A possible explanation

C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
Like the rest of us here, I've wondered how the media can be so hysterically anti-gun, when gun owners are the only things standing between them and total government management.

I think I've got it.

Gun owners are, by and large, fiercely independent and want to know why we should do anything... and that philosophy is antithetical to the bandwagon approach used by nearly all media representatives.

In other words, they're scared of us because they can't make us blindly follow their lead.

Discussion?

------------------
You can't get something for nothing,
You can't have freedom for free.
--Neil Peart
 
Agree...I've thought about that too. Success in that field is gauged by how many people listen to you/agree with you/follow you. Hence, it might explain the obvious bias and deceit/manipulation.

What I haven't yet figured out (and why they don't as it decreases competition) is why some of the media don't take our side. As it stands, they all scrap and fight for the liberal market and pretty much abandon us....we are an untapped "free market niche". It makes good business sense.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I think it is a case of a mouse feeding the cat its brethren in hopes that the cat will become full. The media mice seem to have forgotten that cats then come back later when they are hungrey again. Let's see, the 4th amendment is gone, so is the 10th, the 9th, the 5th, and the 6th. Half of the bill of rights have been devoured, the media is running out of brethern.
 
We can't forget that much of the national media is now owned by large corporations, many of which do most of their business selling to the gov't. These folks are not interested in biting the hand that feeds them. Not to mention that most of the journalists were schooled at the east and left coasts and were carefully trained by socialists in what gov't is supposed to do.

Also, politicians cozy up to the members of the media, giving "unnamed source" material, "leaks", and other inside access. Reporters, being human, feel special and elite, privy to the halls of power. This makes them feel like they are part of the operation, as if they had gained admission to some special club. In turn, many of these politicos end up as talking heads, becoming members of the media community themselves, strengthening the bond. I believe it was FDR, may he rot in hell, who really started the media-as-insiders role in D.C.

Where are the H.L. Menckens of today? Oh yeah, Vin Suprynowizc.

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."



[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited July 06, 1999).]
 
Government is your friend, so what is wrong if the Govt. tells you what you should print? They are only looking out for your best interests and that of the people, especially the children. ;)
 
With the television media, you have to remember that they get ratings just like your favorite brain dead sitcom. Sensationalism sells! If it bleeds, it leads!
It's all about ratings. After all, your average couch potato has an attention span of only a few seconds. Ya gotta grab 'em and hold 'em. Who cares about the truth, it's too dull. God forbid that they should change the channel!
 
Ipecac, a mild disagreement with your "left coast" comment: It seems to me that the sort of person who tends to major in journalism and the "soft sciences" (Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, e.g.) is inherently more likely to be politically liberal. It also seems to me that the sort of person who tends to major in engineering and the other "hard sciences" is inherently more likely to be politically conservative. Purely my opinion, then, but I don't think the location of the school is that significant.

A really-liberal set of professors at a journalism school would certainly attract a certain type of student...

What bothers me is the amount of editorializing which goes into what should be straight news stories. Whether Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, what I want is "who, what, when, where, why" reporting, with opinions left to the editorial page.

Aside from the idiocy of "He was killed "BY" a blue-steel revolver", rather than something like "The killer "USED" a blue-steel revolver", I am equally put off by "The car ran off the road". What, the car got bored, and decided to try something new?

Unfortunately, there is nothing in any of the first 10 Amendments which speaks to any sense of responsibility on the part of the beneficiaries of these Rights...
 
Art, I completely agree on what type of person is usually in which majors. I had 2 years of aero engineering, then 2 years of journalism, so I feel like I've seen both types of minds at work. My point was that the major cities and schools of both the east coast and the pacific coasts are quite a bit more liberal in their politics than their midwestern, southern and western counterparts.
 
Art:
A partial explanation for liberal journalists is, as was said, the study of "soft" disciplines, and the humanities. It used to be the case that people went into journalism hoping to make a difference in society, to write about injustice and misfortune and exercise their craft in telling a story well and accurately. Working for a newspaper was also a hell of a lot of fun-- romantic, challenging, fast, rewarding. My father was a lifelong newspaperman, my wife was a reporter for many years, and I have been a reporter. (My wife and I discovered more money in advertising and public relations, but still consider responsible news reporting to be a high calling.) It is to this string's credit that nobody has really ranted about the "liberal controlled media." The Media is big business and within a decade you will see 90% of major news outlets controlled by fewer than 10 corportations. They will continue to follow the money. The profit motive is destroying responsible jounalism, as newspapers and broacast media dismiss older experienced journalists in favor of young, inexperienced reporters who just want to build a resume. The young ones work for less, and also know less about the news they cover: they don't know where the skeletons are! This must be said about reportorial bias: many reporters know things they cannot report about events or people because of libel laws. Your local newspaper political writer may know from credible sources or police friends that a certain individual is a wife beater, and this will certainly tend to influence his bias against this person. But the reporter cannot explain why he thinks an individual is a slug, lest he get sued. Reporters are privy to a lot of information they simply cannot use, Matt Drudge excepted, and they would be less than human if this knowledge did not influence their opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top