You know what grinds my gears? The myth of the liberal media

So lately Ive been on my soap box of complaining about uninformed people. Now I guess its time to provide my angle through one aspect of our lives, the disinformation of mass media.

Im tired of seeing these bumper stickers so proudly displayed on the the backs of pickup trucks and old minivans everywhere.



The fact is the conservatives own the majority of media. I come from a background in radio. One thing that was pounded into our heads as students honing our craft was "9/10 of you will have to move out of state and work for a country station in BFE if you want to get anywhere with your career". The next question was "why?". This is the fate of many desperate aspiring radio dj's. Country stations outnumber any other format in the country hundreds of times over. What usually comes hand in hand with that is AM (sometimes even FM) conservative talk radio. For some people that is their only exposure to the news of the day and that makes me cringe in my chair. Here are some numbers

• Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
• Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
• A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

Even if you want to contest the numbers you will always remain with the same pattern in your results.

Just take a minute and listen and give it a honest chance. Even if you dont like Noam.

<font size="1">[video=youtube;KYlyb1Bx9Ic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic[/video]


All I ask is to be aware with the media and the information that you receive. The radio industry (and TV) is only there to do 1 thing MAKE MONEY or switch formats.

you may be right about most local radio being outnumbered in your area but Im not sure its quite the same situation here in detroit, stations that aren't nessecarily political but do have talk are quite liberal, but regardless TV and national brodcasted radio is a different story because there is both, and regardless of proportion both exists, I hate these bumper stickers also and was given one of these buttons only to cross out the word liberal, this is propaganda really as if to say "yea don't believe anything the liberal media feeds you but take in glenn back and hannity as if its gospel". The liberal media mogul would be George Soros but in the end it doesn't really matter cause he is best buddies with Rupert Murdoch. Regargless, to say it is a "Myth" is false, as for radio what about Michelle Hartman or whatever, media matters, msnbc, any george soros corporations for that matter, and really the whole NPR lineup? to say its a myth is is saying these things don't exist when they clearly do exist.


Forget the "Liberal" media...just don't believe the corporate media period.

.....agreed

but I mean to just harp on the video I want to add that all media is centrist really, for Noam this is right wing or "the opposite of liberal" this is how he comes to this whole conclusion, because all media is far to the right of him he sees it all as right wing. Just as any socialist or extreme leftist is going to call Obama a right winger. Noam tends to label anything associated with corporate/capitalism or centrist as right wing because there is nothing in between for him. In the video he goes on to use an example of how the media just does what there both tells them essentially and also how they pander to the public as a whole, he uses the example of explaing how much influence a typical reporter would have on a given story given these boundries...These things are what make the reporter a centrist and not a right winger.


I hate to go into conspiracy theory territory because it will ruin a debate but really Noam went there first....based on the above he concludes that the real architects in charge, the media moguls have the real influence. If we want to get into that we can look at who those people are, even news corps media empire mogul Rupert Murdoch in his senile dying days sees him self as a liberal (laughable)...and to go on we see that George Soros also owns a big chunk..According to reports these people do set the agenda...so lets move on shall we...these people are all apart of the CFR and other organizations and meet together in order to discuss the agenda...They are all practically best friends...


Right, Left, Liberal - These terms are all relevant to the people using them, I have to add that I agree with Noam 100% but I don't agree with him on his choice of words or terminology used here at all in particuliar "liberal", "right wing", and "Myth"...I define these terms entirely different then him but it could also be in relation to this clip being from the 80's or 90's.

deprave said:

but I mean to just harp on the video I want to add that all media is centrist really, for Noam this is right wing or "the opposite of liberal" this is how he comes to this whole conclusion, because all media is far to the right of him he sees it all as right wing. Just as any socialist or extreme leftist is going to call Obama a right winger. Noam tends to label anything associated with corporate/capitalism or centrist as right wing because there is nothing in between for him. In the video he goes on to use an example of how the media just does what there both tells them essentially and also how they pander to the public as a whole, he uses the example of explaing how much influence a typical reporter would have on a given story given these boundries...These things are what make the reporter a centrist and not a right winger.


I hate to go into conspiracy theory territory because it will ruin a debate but really Noam went there first....based on the above he concludes that the real architects in charge, the media moguls have the real influence. If we want to get into that we can look at who those people are, even news corps media empire mogul Rupert Murdoch in his senile dying days sees him self as a liberal (laughable)...and to go on we see that George Soros also owns a big chunk..According to reports these people do set the agenda...so lets move on shall we...these people are all apart of the CFR and other organizations and meet together in order to discuss the agenda...They are all practically best friends...

Click to expand...

You thoroughly demonstrate that you don't understand the right/left analogy. You seem to also think liberal is antonymous with conservative. Progressive is antonymous with conservative. FFS you're a self described left leaning libertarian. For the most part I have agreed with the things you say, but just this post does reveal a great deal of confusion on your part. The statement "any extreme leftist would call Obama a right winger", I can't help but think you are trying to call me a Maoist or Stalinist. The Nazis were right wing socialists. Racism is another form of collectivism. I don't think it is fair to say something that basically groups all socialists into an anti-American fringe. That is like accepting that ruthless capitalism is all that America is, hell maybe you're right..../wrists.

Thats not what I mean, "Extremist" was a very poor choice of words on my part and I went to delete that actually not sure why I left it in there, amazing how that one word made such a difference, but I will add to your other comments later because I don't have time right now. Like I said its all reletive, Noam would be extremely left of me so of course I would view him as "extremist" (not in a negative conotation)

and you are actually correct that it is rather extreme to call Obama a right winger at least as it pertains to contemporary vernacular. What right/left means today, is exactly the way you use it, so for me to say you don't understand the analogy, is unfair. I should say, most people don't understand it. I consider Obama to be right wing, because he has preserved old power structures, actually bolstered them. His progressive stances have not been felt in his foreign policy so it is only in this sense that I do not consider him at all progressive. All of Latin American begged him to make peace with Cuba and end the drug war, even Colombia, he used Dubya's playbook exactly. He is just another gringo colonialist, at least to the majority of that demographic, unless they are indoctrinated by conservative media.

You said yourself, Obomney 2012.

Essentially Chomsky is correct in his black and white usage of the left/right dichotomy. You either want things the way they were or are, or you want change and progress. These days, it has become a guage with varying degrees and it is an analogy of the French Revolution. How Left are you or how right are you are misuses but they are so rampant that I guess that is now the correct use.

For a leftist, you are either a progressive or a revolutionary. I want an egalitarian peaceful classless society, but I don't think that the guillotine should be used to achieve it. I think that DADT was a good thing for the military in the 90s, because they weren't ready for openly gay troops then. Revolution is a fallacy unless it is aimed simply at removing an old power structure in order to revive progress. Think of it this way, if someone thinks it is ever possible to have a perfect society, they are mislead, perfection is not attainable, but progress is the next best thing. You simply continue progressing, forever, or you stop progressing, believing things are perfect (sure, this shit is perfect for the wealthy and powerful). Just like science, if they figure everything out, they won't need science anymore. Figuring everything out, is like religion.

deprave said:

you may be right about most local radio being outnumbered in your area but Im not sure its quite the same situation here in detroit, stations that aren't nessecarily political but do have talk are quite liberal, but regardless TV and national brodcasted radio is a different story because there is both, and regardless of proportion both exists, I hate these bumper stickers also and was given one of these buttons only to cross out the word liberal, this is propaganda really as if to say "yea don't believe anything the liberal media feeds you but take in glenn back and hannity as if its gospel". The liberal media mogul would be George Soros but in the end it doesn't really matter cause he is best buddies with Rupert Murdoch. Regargless, to say it is a "Myth" is false, as for radio what about Michelle Hartman or whatever, media matters, msnbc, any george soros corporations for that matter, and really the whole NPR lineup? to say its a myth is is saying these things don't exist when they clearly do exist.


Forget the "Liberal" media...just don't believe the corporate media period.

Click to expand...

Im also from the Detroit area. Wayne county is democrat and so is the majority of southeast Michigan. Conservative talk isnt really the money maker here in Detroit. The main point im trying to show here is that the MAJORITY of America is exposed to only conservative options on radio. People who listen to the radio on a daily basis like that are most likely working class and often only get there news through that station. It is about the small stations because they outnumber the major city markets. For god sakes the station I worked at was in Flint. I would argue NPR is the most in the middle source of all choices on the spectrum. Even if some people thing they head a lean a little left but they are still the best source short of being there for yourself. IF WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THE COUNTRY FOR THE BETTER WE NEED THE MAJORITY. The majority is currently allowing the minority to give them political marching orders. The numbers speak for themselves, the average amount of conservative radio hours compared to progressive/liberal radio on air time is all you need to realize what is really going on.


On top of that they'd rather make you disgruntled with politics so you wont vote and they need one less vote to win. Vote republican or dont vote at all. That is the current strategy the GOP is pushing.

but yes corporate media is fucked. We need to get around that.


Just listen to WWJ 950. 24/7 news is much appreciated.Thats all I listen to. I wish there were stations like that everywhere. I can wade through the spin if there is any though. I just appreciate the exposure to the stories themselves then I can go on and form my opinion from the rest of the sources I have at hand.

I can't say hes wrong but I will say that his view of things is far too black and white. Any ideologist has its flaws and this is no exception, if he used different verbage I would agree with most of what he has to says but again its not proper verbage, its not either you want things to change or you don't, its not either your a revolutionary or a progressive (are those your words or his?). I feel like chomsky looks at things much too simply. I suppose you can look at any radical ideologue or political philosophy and you will see many are left or left leaning but it doesn't make everything else right leaning. I just don't get how he comes to his verbage and why he doesn't understand that market anarchy and center libertarian ideologies allow for his philosophy to exist and for the most freedom, I will admit they aren't without their flaws of course and the worst of all is it grows a giant super powerful government, but I can never wrap my head around why he feels this way although I am sure it is very simple. I think that to be in such bold disagreement with the more center libertarian and anarchist philosophies is not proper to recognize these as unique and also supportive of his ideology is just stubborn really. I strongly believe this is the worse kind of ideology actually because it fails the most rapidly (collectivism) and it couldn't be further from the philosophical view of ideologies in that they are not tangible solutions but fantasies of dreamers(err kind of butchered that but I hope you get the gist).

The way it is argued here is that the media doesn't have a "Liberal Bias" because that is unproovable, the argument is made not only that you can't prove this but its not the truth. So ok I agree, but why does this make it automatically right, it doesn't. If people went around saying the conservative media is bias you could make the same argument really. Fact is, The media doesn't exist as left or right but instead in its own interest. Just look at Glenn Beck, perfect example for this, the false libertarian that claims libertarianism is conservatism and blends the two, this is the media acting in their own interest to subvert libertarians into believing they are conservatives and that libertarianism is conservatism.

deprave said:

I can't say hes wrong but I will say that his view of things is far too black and white. Any ideologist has its flaws and this is no exception, if he used different verbage I would agree with most of what he has to says but again its not proper verbage, its not either you want things to change or you don't, its not either your a revolutionary or a progressive (are those your words or his?). I feel like chomsky looks at things much too simply. I supose you can look at any radical idealogiue or political philosphy and you will see many are left or left leaning but it doesn't make everything else right leaning. I just don't get how he comes to his verbage and why he doesn't understand that market anarchy and center libertarian ideologies allow for his philosophy to exist and for the most freedom, I will admit they aren't without their flaws of course and the worst of all is it grows a giant super powerful government, but I can never wrap my head around why he feels this way although I am sure it is very simple. I think that to be in such bold disagreement with the more center libertarian and anarchist philosophies is not proper to recognize these as unique and also supportive of his ideology is just stubborn really. I strongly believe this is the worse kind of ideology actually because it fails the most rapidly (collectivism) and it couldn't be further from the philosophical view of ideologies in that they are not tangible solutions but fantasies of dreamers(err kind of butchered that but I hope you get the gist).

Click to expand...

I said that for a leftist you are either progressive or revolutionary (my opinion). The definition of left/right analogy is black and white (fact). Noam Chomsky is a linguistics professor at MIT (fact), so his choice of words is very reliable (my opinion). He is either correct or dishonest but not mistaken (my opinion). Furthermore, the very definition of progressive implies that it can never be fully perfect (fact). Only the GOP believes that it can achieve a perfect ideology (my opinion). Last but not least, since I am not bound to the false dichotomy of our two party system, my opposition of the GOP does not constitute my alignment with the other party (fact).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics



If you are right wing, you either don't believe that some people are more advantaged and privileged than others, or you don't give a shit, or you're just full of shit.

Again, this is a fact.

Its funny because really 'Right Wing' or 'Conservatism' doesn't even exist if a situation was neuteral, if there is no bias then conservatism can not even exist. There is no rational or even logical explanation for its existence that fits into any given society, however, there is very specific 'Right Wing' or 'Conservatism' that fits into a SPECIFIC SOCIETY, right wing is completely blind to philosophy actually so whats more ironic about circumstances is that people are convinced of almost the complete opposite. I think thats kind of what noam means by 'Right Wing' wants things to stay the same and the left want change. So really I agree with him on that but I still don't understand why he ignores center libertarian and anarchy as if they don't exist, socialist always tend to acknowlege their political philosophy as the only relevant one and ignore all others.

abandonconflict said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics



If you are right wing, you either don't believe that some people are more advantaged and privileged than others, or you don't give a shit, or you're just full of shit.

Again, this is a fact.

Click to expand...

Id have to agree with the "full of shit" statement, not sure about the others but again another technicality.

People tend to think they are right wing because they have been trained to think its something its not and that the left is something its not, first off being left doesn't mean you are pro big government (fact) and being a libertarian doesn't make you a conservative. (another fact). two things which are completely unrelated in all actuality. Thus they are "full of shit" but more than likely because they have been pumped full of said shit. So with this thought and my last post I am going to have to agree with you that centrist could be called right wing (fair enough) and that right wing doesn't want change and are happy with the way things are. (generally true)

deprave said:

Its funny because really 'Right Wing' or 'Conservatism' doesn't even exist if a situation was neuteral, if there is no bias then conservatism can not even exist. There is no rational or even logical explanation for its existence that fits into any given society, however, there is very specific 'Right Wing' or 'Conservatism' that fits into a SPECIFIC SOCIETY, right wing is completely blind to philosophy actually so whats more ironic about circumstances is that people are convinced of almost the complete opposite. I think thats kind of what noam means by 'Right Wing' wants things to stay the same and the left want change. So really I agree with him on that but I still don't understand why he ignores center libertarian and anarchy as if they don't exist, socialist always tend to acknowlege their political philosophy as the only relevant one and ignore all others.

Click to expand...

I am only a socialist insofar as I disagree with private ownership of means of production and resources, which I believe to be common heritage to all humans. Of course those who work harder or contribute more to society should be more wealthy than those who simply want to live off of others. In our society, the wealthy are the ones who live off of the proletariat. In abstract that resembles slavery. What is just about someone owning natural resources, then creating a situation where everyone else has to work for those resources while the owner simply continues to acquire more?

The anti socialist propaganda will have you believe that a socialist wishes that you share your toothbrush. Of course socialism is just as susceptible to corruption as any other ideology, corruption is a fact of life that is responsible for the lack of perfection. Do you want progress or do you believe things are or can be perfect? This propaganda is pushed by those Bourgeois who stand to lose their monopolies and their control over the lives of the proletariat. It isn't the ilumiati or the devil, it is greedy, power hungry people (ten fingers and ten toes) who want their children to inherit power over your children.

The stunning fact that they push "free-market" ideology to preserve power effectively over the proletariat is just plain crazy. What is free about a market which relies on patents (even patents of genetic traits) and the prohibition of cash crops?

Perfection is possible, it just depends on the definition and if you're willing to accept those conquenses.

Canna Sylvan said:

Perfection is possible, it just depends on the definition and if you're willing to accept those conquenses.

Click to expand...

I suppose that is correct and I suppose that you could explicate the argument technically and find a counter example that way, so I appreciate that you understood what I generally meant. Although, I would wager that even according to the loosest definition of 'perfect' you would still find that it is susceptible to human corruption.

Perfect = everybody is happy, nobody wants to change anything anymore.

abandonconflict said:

I suppose that is correct and I suppose that you could explicate the argument technically and find a counter example that way, so I appreciate that you understood what I generally meant. Although, I would wager that even according to the loosest definition of 'perfect' you would still find that it is susceptible to human corruption.Perfect = everybody is happy, nobody wants to change anything anymore.

Click to expand...

According to religious people, god is perfect and so are all his creations. That's obviously correct? A more telling example is the book, "The Giver."

Canna Sylvan said:

According to religious people, god is perfect and so are all his creations. That's obviously correct? A more telling example is the book, "The Giver."

Click to expand...

Maybe according to corporate Media.

abandonconflict said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics



If you are right wing, you either don't believe that some people are more advantaged and privileged than others, or you don't give a shit, or you're just full of shit.

Again, this is a fact.

Click to expand...

I submit a fourth option that does not involve rabid egalitarianism, indifference or ignorance: celebrating one's advantaged, privileged status. cn