Talk about a non-discussion, it sounds like one of those cultural revolution "debates" between the reds and the experts in Mao's China.
Posted by rlp at November 5, 2005 07:15 AMIt's simple-- just follow the money. Given that our media are corporate owned and controlled, it's no surprise that they are pimping for Republicans.
Posted by cosmo at November 5, 2005 07:47 AMI agree with pretty much everything in this post, except, well, I'm personally not surprised by the LA Times' coverage.
Whatever little credibility the notion of a "liberal media" once had - and I do mean little - the concept is utterly farcical now.
Unscrupulous Republicans (which is not redundant - the Republican Party was once quite noble, and there remain noble members) at first used the concept of the "liberal media" as a means to "play the ref," in the same way that one could win a sporting match by having fans within earshot batter and berate the referee every time he made a call in the other team's favor. Eventually he's so beaten down that he's overcompensating in the fans' favor in order to appear neutral.
Today, the ref has been played successfully, all the so-called mainstream liberal papers overcompensate regularly, often to the point of only highlighting conservative viewpoints, and the likes of FOX News and Rush Limbaugh are the ubiquotous, constant hums in every outlet in America. Today, using the term "liberal media" is more akin to Big Brother's use of Goldstein in 1984 - it's just what you say and whom you blame when unfavorable coverage comes your way.
It's a sad state of affairs. Here's hoping recent events (media coverage of Katrina, Bush's poll numbers, Reid's move in the Senate) mark a light at the end of the tunnel.
PS: the "playing the ref" concept is elaborated by Joe Conason in his book Big Lies
Posted by Liveliest Crib at November 5, 2005 09:50 AM