Likable but unfortunately Republican

Here’s an interesting read, and a perfect example of how the mainstream media with nothing else to do will treat a popular Republican Governor in an extraordinarily Democratic state.

A few important things to notice….One is that they made sure that they let us know that he is the son of a car salesman. That’s critical for our making a decision about him obviously. Two, they make sure that the central excuse for the story and the headline is conncecting him to something an aide said on the Internet, and three making sure that anything he does that IS likable is simply portrayed as a cheap photo opportunity.

And the cool thing is that they do this all of the time, and it doesn’t work. Everyone still loves this guy. Sometimes I think that the Maryland governor and the Virginia governor (a Democrat) should just trade places.

Posted at 09:54 am by Logipundit

Posted by Rothell @ 02/14/2005 03:21 AM PST
LIBERAL MEDIA or fascist propaganda?

Although Butch didn’t write “liberal media” in his last posting, I gathered that that’s what he meant when stating how the “mainstream media” with nothing else to do will treat a popular *Republican* Governor. The article he’d referred to wasn’t accessible, but it seemed that Butch’s point was that once again the “liberal media” is attacking a Rebuplican good ol’ boy.

Now I’m going to go off.

Republicans ALWAYS whine when any criticism in the media goes their way. I’ve heard this bullshit so many times and it makes me sick. It is a fact that if somebody on tv, in a book, on the radio, etc., makes the slightest peep of criticism towards anything Republican it is not taken as criticism EVER but rather as the product of “liberal media.” Why? This idea of “liberal media” serves several purposes for the conservatives: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right.

The fact is that conservatives have powerful friends in the media: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These giant firms have been increasingly successful in bending the media’s message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative and pro-corporate agenda. (See below for examples.) Studies have shown that the media are silent on the issues most important to workers, consumers and other citizens adversely affected by corporate behavior. Conservatives respond to these charges with (old) polls showing that most journalists are personally liberal, but these polls are outdated. New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues.

Let’s plow on ahead…
Straight from the horses’ mouths:
“I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” -William Kristol

“I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked. … For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that.” -Pat Buchanan

“You know, I could run for governor but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that’s not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.” -W., 1989

My roommate made an interesting point: if the media is so liberal, why’d they point all their cameras at Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky “scandal”? Why would a “liberal media” scandalize a Democratic president to the extent that they did with Clinton? A liberal media wouldn’t and the U.S. media ain’t liberal, so stop propagating this myth.

Examples of a corporate media’s self-interests:
1) During a debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies.
2) Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC’s top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards. Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries.
3) Rupert Murdoch’s Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory. Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan.
4) A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers’ boards of directors are drawn from big business.

Posted by Emily @ 02/14/2005 08:34 PM PST
Speaking of “big business” Here’s an article about Big Business and it’s contributions to Political Parties:

Rothell, do you have any dates on the points that you make?

Isn’t Big Business where people get jobs, raises and the like?

Posted by BP @ 02/20/2005 04:00 AM PST
he lives!

Posted by Johnny B @ 02/27/2005 03:52 PM PST
Interesting comment, Rothell. Reminds me of the old fecal roster. For the most part journalists vote democratic, but that doesn’t necessarily fit your definition of liberal. Bill Clinton was a democrat, and he supported NAFTA, so he must be a centrist, or something. Now with Fox news and all that you can pretty much find what you want, so it doesn’t make sense to whine about the media these days.
But just because it is on the fecal roster doesn’t make it not true. Sometimes, sometimes, everyone really is playing baseball and poor and homeless, etc. and can’t buy your books. Howard Dean was a media creation too, one that indicated where the hearts and minds of the media establishment were at the time. Fortunately, the Howard Dean fiasco truly symbolizes how powerful the media really is; a paper tiger, really.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: