How do you react to the term "Liberal Media"?

My two cents: If someone ever refers seriously to the "liberal media" in a conversation with me, I'll break their effin' nose.

Anybody else share my view? Anybody feel differently?

A couple of people disagree with the right-wing monolith and suddenly there's a massive liberal conspiracy out to get them. There's your 'liberal media'

"Oh, you mean the liberal media, 2/3 of which endorsed Bush in 2000?"

or

"Yeah, the liberal media that's hounding Bush on his war lies, the CIA leaks, the business scandals, etc. while they took it so easy on Clinton & Monica."

Nose breakin' does come to mind, though.

and then, as they turn away, I whack 'em on the back of the head with a bamboo pole. It never fails. ;-)

a co-worker's complaint about the "liberal media"

followed by "you're kidding, right?", and move on from there.

:shrug: Is there any other way to react?

you DOG you! :thumbsup:

"And where did YOU learn to say that?" In other words, go sit on the floor and run your trains...

Then, after hysterically laughing for 30 seconds or so, I pat them on the shoulder and say "you poor thing, how's it feel to be brainwashed by talk radio?"
That usually makes them mad.
:evilgrin:

"I don't say what Limbaugh says. Limbaugh says what I think."

I'd never felt pity and rage in equal proportions at the same time before; it was an odd feeling.

The Sun (a murdoch 'newspaper') was calling the BBC the "Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation", which amused me no end - i mean, how much more safe and pro-establishment do you get than the BBC ffs? I suppose the media are 'liberal' in the sense that they don't scream 'kill the faggots, burn the n.....s' etc, but really, this whole 'liberal media' idea is completely ridiculous. It's so manifestly untrue it's like someone telling you the sky is green with purple spots.

my reaction.

tell me where I can tune in because I would love to listen/watch the liberal media if I could find it.

Eric Alterman, so I know a lot better than that. If you really want to know how the right-wind media industry works (where the money comes from , etc.), I would suggest this book.

Then I ask them to provide me with one example. If they bother, which is infrequently, then I read the story and ask where the reporter strayed from the facts or used unfair logic. I'm undefeated against this claim.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I just don't buy that. Nobody rode Clinton's cock harder than them (no pun intended).

On edit: Surely you don't mean Reverend MOON's Washington Times? If that's a liberal paper, then I'm Richard Nixon's bastard son.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Washington Times is conservative. Washington Post (who I think you meant above) is centrist Republican. CNN licks Bush's ass on a daily basis. Yes, maybe the Globe is quasi-liberal, but they have a love affair with our Repuke Governor Mitt Romney.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There has been a leak in the White House, wouldn't you agree?
Rush Limbaugh has admitted to abusing prescription drugs, hasn't he?

There's a big difference between attacking a President for having sex with a consenting adult, and having a traitor to this country in the White House and a drug addict on the radio.

CNN is centrist, at best.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the OWNERS and SHAREHOLDERS do-and they ARE NOT 'Librul'.

Look at the opinion shows: the only one that allows liberal opinion is Crossfire-and only for 30 minutes a day.

about Jeb Bush's daughter (cokehead) being arrested? Or his son? Or Dubya's daughters? I damned sure don't hear about it. Have to dig around the Internet to find info.

Why is Wesley Clark being asked to release more of his military information just to prove that he was a good soldier... while Dubya (suspected of going AWOL) only had to release a handful of pages?

I'd trust Robert Novak about as far as I can throw him. He's either drunk or brain-damaged. And he's almost as much a traitor to this country as the leaker in the White House.

I heard all about Dean's son and Tawana's name is brought up frequently. I don't know what you are talking about.

I haven't heard about Tawana Brawley since the New York Giants won the super bowl.

did you mean the Post? and even then...up for some serious debate

Much of the media is quite socially liberal but damn near all of it is committed to an "interventionist" foreign policy and fall all over themselves to support whatever lame war the US tee's up.

They are mostly quite fiscally "conservative" especially regarding supply-side economics. Essentially journalists created the entire theory, not economists and it's never been proven to be anything but a myth but the media will still with a straight face talk about the "stimulus" of tax cuts like it's something serious and not a bad joke.

If the media were liberal, half of america would not be convinced that Iraq caused 9-11 and that Saddam had lots of bad weapons.

'Nuff said!

Looks like we are the only ones

YES, I break their nose, maybe knock some teeth out of their face

Today when I went to the post office, there was a bunch of people protesting the war in Iraq. They were lined up in front of the federal building and they ran the entire length of the building. Every single one of them had a sign. The interesting thing is that from the looks of it, not a single one of them was under, say, 50. Which leads me to my question of the day: ***Where are all the young people?***
As for this thread - for some reason, references to the liberal media always make me laugh. I guess it amuses me to be reminded that there are some people who are so stupid, so ignorant, or so reactionary.
When I was in Florida, I used to see bumper stickers that said "I don't believe the liberal media." This was fifteen years ago, and long before Clinton. I laughed then; I laugh now.

All of the media, most of the media, some of the media, or just the media you take in (or don't take in)? Do you mean reporters, talk show hosts, editorial boards, or corporate ownership? Internet, TV or talk radio? Can you hold two thoughts in your head at the same time?

Studies have shown that most reporters identify themselves as liberals. This is because most journalists are well-educated and people who are more educated tend to be more liberal.

On the other hand, most news reported has been shown to be more critical of liberal positions and politicians than to conservatives, mostly due to editorial and corporate control. Editors and corporations are prone to support conservative positions because
they rely on ratings and advertising to make a profit. Many reporters have admitted to self-censorship because otherwise they are excluded from inside information and aren't invited to the lavish parties funded by big corporate money.

Liberal issues tend to be nuanced and intellectual, which does not play well on the dominant medium, television. Non-intellectual issues like adultery and blow jobs and war attract much greater ratings because they are visceral, not intellectual. Plus, they make for cooler graphics.

America's main disadvantage is that it achieved democracy before it had a workers' revolt. Nations that had achieved democracy as a result of a workers' revolution are much more aware of class interests and the power of capital. They are much more likely to stand up for their rights and recognize when they are being screwed by the monied interests.

The liberal media myth has traction because people do not know what their interests are in terms of liberal/conservative or right/left. Media bias is represented most strongly in what is not presented.