Article

2007-11-02 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-11-02 10:23|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 Interesting that newsroom bias has gotten so bad even Harvard can find it. And its not jsut politics but the war as well.

One of the "pillars of democracy" is rotting, at the head, and from the inside.

This is one of the things that alarms me so much. The Press has turned partisan, and is institutionally turning into "Pravda" supporting liberalism and the Democrats at the expense of objectivity and unbiased reporting. They are trying to push the nation into a single collectivist party state.

Its professional malpractice on an epic scale. They are not only failing to inform the public, they are actively mal-informing the public and destroying the true basis for democracy - an informed public.

If our republic fails, the cheif culprit will be the failure of the mainstream media to do their job, to inform, not indoctrinate, the public.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-02 11:37|| 2007-11-02 11:37|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually Spook, they started off partisan. Look around at the sheets who's titles still include Democrat, Republican, and Independent. The game that was played in the last century, was to hide that blaring fact. The lie is that they've really ever been non-partisan. It was a con game both on the public and seemingly enough upon themselves to the extent some inside believe it.

That is also coupled with the Orwellian evolution of the term 'bias'. Everyone is bias towards something in one degree or another. In the left's universe, 'bias' means 'those who don't agree with me'. That is why they don't see 'bias' in television, print or other media - only talk radio and the net. These same people argued for decades that institutions dominated by old white males were by nature bias against minorities and women. Yet, they can not fathom why institutions composed of 90% 'liberal' registered Democrats can be considered 'biased'. The term means something different between them and us.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-11-02 12:13|| 2007-11-02 12:13|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not saying that the reporters do not have their biases- we all do, its human nature. WHat I am pointing out is that there needs to be a good distribution of bias so we get all sides fo a story, and its up to us to use our judgement, instead of being spoon fed pre-selected one-sided things.

And that is the failure of the modren MSM - its hiding thier bias and becoming a monoculture in the process. The newsroom is as friendly a place to conservvatives now as the Soviet Union was to individualists. This has to change - the so-called "openess" that liberals brag about does not exist - yet its the very thing that woudl save them and the republic - being open to conservativism individuaism, and the supporters of such.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-11-02 12:25|| 2007-11-02 12:25|| Front Page Top

#4 I think the press has always been partisan in one way or another. We are sensitive to it because those oxen being gored are our OUR oxen. I recently had the opportunity to read through some papers and letters from the civil war period (again). I was struck by the similarity in tone to today's journalists. There is not one to one equivalence, but the partisan bickering seemed more venomous then than today. Political fever swamps are not new.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2007-11-02 12:41|| 2007-11-02 12:41|| Front Page Top

#5 Next up for Harvard: Is water wet?

Posted by Thraing Hatfield3414 2007-11-02 13:32|| 2007-11-02 13:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Reminds me of that article here in 2004 with one newsweek editor confessing to a fellow insider that the msm coverage of kerry was boosting his candidacy by 15 points in the polls, or an another post-election article with a think tank finding that the 2004 campaign had been the most lopsided in term of favorable/defavorable coverage in more than 50 years.

Posted by anonymous5089 2007-11-02 14:16|| 2007-11-02 14:16|| Front Page Top

#7 OS is on it - in the pat yellow journalism was rampant, but you knew where the bias lay (lies?) - todays Journos proclaim even coverage while doing the same bias - that's the lie, and teh declining readerships convey the consequences. Is Fox "conservative"? Prolly, especially when compared to a network that employs Olbermann. At least with Fox's opinion shows, you know what you're getting, see: O'Reilly ( I don't watch him), Hannity and Colmes - who could pretend they don't know which side either is on? I think their news shows are balanced, but I guess that makes me a right wingnut

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-11-02 19:00|| 2007-11-02 19:00|| Front Page Top

23:57 Redneck Jim
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:43 Redneck Jim
23:42 Redneck Jim
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:25 Zenster
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:22 twobyfour
23:21 Redneck Jim
23:19 Abdominal Snowman
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:14 Rambler
23:13 GK
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:11 Zenster
23:11 Redneck Jim
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:05 twobyfour
23:03 Zenster
23:02 3dc
23:02 Redneck Jim
22:57 Redneck Jim