
Also, I'll note that Stevie here wasn't crying a single tear when the media was clearly anti-Clinton. At least Clinton had a decent approach and good policy proposals. What can you say for McCain? He basically tarnished his image by voting for torture and attempted to ride his POW story for all it was worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time?
Is social activism a legitimate aim of professional (as opposed to tabloid) journalism?
And how does this recent phenomenon bode for a free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent?
Was the election of Barack Obama bought? (as liberals were so quick to accuse conservatives of doing in 2000 and 2004)
|
Perhaps I'm old school but I hold the antiquated "The Press is the second official opposition". They did a terrible job dealing with the Bush administration.
1) I don't think m.media have gone off the deep end yet. I really think McCain did a poor job in his campaign and his choice of Palin basically sent his numbers tumbling (well, after she spoke), never to recover. Whichever candidate gave newsmen a hard on is irrelevant.
2) I think social activism is a very important part of Western Culture. Perhaps, as the American government drifts further away from the idea, the media is coming in to take its place. I don't know if that's true but it would explain the ...."fascination" with Obama. We'll have to see what happens I s'pose.
3) It seems you believe that "social activism" and the idea of a "free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent" are two mutually exclusive ideas.
Really?
4) The "liberals" were pissed about 2000 for very obvious reasons. If you still haven't figured out that, at worst, there is a valid case against the legitimacy of that election, you are blinding yourself. As for 2004, I think that was more gobsmacked shock that people still hadn't learned.
Was the election bought?
No. I'll quote ya-ta since he clearly states exactly what I would write:
| Quote: |
| There are plenty of reasons why McCain lost...a lackluster campaign, the financial meltdown, an unpopular war, identification with a seriously unpopular president. No need to resort to liberal conspiracies to explain a perfectly understandable loss. |
I would add that Palin was a severe blow to his campaign as well.
| Quote: |
Wrong, Kuros. They have no right to their prudishness and sensationalism, their unrelenting judgmentalism.
|
If you have a problem with the American media, outsource. BBC is a fine website with very little prudishness, sensationalism or judgementalism. CBC has the canadian liberal bias but it doesn't suffer from those things either.
| Quote: |
And give them time. They will all soon turn against B. Obama...
Perhaps the Honeymoon is ending...?
|
I hope and expect it to. No president is perfect. I can only hope they don't obfuscate large issues (Bush) or completely exaggerate the importance of small issues (Clinton).
FYI: For them to "turn against" Obama, you have to begin with the assumption that they are, as an entity, FOR obama. Reporting "unpleasant truths" about Obama proves neither. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Has the mainstream media gone off the deep end this time?
Is social activism a legitimate aim of professional (as opposed to tabloid) journalism?
And how does this recent phenomenon bode for a free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent?
Was the election of Barack Obama bought? (as liberals were so quick to accuse conservatives of doing in 2000 and 2004)
|
Perhaps I'm old school but I hold the antiquated "The Press is the second official opposition". They did a terrible job dealing with the Bush administration.
1) I don't think m.media have gone off the deep end yet. I really think McCain did a poor job in his campaign and his choice of Palin basically sent his numbers tumbling (well, after she spoke), never to recover. Whichever candidate gave newsmen a hard on is irrelevant.
2) I think social activism is a very important part of Western Culture. Perhaps, as the American government drifts further away from the idea, the media is coming in to take its place. I don't know if that's true but it would explain the ...."fascination" with Obama. We'll have to see what happens I s'pose.
3) It seems you believe that "social activism" and the idea of a "free society founded on principles of fairness and dissent" are two mutually exclusive ideas.
Really?
4) The "liberals" were pissed about 2000 for very obvious reasons. If you still haven't figured out that, at worst, there is a valid case against the legitimacy of that election, you are blinding yourself. As for 2004, I think that was more gobsmacked shock that people still hadn't learned.
Was the election bought?
No. I'll quote ya-ta since he clearly states exactly what I would write:
| Quote: |
| There are plenty of reasons why McCain lost...a lackluster campaign, the financial meltdown, an unpopular war, identification with a seriously unpopular president. No need to resort to liberal conspiracies to explain a perfectly understandable loss. |
I would add that Palin was a severe blow to his campaign as well.
| Quote: |
Wrong, Kuros. They have no right to their prudishness and sensationalism, their unrelenting judgmentalism.
|
If you have a problem with the American media, outsource. BBC is a fine website with very little prudishness, sensationalism or judgementalism. CBC has the canadian liberal bias but it doesn't suffer from those things either.
| Quote: |
And give them time. They will all soon turn against B. Obama...
Perhaps the Honeymoon is ending...?
|
I hope and expect it to. No president is perfect. I can only hope they don't obfuscate large issues (Bush) or completely exaggerate the importance of small issues (Clinton).
FYI: For them to "turn against" Obama, you have to begin with the assumption that they are, as an entity, FOR obama. Reporting "unpleasant truths" about Obama proves neither.
One last tip: Never ever EVER quote an op/ed piece with the intent of it being an "impartial". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
