In my picture post on the “Decision Day Rally” in West Hollywood earlier this week to protest the California Supreme Court’s affirmation of Prop 8, I speculated that such “pro-gay marriage rallies will get better coverage in the MSM than did the anti-tax and spend rallies last month.” Because of a variety of obligations and aggravations this week, I have not been able to investigate that hypothesis, but a post (to which reader Peter Hughes alerted me) at Newsbusters seems to back up my theory. Note, I say, “seems.” I have yet to explore this in depth. Maybe some media watchdogs can help me out.
Over at Newsbusters, Colleen Raezler writes:
ABC, CBS and NBC combined devoted nearly 11 minutes of air time during their evening and morning news shows to the May 26 California Supreme Court ruling that upheld Proposition 8, the 2008 state constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. The networks gave gay rights activists more than seven minutes of air time, through interviews and footage of their protests, while they gave Prop 8 supporters less than one minute to talk about their victory.
Now, I wondering, did the networks give that much time to the Tea Parties on Tax Day. It would be interesting to compare the coverage.
In both cases, we had genuine grassroots gatherings, but only the anti-Prop 8 rally seems to meet the standard MSM definition of what a legitimate protest is supposed to be.
How do you define the mainstream media? Do you mean broadcast only or are such networks as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC figured into the mix. It would affect how the numbers would shake out.
Of course. Prop 8 protests support a left-liberal agenda; Tea Party protests don’t.
#1 – “How do you define the mainstream media?”
Simple – it is any news outlet that refuses to question Dear Leader or his minions on items that any Republican administration would be forced to resign over.
Next?
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter- Huh? So if they do question the President, they are alternative media? Do you even want to start down that road?
#4 – Define “question the president,” Steve. Are we talking about confronting the threat of North Korean nuclear weapons, or what the name of the new family dog will be.
Think VERY carefully before you answer.
Regards,
Peter H.
I would think we were talking about events on the world’s stage rather than the name of a dog. At least that’s what i assumed the level of this discussion was about.
Let me be clear on one point. I have no use for the broadcast news sources and have only slightly more respect for the cable news networks.
My point was that the cable news networks would have to be designated as part of the MSM, no matter what their political biases may be, as many Americans use these outlets to get their news. Using that criteria, I would say that both the Tea Parties and the Prop * protests got a lot of coverage.
#6 – Point taken. I would throw in CNN and PMSNBC as part of the MSM, as they seem to be taking their talking points from either the White House or the DNC.
Let’s not forget Chrissy “Tingles” Matthews who stated during the inauguration that it was HIS JOB to ensure The Snob succeeded. (Bias? What liberal media bias?)
At least Jake Tapper of ABC News is TRYING to be a journalist, rather than a member of the Agit-Prop MSM:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/05/29/abc-offers-skeptical-take-obama-stimulus-claims-cbs-nbc-ignore
As for the networks, I haven’t watched them since the 2000 election, what with Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” memos. In fact, I rarely watch any network TV. I’d much rather see far more entertaining shows on Travel Channel or Bravo. And trust me, I am NOT missing much.
Regards,
Peter H.
Why is Fox News left out?
#8 – Why should they be included with the MSM, when they themselves don’t even define themselves as such? Also, aren’t liberals always saying that FNC trends “right-wing” and that the conventional wisdom states that the MSM is left-wing bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
“Conventional wisdom”? Where I live in Orlando, FL, Fox is quoted in a positive way many more times in conversation than any other network. I’m not denying the bias of the news networks, all of them, but I think that they are all different aspects of the same MSM.
What part of Orlando would this be?
No specific part, as it’s a very conservative town.
Guess you gotta live there. I know folks here in Lakeland, and Polk County in general are fairly Conservative. However, we are outnumbered by almost 18,000 registered democrats.
But that’s the funny thing about Florida Democrats. So many of them are Dixiecrats, who generally vote conservative.
The local news media were all over the handful of people who showed at NBC Studio to see Obama arrive for the Jay Leno Show last month. But coverage of various Tea Party demonstrations and yesterday’s protest against Cap & Trade legislation outside Henry Waxman’s L.A. office? None.
Soooo discouraging.
I think Steve raises a relevant point. The expression “mainstream media” tends to carry a suggestion that it refers to popular or well-known news outlets that have a broad reach or circulation. Foxnews would certainly fit that definition, but I don’t consider it to be included when I use the expression “MSM.” I use the shorthand expression “mainstream media” to refer to any news outlet that has an editorial policy which promotes liberal politicians and their policies (either by injecting opinionated commentary as “news” that is dismissive of negative information about liberals, or by ignoring negative information about liberals altogether), and reports on conservative politicians and their policies from a presumptively negative point of view (or only in terms of how a conservative politician’s conduct or campaigning “crosses the line” or is “unfair” to his/her liberal adversary, regardless of its truth or significance). Foxnews does not have such a policy, while multitudes of local news organizations without a national audience do.
So, I think Steve’s point that “mainstream” might be imprecise is well-taken. However, imprecise or not, I’m just glad that whatever it is called, there is an expression being used across the nation that acknowledges the fact that the press is terminally infected with liberal bias. The cat is out of the bag and now even liberals know that they’ll sound delusional if they categorically deny its existence. Of course, that doesn’t mean they are willing to do anything about it, which is why Katie Couric’s ratings are in the tank and every week there’s another century-old newspaper behemoth facing layoffs and bankruptcy.
What scares me is that liberals are showing signs that they will react to this issue the same way they react to everything that threatens their power: (1) categorically deny the accusation and condemn accusers as witch-hunting lunatics; (2) begrudgingly concede the infinitesimal possibility that the accusation might be true, or risk a total loss of credibility; and (3) in the face of incontrovertible, smoking-gun evidence to prove the accusation, redefine the underlying principle to nullify the accusation.
Remember how the media handled the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal? They promoted the administration’s categorical denials and ran hit pieces on the accusers. Then, as evidence mounted, they had to make concessions, but peppered it with their own commentary that it was a costly distraction, unsupported by the American people. And finally, when Bill was cornered, the media assisted the administration in redefining “character” as one’s position on the issues. Suddenly, we were instructed that “everyone lies about sex” and that it was “a private matter” which had no effect on Clinton’s ability to serve as CIC. And it worked. Feminists unapologetically praised Bill’s moral character due to his unwavering support of abortion and to this day, liberal ignoramuses instinctively start quacking, “it was all about sex!” while it was really about perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
I fear that liberals are in the process of handling the bias issue the same way: deny that there is a “liberal media” and label accusers as right-wing nut-jobs (i.e. Dan Rather); concede the possibility that there are SOME examples where bias is in play (post-Rather-gate); and then, simply re-define “journalism” to exclude the ideals of neutrality and objectivity. We’ve already started to see this–Chris Matthews KNOWS that the truth is out, so he’s decided to re-define journalism as “helping the administration succeed.” Now that they got Obama elected, we are seeing more and more masks in the liberal press coming off and they are becoming far more comfortable with promoting the concept that their job is to do PR for our leaders, rather than to question them. It’s just another example of how liberalism chips away at the safeguards of a free society.
Choosing to define a word in such a way that it suits your needs is like saying that “homosexual” means “sexual deviant” because it suits the worldview of the person saying it. That’s freedom of speech, but it does not make that definition correct.
And, the reason that newspapers and are failing is because they are a day late with news that most people can get at the touch of a remote control or on the Internet. The Orlando Sentinel is a strongly conservative paper and it is floundering.
As to Katie Couric, her ratings have been bad since she first took over the anchor seat and CBS News has been dead last for many years. I can’t deny your point about this
Conservatives are just as bad about labeling people. I can’t tell you how many times I was called a traitor for even questioning the policies of the last administration. I never once spoke of insurrection or any sort of plot to overthrow the government., yet is was defined in this way again and again.
I’m not an Obama supporter, nor did I support Mrs. Clinton. I worry a lot about the direction that this country is going in, but I felt the same way about Mr. Bush for different reasons.
GPW,
The so-called ‘MSM’ had a lot of coverage of the Prop 8 decision because it’s not everyday that a whole group of people are declared to be second class citizens and have their civil rights stripped away. This certainly merits more coverage than people protesting against their own interests during the tea parties.
Wow, NJ Bigot, then it’s a good thing that didn’t happen.
Now if you’re arguing marriage is a civil right (you’d be wrong, but we’ll humour you) you still haven’t explained your bigotry in denying it to incenstous couples or polyamourous relationships.