False, they were never banned from the White House press pool.
[citation needed]
CNN is the best new network. All the others suck cock a doodle doo.
Nah, PBS, if we’re talking about American stations.
I prefer BBC overall, and now we have an American subsection. I find I have developed the ability to ignore bias in news reports. I don’t know how.
BBC is a state-backed not-for-profit corporation, which is the primary reason their coverage doesn’t suck. Being state-backed has it’s own set of parameters and biases, but right-left political ideology isn’t one of them, which is probably why people from both sides of the isle (Americans, at least) consider it a reliable source of news.
Everything has bias, including BBC. They’re Israel/ Palestinian coverage is a notable example. Nevertheless, it is a good source of news.
Like I said, of course BBC has bias. In a capitalist system where money = airtime, every news network is ultimately going to be held accountable by whomever is paying the bills, and will faithfully operate within the biases of their financiers under penalty of bankruptcy.
Ask-and-answer is fun and all, but honestly I was expecting more “debate” in this thread, considering how politically fringe Democratic Socialism is. Yet DansonDelta didn’t even bother to defend his bullshit propaganda image macro, and Someonerandom is deftly avoiding acknowledging his argument’s total lack of substantiation. Fun times.
Well, I have a lot of homework right now. Here’s a link on the white house thing. Yes, its from Fox, but its a year old story, and it takes time. It should be noted that media bias was the reason this was not more widely known.
In a lot of ways I am pretty socialist. Not a full-blown socialist, but I support a lot of socialist policies, so not much to debate there…
:facepalm: Really? That’s your citation?
Fox News was never excluded from interviewing Feinberg. Since they couldn’t all be in the room interviewing Feinberg at the same time, they set up a sort of round-robin type deal with one network at a time interviewing them. The White House made a mistake when they did not put Fox News on the roster…which it quickly corrected (the media spun it as “White House relents”) after the other networks addressed it and refused to go on unless Fox News was on the roster.
They did NOT exclude Fox News. They just failed to put them on the roster.
The way you’re making it sound, Fox News appeared at the Treasury Department and they were turned away with the White House saying, “No, you can’t come in.”
Seriously… :tired:
Sigh I really should have checked that article. I’m thinking of a different occurrence, one I just realized happened in the early Bush years, which I then somehow got confused with that whole debacle. I read the headline and not the rest, otherwise I would have noticed it. Chalk that up to lack of sleep.
On the BBC bias, you can tell from things like Obama’s 100 day report card in which they gave him 5 stars on Guantanamo, which I think is still open. Seems a little weird to me.
But ultimately, as mattemuse said, all networks have some bias, and ABC and the rest of them at this time lean towards the left. That can and will change though, because these things do.
So Fox News is almost, but not actually, denied a single interview with one Administration official, and this proves Fox was “banned from the White House?” I mean, it says right in the article that Fox was part of the press pool at the time.
If you were incredibly naive, you might be shocked that the Administration would attempt to limit access to networks who’s coverage it doesn’t like. But this is simply one aspect of how the American corporate media system has always worked:
Political news relies on access to government officials for relevant interviews and therefore ratings; therefore those in power can ensure favorable coverage by rewarding networks or newscasters who toe the line, and punishing those who don’t.
For most networks, it’s not a partisan thing, it’s business - CNN was as deferential to Junior Bush as they are to Obama. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. However, as I mentioned earlier, the exception is Fox - they are deferential to Republican presidents and confrontational with Democratic presidents, because they are in fact a partisan political outfit. They don’t care particularly about access to a Democratic administration because they will have an endless parade of high-level Republican Party officials and party financing to fall back on, regardless of whether or not a Democratic administration engages with them.
So, to finally put this “liberal media” myth to rest so we can move on, which network has the most obvious and transparent “liberal bias?” What network is to the Democratic Party as I’ve claimed Fox is to the GOP?
MSNBC, of course. Home of such outspoken liberal pundits as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.
Which political newscast did Dick Cheney prefer to be interviewed by, almost exclusively during his 8 years as VP, and which network did Dick Cheney’s communication staff consider their best avenue to “control the message” that Cheney wanted to deliver to the public?
MSNBC’s “Meet The Press.”
Case closed.
I’m not saying that most of the media has always had a liberal bias, I’m just saying that it currently does and has since about 3 years ago. I already covered the results of lack of sleep and debating skills when you should be doing homework above. Anyway, lets find a new topic. Since you evidently don’t like health care discussed here, how about the basic “corporations are evil” message. Do you buy into it?
Actually, they don’t currently have a liberal bias either.
…which is yet another conservative talking point. I don’t know of a single liberal that actually believes in the “corporations are evil” message. :meh:
Why should I?
I perfectly knew it was bullshit propaganda. It’s just a funny example of how biased news can operate. I thought it was plainly obvious that the event pictured there had nothing to do with what the words in the bubble described. Yet that’s also often the case with actual news, no matter whether the picture was shopped or not.
I’ve talked to one that used the phrase. It was an… interesting experience. Along with scary as this person can vote. But I was using it as an exagerated phrase of the overall concept of government regulation of corporation, and the extent to which you support that.
Are corporations evil?
Corporations are just groups of people. I don’t think people are evil, so no, I don’t think corporations are innately evil either. Can corporations do evil things? Obviously, this isn’t even a question. The question is why corporations do evil things. The answer is in almost every case, profit motive.
Capitalism is inherently darwinian in nature. Everyone understands this. A wolf killing a deer isn’t “evil,” but it seems like it to the deer as it’s being eaten alive. In the pursuit of corporate “sustenance” i.e. profits, Corporations will invariably do things that seem to outsiders evil, but to the non-evil people making the decisions, they are simply doing what they have to to ‘survive’ or thrive economically.
This is why you can’t count on self-regulation to prevent corporations from doing evil things - because it never seems evil to the wolf. An outside authority is needed to prevent corporations from crossing lines that will invariably be crossed in the absence of regulation, not because of ‘evil’ but simply by the nature of the system.
It’s a funny example of how right-wingers will lie about crowd numbers at protests and then cry about liberal media bias when nobody but Fox News believes them.
Unfortunately, some corporations have enough money and power to even influence any outside authority strong enough to neutralize the regulating effect it originally was supposed to have.
Evidence?