Red Mosquito

And sure, Bill Clinton (most 90s Dems) couldn't say certain things today, but is that just a liberal problem? How's Mitt Romney doing these days with Republicans outside Utah? Could 2020 Lindsay Graham tolerate his younger self? Would Bob Dole be laughed out of town? Newt Gingrich is still cool tho, right?

The problem is that conservative media builds a narrative for any given story that is so structurally narrow in scope and audience (a football player is disrespecting your anthem by kneeling, antifa is coming to your city, you are angry about the lockdown) that, from the inside looking out, even some basic factual reporting or question posing looks to them like an alternative narrative. Like spin.

When the story your insular media gives you is that a wealthy black athlete is denigrating national symbols by kneeling, then even something as unremarkable as a CNN host asking the panelist “what impact is his message having with viewers?” looks like a liberalization of the story. Like liberal media is slanting the story.

When your news channel is looping footage of riots and fires, then other channels regularly broadcasting footage of peaceful protesters looks like liberal spin. Like they’re hiding it.

When your news channel is telling you that the president did an amazing job in responding to the pandemic, then any reporting that shows him failing to act or refusing to engage looks like it has at least some liberal spin.

If your news network tells you that a 75-year-old knocked to the ground by police was an antifa thug, then any reporting that doesn’t *include that lie* looks to you like liberal spin.

To be clear, basically all television news is shit. It is low information, easily distractible, and a bad way to stay informed. Full stop.

except news hour with jim lehrer

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:the perception is that the left can usually dominate the narrative with sheer numbers.

But this is what I'm getting at. This is the narrative that seems to drive conservative media in the first place. This is what you hear everyone on the right say. It's pretty easy to see why this perception exists, even though over the last 30 years the conservative media has grown by gigantic proportions and created its own narrative. Anything else is just fake news, right?

One side (left) struggles to build a narrative that can be agreed on, and one side (right) is much more united in one. So yeah, the perception exists because it needs to exist. It is central to its existence.

"By sheer numbers" I meant sheer numbers of talking heads on TV or editorials from corporate media, not regular people. FOX can only have so many Republican mouthpieces on at a time.

Cable news is probably quickly fading in relevance anyway, so maybe it's a moot point. It's harder to tell what's going on online because of echo chambers and bots and fake news, but I think it's still valid for conservatives to see the vast majority of mainstream media as against them. Edit: they can still get their voices out, but it's no thanks to "official" sources.

BurtReynolds wrote: "By sheer numbers" I meant sheer numbers of talking heads on TV or editorials from corporate media, not regular people. FOX can only have so many Republican mouthpieces on at a time.

You rejected my answer on this already, but it seems the reason could be that conservatives aren't demanding to have a lot of people deliver the same message. Mickey alluded to this somewhere in this forum, but the left is concerned with something new and the right with preserving something old (to very much paraphrase AND be polite). One of those tasks is messy and one is straightforward. The conservative half has their media demand being met. And if it isn't being met, they're free to create more. Whining about the media is just a habit/way of life now.

but I think it's still valid for conservatives to see the vast majority of mainstream media as against them.

The right needs this to be true. It's why the majority of coverage on conservative media isn't pro-conservative ideas, it's anti-left hysteria.

they can still get their voices out, but it's no thanks to "official" sources.

So the libs weren't really holding you down after all? Was the liberal media supposed to help you come to the conclusion that it's horrendously biased and mostly fake?

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: "By sheer numbers" I meant sheer numbers of talking heads on TV or editorials from corporate media, not regular people. FOX can only have so many Republican mouthpieces on at a time.

You rejected my answer on this already, but it seems the reason could be that conservatives aren't demanding to have a lot of people deliver the same message. Mickey alluded to this somewhere in this forum, but the left is concerned with something new and the right with preserving something old (to very much paraphrase AND be polite). One of those tasks is messy and one is straightforward. The conservative half has their media demand being met. And if it isn't being met, they're free to create more. Whining about the media is just a habit/way of life now.

but I think it's still valid for conservatives to see the vast majority of mainstream media as against them.

The right needs this to be true. It's why the majority of coverage on conservative media isn't pro-conservative ideas, it's anti-left hysteria.

they can still get their voices out, but it's no thanks to "official" sources.

So the libs weren't really holding you down after all? Was the liberal media supposed to help you come to the conclusion that it's horrendously biased and mostly fake?

- I don't see why conservatives wouldn't want more conservative voices in mainstream media. If it's true what you say about them just wanting to complain, they'll do it anyway, but they'll have more voices to do it with. I do agree that conservatives need to focus on creating more. Preservation is a losing strategy and I think some on the right are waking up to that.

- whether they need it to be true or they have a persecution complex or whatever doesn't change the fact that they are right about who controls most of the media. It's just obvious.

- Conservatives think they can make their voices heard in spite of the media being against them, and have had success. They've adapted to Facebook groups, comment sections, blogs, etc. It takes more effort though, and the threat of censorship is always on the horizon.

I think Trump was planning on launching a competitor to fox to get some of that sweet conservative media pie, but he accidentally won the election instead. He's probably wishing things turned out differently.

- one more: I do think conservatives have abandoned any real attempt to take back institutions like the media, preferring instead to avoid them as much as they can, and build their own networks, so I don't think they are completely lacking in creativity as you say. They are still bitter about being pushed out, though.

BurtReynolds wrote: - I don't see why conservatives wouldn't want more conservative voices in mainstream media. If it's true what you say about them just wanting to complain, they'll do it anyway, but they'll have more voices to do it with. I do agree that conservatives need to focus on creating more. Preservation is a losing strategy and I think some on the right are waking up to that.

Ok, but not having enough voices in conservative media (which I don't believe is the issue) isn't the fault of liberals. At least not in 2020.

- whether they need it to be true or they have a persecution complex or whatever doesn't change the fact that they are right about who controls most of the media. It's just obvious.

This is the narrative I don't get. Who are you talking about? MSNBC & CNN? The network news? Half the liberals think this stuff is trash and all the conservatives think it's fake. One side seems very much under control, reciting the same narratives over and over. (It's not the left). If you're talking about the major papers like NY Times, WP & WSJ, ok. But they do publish conservative opinions in their op-ed sections and it should be noted that they perform a lot of the investigative journalism. Should we not assume that if there was so much out there they were missing, that Fox and Rush types would spend some $$ investigating it? Why did the editorial side of conservative media explode but not the investigative side?

Conservatives think they can make their voices heard in spite of the media being against them, and have had success.

The ratings suggest that this is true. The right has its own narrative, wholly separate from left wing and/or mainstream media.

the threat of censorship is always on the horizon.

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

- one more: I do think conservatives have abandoned any real attempt to take back institutions like the media, preferring instead to ignore them as much as they can, and build their own networks, so I don't think they are completely lacking in creativity as you say. They are still bitter about being pushed out, though.

Could have been a good endeavor. Instead, as you say, they are bitter. So they claim to be victims (despite enormous influence over the right half, which should be clear to us all) and spend their time pointing fingers. Some would call that grievance politics, I think.

Since conservatism drifted away from truth, journalism that is fact based is seen as liberal.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Since conservatism drifted away from truth, journalism that is fact based is seen as liberal.

Dammit where is that eyeroll emoji...

Brb rob

Wait a minute; is Burt actually saying conservatives are ignoring media?

There's three questions, I think; 1) are the people working in 'media' more liberal than conservative (yes), 2) does the reporting of news stories have a 'liberal' bent (sometimes, though not always in the ways Burt seems to think), and 3) is the self-victimization conservatives feel about the media far outstretching whatever legitimate critiques there are to be made (of course).

I find there's quite a bit of reporting that makes more sense when you see it as reporting done by liberals who don't want conservatives to yell at them. It's how you have thousands of stories over the past four years centering and framing retired, white Trump voters in rural towns as the nation's moderate voter.

Rob wrote:
Ok, but not having enough voices in conservative media (which I don't believe is the issue) isn't the fault of liberals. At least not in 2020.

I think its probably truer now than ever.

Rob wrote:

- whether they need it to be true or they have a persecution complex or whatever doesn't change the fact that they are right about who controls most of the media. It's just obvious.

This is the narrative I don't get. Who are you talking about? MSNBC & CNN? The network news? Half the liberals think this stuff is trash and all the conservatives think it's fake. One side seems very much under control, reciting the same narratives over and over. (It's not the left). If you're talking about the major papers like NY Times, WP & WSJ, ok. But they do publish conservative opinions in their op-ed sections and it should be noted that they perform a lot of the investigative journalism. Should we not assume that if there was so much out there they were missing, that Fox and Rush types would spend some $$ investigating it? Why did the editorial side of conservative media explode but not the investigative side?

I know plenty of conservatives who think FOXnews is trash, too. Even some of my family that were religious FOX watchers now think its neocon (my word not theirs) lies. I don't think the right is as unified in one voice as you think. Even Carlson has butted heads with Hannity and the network a few times, but there are all kinds of competing voices on the right, too. Maybe it's not as big as the current leftist/liberal divide, but it's definitely there.

Whether you think MSNBC or CNN promote the best liberal voice or all liberal voices, there is no doubt that they push a liberal voice, even if many don't agree with it.

NYT is a dumpster fire that just pushed out their editorial editor after its woke staff complained about him printing a Republican, so I don't think conservative opinions are welcome there, to say nothing of that ridiculous 1619 Project. And people like George Will or Jennifer Rubin don't actually represent anyone on the right, so their editorials are irrelevant. They exist to make the left media seem unbiased.

Their is plenty of investigative journalism on the right, but they don't pop up as much in the mainstream. I'm not sure why Rush or FOX would care to spend money on it. It's not what they do.

Rob wrote:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.

Rob wrote:Could have been a good endeavor. Instead, as you say, they are bitter. So they claim to be victims (despite enormous influence over the right half, which should be clear to us all) and spend their time pointing fingers. Some would call that grievance politics, I think.

lol they are victims of media bias. Why wouldn't they be bitter? Why not call it out? You can do that and build your own networks at the same time.

digster wrote:Wait a minute; is Burt actually saying conservatives are ignoring media?

There's three questions, I think; 1) are the people working in 'media' more liberal than conservative (yes), 2) does the reporting of news stories have a 'liberal' bent (sometimes, though not always in the ways Burt seems to think), and 3) is the self-victimization conservatives feel about the media far outstretching whatever legitimate critiques there are to be made (of course).

I find there's quite a bit of reporting that makes more sense when you see it as reporting done by liberals who don't want conservatives to yell at them. It's how you have thousands of stories over the past four years centering and framing retired, white Trump voters in rural towns as the nation's moderate voter.

They are avoiding it, not ignoring it. And calling it what it is: Establishment liberal media.

1. are the people working in 'media' more liberal than conservative? Yes, by a lot.
2. does the reporting of news stories have a 'liberal' bent? Yes, by a lot.
3. is the self-victimization conservatives feel about the media far outstretching whatever legitimate critiques there are to be made? It's not self-victimization, and no, their arguments don't outstretch the legitimate critiques at all.

It's like we live in an entirely different world! lol

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.

This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.

This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

yeah so absurd

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.

This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

yeah so absurd

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

You really got me there buddy, you linked to wikipedia.