On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 10:26:06AM -0500, Norbert Cartagena wrote:
> >That's a very good rebuttal, Tim, but knowing the Tampa Trib the way I do,
> >they'll edit the letter to suit *THEIR* views, not yours. That's what I hate
> >about newspapers and the liberal media. It's always slanted.
> >
> >Anita (Of course, this is IMHO......)
> >
>
>
> You're absolutely right, it was a good article. However, I hardly
> consider "The Tampa Tribune" to be "the liberal media" (they're about as
> Liberal as Rush Limbaugh).
Ahem, folks. The Trib is _not_ conservative. Their editorial page tends
to be, but the rest of the newspaper is much like any other. However, if
you care to perform an unbiased experiment, you will see that the St
Pete Times is the pinnacle of the "liberal media". Take both papers for
a period of weeks, and read about the same stories in both papers. You
will find that the St Pete Times is much more sensational in its
reporting, and that it very decidedly slants its stories, compared to
the Trib. The difference is that the Trib is more likely to report the
news "straight" than slanted. That doesn't mean they don't slant, but
it's not as bad. If you don't believe me, do that experiment.
That said, remember that all papers report innuendo, incomplete facts,
and "slant" their stories so as to highlight conflict and discord.
Without conflict and discord, newspapers believe that they have nothing
to say. The St Pete Times is an award winning paper precisely because it
evokes an emotional response in people, simply by virtue of the way its
stories are written. It aims to prod your emotions, and the only way to
do that is to slant your stories. Otherwise, the news (just the facts)
is pretty bland.
> And aren't the "conservatives" a bit more
> likely to buy the entire "MS is good, don't break them up" argument? In
> short, yes.
Yes, and it's the one point where I vehemently disagree with
conservatives. They tend to walk around acting like corporations walk on
water. Rush Limbaugh makes the argument that corporations don't want to
do things like pollute, because it would be bad for the people who buy
their products-- their customers. However, this is obviously not true.
Corporations look at maximizing profits and minimizing costs, whether
that's good for their neighbors or not. Limbaugh and other conservatives
defend Microsoft in an almost irrational way, and point to the
slackening of the tech stocks sector as proof that we never should have
started messing with Microsoft-- somehow that caused the problems in the
stock market. Sorry, guys, but the market was overvalued long before
they started going after Microsoft. Microsoft is every bit as bad as any
monopolistic entity that went before it.
> That's why with Bush and his band of extortio - err -
> buddies, have let MS go with nothing more than a slap of the wrist and
> a tap on the butt. By the way, MS is a VERY large supporter of the
> Republican party (read: SOFT MONEY, at apporx. $1.2M in the 2000
> election). And lets not forget, the Trib supported Bush in the 2000
> election as well - Yeah, real liberal media, huh?
The Trib's _editorial_ staff. Reread the regular stories from that time
period in the Trib. They didn't support Bush. They supported the
conflict.
Microsoft is a very big supporter of the Democrats as well. In fact,
most companies pay money to both parties. It's "protection money". Enron
did the same thing, though (full disclosure) they did pay more to the
Republicans.
I agree that Justice has gone too soft on Microsoft. It's where I part
company with conservatives. And FWIW, I suspect there was some serious
dishonesty in the Enron scandal within the company (is that an
understatement?). I think it's silly for politicians to return soft
money given to them by Enron at this point. It's out of anyone's hands
at this point. In fact, I think Congress is acting like buffoons with
regard to this scandal, having an ever-growing number of investigations
and such. Let the Justice Department take care of it. Hire outside
prosecutors if you like. But let this drama play out in court, not in
Congress.
>
> Sorry to tell you this, but no matter how "unbiased" media tries to be,
> they will always be critizised for slanting their news (great example of
> this is O'Reilly. I think he's a "right winder" but some of my friends
> think he's a "Liberal"). It's all relative to your view of the world.
>
While it is true that the media is biased, it's also an undisputed fact
that the _vast_ majority of the media is liberally biased. Read
Goldberg's _Bias_ and you'll see how it works. Most of them don't even
realize they're biased. They believe they are "moderates", which
couldn't be further from the truth, and is belied by the fact that 90%
of all the people who work in the media are registered Democrats.
O'Reilly doesn't report news. He's a talk show host. He's probably as
close to a true moderate as you can get. The difference between O'Reilly
and a lot of his cohorts is that O'Reilly doesn't swallow spin and pass
it on the way most of the rest of the media does. He expects people to
explain themselves and their positions rationally. When they can't, he
makes fun of them. Read his two books. He's middle class, from a blue
collar background. But his tenacity in the face of BS makes him appear
to be right wing, a characteristic he shares with other conservative
talk show hosts.
> YOu know, this brings an interesting point. I was talking to a Canadian
> friend of mine yesterday. We were stuck in the middle of an argument
> between a Socialist and a Liberatarian. He pointed something out to me
> which I found pretty funny.
>
> <----Liberal------(U.S.Liberal)---Center-------Conservative------(U.S.
> Conservative)---->
>
Actually, if you follow the logical arguments of the people in each camp
(Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, Democrats), you'll probably find
that when you get to the far end of the Liberatarian position, it wraps
back around to the totalitarian end of the spectrum, like a great
circle.
> Frankly, I think that's about right. This country's population tends to
> be "Centrist Right" rather than, say Canada, who's "Centrist Left." If
> there's any slant in the media, then you can guess which way is swings.
>
IF there's any slant? Norb, if you can't see it, it's because you're
liberal and it agrees with your slant. Again, read Goldberg's "Bias".
That guy's a liberal (registered Democrat) and he lays out precisely how
the media is biased. The icing on the cake is the media's reaction to
Goldberg after he began breaking this story. He was essentially fired
and shunned. He parted the curtain so you could see what was inside the
media. It bothered them something fierce, which tells you there was more
than a little truth to it.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:26 EDT