Remember how I posted on May 29th... "Why the media will crucify Ron Paul!" The point I was making was that irrespective of the mans politics (and I certainly don't agree with much of it) there is no way the media will give him any kind of fair coverage throughout the debates. That's because he will not put himself into hock to the vested interests who will expect pay-back when elected, and many of those are the media corporations. The last Republican debate of a couple of nights ago was another example of this. After checking most of the major news sites, he was mentioned once... Yet the NBC news poll conducted after the debate had him winning by over 70%, with the next man closest at barely double figures. That's why I always laugh when I hear complaints about "Liberal Media Bias." It doesn't matter whether it's liberal or conservative... It's bias, and the reason for it is to maintain the entrenched interests of the two party system. There will never be a majority third party in the USA as long as the media is controlled by these people... However, as I am writing this post with no oversight or censorship from anyone, including KMM who host this blog, one day it may change. We should all hope so!
.
For all our sakes!
.jpg)
It's a fair point which has become more pertinent over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, there's still the issue of 'pull' forces as well, looking at what audiences are demanding in terms of content.
It's no surprise there's a surfeit of polarising blogs; HuffPo is a prime example and it certainly has reach, but would you say it is part of the 'media bias' as you describe above?
I reacted (strongly) to the earlier post about Ron Paul, and, admittedly, missed your larger point about media bias -- mostly because it seems so ingrained.
Of course Fox news isn't 'Fair and Balanced'.
Of course The New York Times is focused on the -quote- viable candidates. As you say, they're invested in the outcome.
I'm cynical but not despondent, I feel we can still turn it around. The question as I see it becomes: what are people demanding from their media outlets? How is this "pull" force impacting their news decisions and how is it affecting their corporate masters (if at all)?
BTW, I'm sure we can find a way to bring this discussion back round to advertising :-)
Posted by: David Blanar | June 8, 2007 4:50 AM | Permalink to Comment