Public thinks media is biased and untrustworthy

[T-REX]

Quote from Maverick74:



Wow, what total crap! Were you even watching the news during the Clinton Administration? The liberal media gave this guy a pass on everything. The White water scandal, chinese buying access to the white house, hillary's illegal futures trading, the Marc Rich scandal, not to mention al the women that came out and claimed they were raped by Clinton. Hardly any of this was on the news and if it was it was just briefly mentioned along with tomorrow's weather forecast. Listen man, if you knew 10% of what Bill Clinton did in office you would be demanding this guy to be sent to prison. Unfortunately there wasn't much outrage because the liberal press didn't even make an attempt to cover it. If only Fox news was around in 1992 when Clinton first took office. You don't need the news to be liberal or bias, you just need them to be fair. Democrats and Republicans will be more then happy to cry wolf as soon as the other party gets out of line. We don't need the news to push a political agenda. That's just scary.

The news media in general will always be biased because it is controlled by the fed.

 

[TriPack]

Quote from T-REX:




The news media in general will always be biased because it is controlled by the fed.

Wow, I never knew Greenspan had the media in his icy grip. It must be his mind-numbing Greenspeak that lulls the media into obedient servitude to do his evil bidding.

LOL

 

[onewaypockets]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



It is the duty of the press to have a liberal bias, in order to help maintain a balance with the power base. We naturally have big money and corporate power at the top, and these entities have repeatedly shown that their only concern is to increase their wealth and power at the top of the pyramid with little concern for long term impact of what is best for society at large at the bottom of the pyramid.

It is one thing to have policy which is conservative and helps all people equally. It is quite another to have policy that benefits only a small segment of society.

The press needs to remain liberal in its bias in these times of conservatives who don't really care about the course of destiny beyond their own special interests, or pushing their own religious agendas.

I have nothing against true conservatism which benefits everyone, not just the old/new money land barons. What we see today is not true conservativism in my opinion.

This sounds like a regurgitation of your Poly Sci 101 class that you probably just finished. Geez, where do you start with this one. And land barons too? Cool.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Actually, the problem is not media bias, it is media monopoly. I'm not opposed to the remaining lib's in this ocuntry having media outlets to enjoy. I would prefer that the taxpayers not be forced to pay for it, as we do with NPR and Public Broadcasing Service, but liberals are not known for paying their own way. No one forces me to watch Dan Rather, but until there was Fox News your only choice was three leftwing anchors on three networks, all promoting liberal Dem's and targeting conservatives when they weren't just ignoring them.

This is still a serious problem for newspaper readers. Most towns and cities have one paper and it is usually a clone of the NYT or LA Times. The token "conservative" op-ed column is usually from some ineffectual "kennel-fed" conservative, not the kind of hard edge, intellectually vigorous debate you find in the Washington Times, for example.

The old media is keenly aware of the erosion of its former power by Fox, new media such as Rush and Matt Drudge and the bloggers. Their attempts to hang on are laughable. As Drudge memorably commented, they disparage him for not being a journalist but consider a "blow-dried gym bunny like Brian Williams" to be a serious newsman because he reads stories off a teleprompter.