Originally posted by RBatson :
Quote:
|
As far as Kerry's military service, I'm not concerned with that he said- she said bs. It has been proven that the advertisements you got your info from was taken out of context(dirty politics). He has the records and that is all that matters. I'm not concerned with Bush's military bs either.
|
Let me jump in here to say I basically agree. We can never know what
really happened on the Mekong River in Viet Nam 35 years ago and to make this the focal point of a campaign for president is ridiculous. However, it was Kerry who has made his military service a big issue and he had to expect other Viet Nam vets would respond to it. I'm more interested in whhat Kerry did in 1971, when he trashed the military men serving in Viet Nam as a bunch of 'war criminals' committing daily atrocities on Vietnamese civilians. Something he has never proven and yet never apologized for saying, either. I think
that is why so many vets hate his guts, and I can't say that I blame them. Guys suffered as POW's and never said what Kerry did about the American military in Viet Nam. John Kerry should be ashamed of himself. That he isn't, speaks volumes.
Not so fast, Rick.
That article says the following:
The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues.
Stop right there. That's just nonsense. Ever hear of Enron, Aldelphia,, Martha Stewart? You sure have, because the media never stopped covering them...and many other corporate scandals. The media covers corporate malfeasance throughly. To deny that, as this article tries to do, is simply sophistry. Local TV stations often have a 'consumer' editor who does consumer-related pieces and labor always get's it's side of the story aired in all the newscasts I've seen. This article is simply hogwash.
Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news.
Now this is getting really absurd.
Journalists are heavily liberal in their politics and have been polled as such for years. 'Centerists', indeed! The only 'economic' issue journalists are more 'conservative' on is the issue of tax cuts, which liberals see as 'favoring the rich', no matter how much the reality says otherwise.
On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.
What a manifest distortion of the truth!
The 'Fairness Doctrine' squelched free speech rights by keeping anyone but liberal network newsmen, like Walter Cronkite, from telling us what they wanted us to hear; that is: editing the news with their 'liberal' slant. There were very few 'conservative' voices on talk radio (which couldn't cover politics) or anywhere on TV. Williiam F. Buckley was a notable, but almost lone exception with his 'Firing Line' TV discussion show that centered on politics. Finally, in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 'Fairness Doctrine' as unconstitional, which it certainly was. That opened the door for talk radio and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who has been a dominate force for conservative thought ever since. He has many imitators and they all do very well, financially.
Question: Why is that?
Answer: Because they appeal to the wide base of Americans who are conservative in most political issues. They
never had a voice in the liberal-dominated mass media of TV and radio. Now they do...and the liberals hate it. They especially hate the loss of their 'Bully Pulpit' that restricted conservatives to the fringe and gave the public one point of view only: the liberal POV. That's over, now.
You bet conservatives oppose any whiff of trying to revive the mis-named 'Fairness Doctrine'. There are plenty of liberal outlets, like CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, plus the three big networks that still dominate the airwaves. Conservatives have FOXNEWS and talk radio. Liberals have tried to get a 'liberal' talk radio network going, to no avail. It flopped. See, Americans can get all the liberal slant on the news they need every night on the CBS, NBC or ABC newscasts. The conservative talk radio shows draw a big audience and thus, many high-paying sponsors. People want to hear what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and all the others have to say. It's called 'the Free Market', something liberals never understand or accept. That's why they want the 'Fairness Doctrine' restored. Liberalism only works in a very controlled media environment, as it was before 1988. Once liberals have to battle their ideas on the open 'market', they fail...and then they whine about ti and write ridiculous little articles like the one linked by RBatson, which you may now safely ignore.
You're welcome.
