The Main Stream Opinion Media Is Heavily Conservative

I have to laugh when I think how conservatives could be shooting themselves in the foot by attacking the MSM, the same MSM which conveys more of their message than of liberals...
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,



Well, I'm impressed that you listened enough to learn all those names and form an opinion about each.

I wouldn't expect you to be very flattering of them, so no big surprise there.

Personally, though, I have a different view of why conservative talk programming is so much more popular than progressive.

It's emotional.

I see liberal programming as more informative and conservative programming as more emotional.

Liberal programming is informative, helps the audience become more informed, gives the audience reasons to be concerned about what is going on.

Conservative programming is less informative, but stirs the emotions of the audience more, causes hatred of liberals.

It is more tedious to become informed than it is to become emotional.

Emotions are primal. Humans are animals. They are naturally drawn to emotionally stirring stimuli.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I think the better Conservative talkers keep large audiences because they don't just focus on politics. They discuss other issues and topics that appeal to a wider range of people. Of course, there are "ranters" on the Right too, like the Left, but I think like their Leftist counterparts they have less broad appeal. Listening to angry nuts isn't healthy...

Another thing I've noticed is that the better Conservative talkers encourage dissenting opinions and callers on their shows but not just to heckle or insult them. Sure, the ranters on both sides do that sort of vicious thing but the good Conservative ones want a discussion, not a verbal beatdown of a caller.

When it comes to information, across the board it's cherry picked. There isn't any media out there that really tries to present information in a non-partisan and uncritical manner allowing the listener to make up their own opinion and mind. It kind of would defeat the whole purpose of opinion journalism if they did. I see this part of any show as the presenter giving me some issue or item I might not otherwise know about that I have an interest in. I can then research it on my own. Their opinion is not what will shape mine on the subject. Frequently I find looking more into one of these that the presenter was badly biased on the subject, be it a Right or Left presenter. There was more to the issue than they showed.

That's just how things are.

Oh, if all you want is shallow emotional appeal and you are inclined towards the Progressive side of things, I suggest Stephanie Miller's show-- or the equivalent on television--Rachel Mad Cow...errr... Maddow. Those two will give you all the shallow, uninformed, emotional, rhetorical political bullshit you can swallow and then cram a few bags more down your throat. They make me cringe. So does Michael Savage to be balanced about this...
 
PoliTalker said:
We often hear conservatives complaining about how the media is liberal.

And since Trump many of them won't even listen any more.

But the one thing they will listen to is talking head opinion pundits.

Naturally, both flavors can be found.

But the thing is this:

This media is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives.

Sure, there are liberal pundits. They are out there. But they are vastly outnumbered by the conservative ones.

Of this, there can be no dispute.
Click to expand...

Please name these "conservative talking head opinion pundits" that you are referring to...

Oh wait, you have me on ignore because you are a pussy. Somebody who he doesn't have on ignore ought to ask him to name a few examples...
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
I disagree.

I think the better Conservative talkers keep large audiences because they don't just focus on politics. They discuss other issues and topics that appeal to a wider range of people. Of course, there are "ranters" on the Right too, like the Left, but I think like their Leftist counterparts they have less broad appeal. Listening to angry nuts isn't healthy...
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't stop the great number of conservatives who do it by daily habit. One of the most successful RW ranters just died, leaving $600 million.

T. A. Gardner said:
Another thing I've noticed is that the better Conservative talkers encourage dissenting opinions and callers on their shows but not just to heckle or insult them. Sure, the ranters on both sides do that sort of vicious thing but the good Conservative ones want a discussion, not a verbal beatdown of a caller.
Click to expand...

That's professionalism, but it doesn't appeal to the emotional-trigger-seeking audience.

T. A. Gardner said:
When it comes to information, across the board it's cherry picked. There isn't any media out there that really tries to present information in a non-partisan and uncritical manner allowing the listener to make up their own opinion and mind. It kind of would defeat the whole purpose of opinion journalism if they did. I see this part of any show as the presenter giving me some issue or item I might not otherwise know about that I have an interest in. I can then research it on my own. Their opinion is not what will shape mine on the subject. Frequently I find looking more into one of these that the presenter was badly biased on the subject, be it a Right or Left presenter. There was more to the issue than they showed.

That's just how things are.

Oh, if all you want is shallow emotional appeal and you are inclined towards the Progressive side of things, I suggest Stephanie Miller's show-- or the equivalent on television--Rachel Mad Cow...errr... Maddow. Those two will give you all the shallow, uninformed, emotional, rhetorical political bullshit you can swallow and then cram a few bags more down your throat. They make me cringe. So does Michael Savage to be balanced about this...
Click to expand...

Agreed on Savage. A Limbaugh wannabe. I've never paid any attention to Miller or Maddow, so I can't comment. I will have to assume that the reality of it is somewhere to the left of your impression.
 
Rich elites finance conservative organizations and websites and put all kinds of nonsense on the internet. Some of this goes on from the left, too, but the sheer volume of it from the right far exceeds the left.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Nordberg,



They don't own PBS, NPR or BBC.

They have some influence, but not much.
Click to expand...

Sure. I was against the Iraq war. But I could find nobody on my side on TV. I turned up PBS and they were backing it too. I had to analyze what and sadly came to the conclusion they too were pressed into subservience. https://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2013/05/david_koch_and_pbs_the_odd_couple.html The ultra-conservatives are gaining power. That is why Frontline lost its edge. Financing by the Kochs is not kindness . They always want control.
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
Sure. I was against the Iraq war. But I could find nobody on my side on TV. I turned up PBS and they were backing it too. I had to analyze what and sadly came to the conclusion they too were pressed into subservience. https://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2013/05/david_koch_and_pbs_the_odd_couple.html The ultra-conservatives are gaining power. That is why Frontline lost its edge. Financing by the Kochs is not kindness . They always want control.
Click to expand...

A great article. It only makes sense that when you have one donor who finances such a large part of the funding that the media being funded is going to avoid pieces which are derogatory to that funder.

"I have two problems with this. The first is that there is no evidence that Koch exerted improper influence. The magazine article suggested it was WNET's idea to add the post-broadcast features. But more importantly, I believe the guidelines, which are in the PBS manual of Editorial Standards and Policies, require both PBS and its member stations to comply. So PBS ought to weigh-in, as I read it, when some important issue is raised."

I would disagree with that. Koch most certainly exerts influence simply by being such a large funder. Whether or not it is improper is a matter of opinion. I think it is.

"Q — Do you believe, in hindsight, that having such prominent, politically active and wealthy individuals as David Koch as trustees for a producing station is a good idea?

A — For the past fifty years, WNET has had an independent board of trustees with diverse political views and financial circumstances."

-Didn't answer the question!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Nordberg,



A great article. It only makes sense that when you have one donor who finances such a large part of the funding that the media being funded is going to avoid pieces which are derogatory to that funder.

"I have two problems with this. The first is that there is no evidence that Koch exerted improper influence. The magazine article suggested it was WNET's idea to add the post-broadcast features. But more importantly, I believe the guidelines, which are in the PBS manual of Editorial Standards and Policies, require both PBS and its member stations to comply. So PBS ought to weigh-in, as I read it, when some important issue is raised."

I would disagree with that. Koch most certainly exerts influence simply by being such a large funder. Whether or not it is improper is a matter of opinion. I think it is.

"Q — Do you believe, in hindsight, that having such prominent, politically active and wealthy individuals as David Koch as trustees for a producing station is a good idea?

A — For the past fifty years, WNET has had an independent board of trustees with diverse political views and financial circumstances."

-Didn't answer the question!
Click to expand...

So the Kochs get involved in Public TV and the programming lost its edge , is just a coincidence. The Kochs are also financing some universities but demand power over professors and curriculum. The truth is they are not benign. They are doing it for a reason.
 
The real problem that keeps America so divided is there is so much money to be made selling hatred.

It's a simple formula. Come up with programming that a) triggers strong emotions, and b) attacks liberals. Boom. You're rich.

That's why Q is spreading. People are getting rich selling Q paraphernalia. And selling advertising to spread nonsense. And selling other associated products that RW haters might be interested in.

Same thing for white supremacy. All kinds of patches and flags to sell, along with other income streams.

Doesn't really matter if the seller is a believer. All that is required is for the seller to be adept enough to swim in that stream.
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
So the Kochs get involved in Public TV and the programming lost its edge , is just a coincidence. The Kochs are also financing some universities but demand power over professors and curriculum. The truth is they are not benign. They are doing it for a reason.
Click to expand...

You know it's not being done to promote fair programming out there!

btw, David Koch died in 2019.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
2c5.jpg
Click to expand...


Huh?


He just gave you proof that MSNBC was beating Fox and everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top