When you say the media’s “leftish bias” is “incontrovertible”, could you share with me your sources? I’m interested in expanding my circle of useful media critiques.

In reading discussions of reporting by authors from both “left” and “right”, I have come to believe the following:
Reporters (including those writing reportage scripts for news programs) try to walk a “non-partisan” line, but their idea of “non-partisan” often seems vastly partisan to observers.

For example, in reporting on economic issues, reporters try to stay with the “economic truth”, as defined by the “science” of economics. Then they may offer counter-arguments, which are framed as moral criticisms of pragmatic policies. In fact, the way the reporters frame the issue — “science” vs. “morals” — is the viewpoint of the economists. Many people question the underlying assumptions of the discipline of economics, such as rational actor theory. “Balanced” reporting on economics issues would report the theoretical basis, and financial commitments, of the speakers, rather than fitting them into the “science” vs. “morals” framework. That would take longer, however, and would require the reporter to understand both points of view and the practical interests of those holding them.

As David Schaub notes, stereotypes are useful short-hand for reality.

The problem is that reporters try to use that short-hand in order to convey news stories quickly, but both “right-wing” and “left-wing” observers justifiably object to the way the stereotypical short-hand obscures the most important aspects of an issue. Of course, the different observers rarely agree on which of those aspects are important…

Disputes by Chomsky, FAIR, etc., are not genuine examples of controversy.

And diversion toward tackiness or “marketing” don’t settle the issue, they evade it. The tackiness (for which Fox was well known long before its not-religiously-liberal heresy had become controversial and the object of hatred from the Left) and the “marketing” are completely independent. And the garbage coming out of Hollywood is coming from someplace notoriously liberal, even more so than the broadcast and printed “news” media. Yes, that evil, corporate, right-wing Hollywood known for “social consciousness,” protesting the war in Iraq (predictably) when normal people had supported it who has given much money to that evil, right-wing Republican, Barack Obama.

The TV media is owned, and controlled by large corporations that overwhelmingly back whimever is coziest with big business (GOP usually). Thats why we see very little actual independant journalism anymore, and the quality of journalism is so poor. The media likes to frame what a canidate is, and how they sell to the public, be that left, right, upside down. And when someone comes along and messes with that framing like Paul the media gets upset and indignant towards them regadless of what party, or stance they come from.

Liberal has nohing to do with it anymore, it’s unfettered capitalism, and marketing they do now, not journalistic thought, that day has passed and is why you are here, not infront of Ye Olde TV like the day of old.

http://www.lp.org/organization/history.shtml

1987

Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul resigns from the Republican Party and joins the LP.

Seattle convention nominates Ron Paul for President and Andre Marrou for Vice President.

1988

Ron Paul, on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia, comes in third, receiving more than 430,000 votes nationwide — almost twice the total of any other “third” party.

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. He served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul serves as the vice-chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

No. He is a libertarian (normal, standard American from English-heritage libertarian roots), which puts him against big government, which the media worships (along with plenty of fellow liberals, so long as that government regulates business and strikes down rather than passes laws regarding individual conduct, and engages in income transfer and redistribution rather than spend it on formal, legitimate government activities).

??? The big issue everyone discusses is the lack of a real conservative as one of the leaders.

Not surprising. When operating in party-hack mode about elections (see Limbaugh; don’t forget Limbaugh’s attacks on McCain just a few years ago) they will attack anyone who doesn’t follow the mainstream party line.

> When running for office he’s a RINO.

But Rudi, you’re being technical or legalistic here, rather than acknowledging what the term really means (GOPers who should be Democrats, largely notorious people from the Northeast — Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Specter…).

The GOP would be wise to treat Paul with respect.

He’s not acceptable to the Washington establishment (including all the media types). Recall 1992 and the conceited, disgusting contempt openly shown on the air toward Perot on election night by Sam Donaldson and George Will. (The Wall Street Journal, which is N.E. establishmentarian when it counts, was predictably anti-Perot and I suspect Rush Limbaugh was in party-hack election mode and also against Perot.) In that too-inbred-and-nepotic DC parasite community and culture, the same is true of any unorthodox Republican.

> I get the feeling that he’s
> hitting a chord in the GOP,
> but not with the media?

* GRIN *

This question is not even asked by those of us who already have known the media are liberal and Democratic.

Rudi’s 9/11 moment shows the GOP still doesn’t understand nuance, and is why we are doomed to repeat the things that brought us to that point.