Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

    Republicans dominated the cable news networks during the Bush presidency--because Republicans were in charge. Now that the Republicans have suffered two major national electoral defeats in a row...it's time to have more Republicans on the air.

    On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.

    The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week


    Fox News was the most balanced! And check out "liberal" CNN.

    This country is so fucked. And the media is a big reason why.

    #2
    Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

    Good grief, does anyone really think CNN are liberal? Do the same people think the pope is a Buddhist?

    Comment


      #3
      Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

      A pedant writes...
      US Cable TV =/= US Media

      Comment


        #4
        Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

        G.Man wants a jihad wrote:
        Good grief, does anyone really think CNN are liberal
        Yes. They're the ones that have got the country in a mess, and will blame Obama when he isn't able to fix it immediately.

        Comment


          #5
          Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

          Reed of the Valley People wrote:
          A pedant writes...
          US Cable TV =/= US Media
          Yes, but you can't deny that the mindless chat shows drive the narrative that the rest of the media eventually follows. Conservatives get on TV, yammer on about their talking points, that gets picked up by newspaper columnists and eventually legitimate news articles discuss the phony issues or "controversies" that were created by right-win talking points. Witness the articles and talk today about how all of the Republicans voting no on the stimulus plan is proof that Obama's bipartisanship has failed.

          Comment


            #6
            Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

            Some blog commenter pointed out, and I agree, that you can't get too angry about the graph without further information. It only compares appearances by Congressmen, without includuing executive branch officials. Now I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a lopsided ratio even including Obama's people, but, face it, there are going to be a lot of TV segments where a government official faces off against a Republican Congressman. That counts as 1-0 to the Republicans in that chart.

            Comment


              #7
              Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

              I don't think anyone who has watched it recently thinks CNN is liberal anymore. It's taken a sharp turn to the low-brow and angry white men demographic. MSNBC is regarded as the liberal one, and to some extent they are - Olberman, etc.

              But really, there's just no way to get good news out of the TV these days except maybe PBS - which has Frontline and the News Hour is usually pretty fair (although not always). If nothing else, the guest "experts" they get are usually actual experts, not just partisan hacks provided by "think tanks."

              Yes, but you can't deny that the mindless chat shows drive the narrative that the rest of the media eventually follows.
              I recognize that happens a lot, but not always. NPR has done a pretty good job of staying balanced and objective. The Post has presented a broad range of views (including some fairly stupid ones, I admit).

              And, I must admit, some of the less insane conservatives do have a point. There is an awful lot of stuff in this bill that won't do much for the economy in the short run, so it's reasonable to ask if the focus shouldn't be more on a short term kick start.

              Of course, the Republican's alternative is not much better. A bunch of tax cuts are just as likely to be chock full of pork as a bunch of spending. As I understand it, spending is more likely to help the economy over the long run, while tax cuts help more in the short run. There should be the right balance.

              I think the media hasn't done a very good job of exploring how this "bipartisan" thing is supposed to work. As I see it, there's never likely to be a lot of bipartisan cooperation on something like this in the House. Everything in the bill is somebody's pet cause or project. If I'm a Democrat, knowing that I need to bring home the bacon to keep my seat next year, why would I be willing to compromise with the other side when I know it will pass anyway? If I'm a Republican, who got elected on pledges to lower taxes, why would I open myself up to the charge that I voted to increase spending?

              The house has always been the place for hotheads, partisans, idiots and loons.



              Senators and the President have much broader constituencies to please and have to take a much longer view of the give and take of politics.

              Comment


                #8
                Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                Indeed. Come to Europe. We're kinda fucked in our own way (mainly in how we tried to ape you) but in general, we're less fat, less instinctively economically-darwinianlly right-wing and have things like state-run TV. And football. Lots of football.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                  I'm growing tired of Olbermann, and I think having Rachel Maddow on right after him is a big contrast and shows how much Olbermann can be like other cable news shows, just from a different political perspective. And really, it's just Olbermann's forcefulness, and now Maddow, that lend any credence to the idea that MSNBC is liberal. But really: Joe Scarborough has a 3 hour show on MSNBC, and anyone that thinks that Tweety is liberal needs their head examined. And lets not forget that one of MSNBC's resident pundits is Pat Buchanan.

                  PBS is better, but as Jay Rosen points out in this blog post, it's mostly nothing more than the most centrist and acceptable viewpoints talking back and forth to each other:

                  The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain. They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space. (It doesn’t, but they think so.) Hallin: “This is the region of electoral contests and legislative debates, of issues recognized as such by the major established actors of the American political process.”

                  Here the two-party system reigns, and the news agenda is what the people in power are likely to have on their agenda. Perhaps the purest expression of this sphere is Washington Week on PBS, where journalists discuss what the two-party system defines as “the issues.” Objectivity and balance are “the supreme journalistic virtues” for the panelists on Washington Week because when there is legitimate debate it’s hard to know where the truth lies. There are risks in saying that truth lies with one faction in the debate, as against another— even when it does. He said, she said journalism is like the bad seed of this sphere, but also a logical outcome of it.
                  I know he uses just Washington Week, but I think the News Hour is like that most of the time. NOW and Bill Moyers' show are the welcome exceptions.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                    Does the Right still refer to CNN as "Communist News Network"?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                      I don't think much of Rachel Maddow. To me, she comes off as just as smug and showbizy as all the other pundit-show hosts.

                      And she's got a neck like James Harrison.

                      The problem isn't ultimately the people on these shows but the format and the lust for ever higher ratings.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                        As I understand it, spending is more likely to help the economy over the long run, while tax cuts help more in the short run.
                        Not so. Tax rebates tend to be saved rather than spent and are the least efficient of all common stimulus measures. A study of the Bush tax cuts found that 80% was saved.

                        The most efficient (as stimulus, as opposed to long term) measures are things like food stamps and extended unemployment benefit. Those go straight back into the economy. Aid to cover states' deficits is also very effective.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                          And a tax withholdings "holiday"--having less taxes taken out of your paycheck, resulting in a bigger paycheck--is more effective to spurring spending than a lump tax rebate.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                            Depends on the tax cut. Like if you offered some tax cuts for people buying cars or a first home or something like that. Wouldn't that help?

                            I read a Harvard economist in today's Post who says that offering more unemployment benefits makes it easier for employers to can people. It might make them feel less guilty about it, but does it really increase their motivation to downsize? I'm dubious.

                            And what's wrong with giving people money that theys save? The more savings, the more banks have to lend, which should help, shouldn't it? I understand that the banks are currently trying to shovel in cash to protect themselves against disaster, but don't those holes have to be fixed anyway? If it comes to them as deposits, doesn't that then both help the bank recover while giving individuals a piece of the action (interest on their deposit)? That's good, isn't it?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                              Like if you offered some tax cuts for people buying cars or a first home or something like that. Wouldn't that help?
                              Arguably, but a) those things aren't taxed at a federal level (as far as I know), and b) they only work to the extent that people buy cars and houses.

                              And what's wrong with giving people money that theys save?
                              Nothing's wrong with it, but it defeats the purpose of stimulus, which is to boost demand.

                              The more savings, the more banks have to lend, which should help, shouldn't it? I understand that the banks are currently trying to shovel in cash to protect themselves against disaster, but don't those holes have to be fixed anyway?
                              Yes, but you're better off encouraging/facilitating lending directly in an environment like this where banks are hoarding capital.

                              If it comes to them as deposits, doesn't that then both help the bank recover while giving individuals a piece of the action (interest on their deposit)?
                              Official interest rates are effectively zero, and deposit rates aren't much better.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                Talk about cheap shots.

                                Actually I think we have way better options for televised Football in the US, well at least cheaper.

                                I get to see Serie A, Bundesliga, La Liga, Premiership, Champions League, Argentina League, Brazilian League, Mexican League, Copa Libertadores and even some J and A League games. For about an extra 15 dollars a month on my basic satellite bill.

                                Also, aren't the fattests nations on earth the US, Mexico and the UK? In that order?

                                I'll stand by and let Japan or Africa take cheap shots at our waistline, but come on...seriously. Europe is probably the 2nd fattest collection of people in the world.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                  Crap, I got distracted.
                                  My original post was to point out that media in the US is basically a business and it caters to people individual tastes. You basically have to watch both to get a balanced view.

                                  Basically I watch both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show.

                                  Actually, I mainly watch PBS Newshour and BBC world and listen to NPR. Because that's the sort of person I am.

                                  The is pretty weird, if you live in a City like I do you basically live in a pretty liberal society not unlike most of Europe and it's a multicultural one where whites are a small minority.
                                  But when you leave the city and visit certain Suburbs and towns it's like going to a completely different country.
                                  When you go on a road trip.....*shudder* it's basically "Here be grand dragons".

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                    Hell, south of the river is "here be dragons" as far as I'm concerned.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                      radmonkey wrote:
                                      Talk about cheap shots.

                                      Actually I think we have way better options for televised Football in the US, well at least cheaper.

                                      I get to see Serie A, Bundesliga, La Liga, Premiership, Champions League, Argentina League, Brazilian League, Mexican League, Copa Libertadores and even some J and A League games. For about an extra 15 dollars a month on my basic satellite bill.
                                      And you left out MLS. The only benefit that I see to living in Europe when it comes to soccer coverage is having more of it in the sports media.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                        I doubt he was talking about football on telly.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                          No, I wasn't. But radmonkey's point on that respect stands.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                            Me too.

                                            Reed, you know that Brooks' attack on Sumner was on the floor of the Senate, don't you?

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                              It was on the floor of the senate but Brooks was a house representative. He beat the snot out of Sumner because Sumner had insulted Brooks' uncle, Senator Andrew Butler, on the floor of the senate in a long speech against the Kansas-Nebraska act.

                                              Wikipedia has a lot on the incident. The best bit is this:

                                              At first intending to challenge Sumner to a duel, Brooks consulted with fellow South Carolina Rep. Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt instructed him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and suggested that Sumner occupied a lower social status comparable to a drunkard due to the supposedly coarse language he had used during his speech. Brooks thus decided to attack Sumner with a cane.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                                NHH wrote:
                                                economically-darwinianlly right-wing...
                                                Is it too starry-eyed to hope that in another 150 years, this airy and spurious association, based as it is on a gross misinterpretation of biological ideas, will at last have faded?

                                                Sorry. Carry on.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Visual evidence of how bad the US media is

                                                  What Wyatt said. Someday intelligent people will stop using this analogy, given that it's been utterly discredited for well over half a century. Darwinism doesn't, and can't, apply to anything in society. There really should be a special scaffold set up for anyone who still uses it.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X