Why do "they" own the print media?

P

pax

New member
Okay, we all know that the media are biased. The question is how they remain so ... isn't that pendulum supposed to swing?

All the big TV networks -- with the possible exception of Fox -- are strongly prejudiced against conservative topics in general and against gun rights in particular. But of course they have a corner on that market. There's only so much air space to go around and they were here first. Maybe not much of a mystery there.

But newspapers ... is there any way to explain the widespread bias in the print media?

After all, there's no FCC license required in order to operate a printing press. What has prevented conservatives from recapturing the newspapers? How much does a single printing press cost -- and are there no financially successful conservatives in this country willing to purchase one?

Jes' wonderin' ...

pax

"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." -- AJ Liebling
 
There is a concentration of media under relatively few owners. Many papers..the majority I'd say..are actually under the umbrella of groups such as the Gannett Corporation, which owns my local paper. I think that the people in power in these groups hire and promote those with similar values. Media types tend to be liberal anyway.
It has irked me for years that several successive editors of my paper are anti-gun. I seriously believe they are litmus-tested by their superiors for their views before being given such positions.
 
pax,

With newspapers, the gating issue is not the license to print - it is gaining the distribution channels, acquiring a reporting staff with talent and access to generate stories, it is building the advertising base, it is gaining the critical mass to be a little more than a flash in the pan.

When journalism became a profession, the schools generating the new heralds quickly developed an ideological orthodoxy. I don’t think it was a master plan. I think all the partisans that had been thrown out on their ear from the newsroom still wished to participate in the profession, so they moved to teaching. They taught their beliefs and methodologies, which filtered out into the newsroom, and reinforced themselves back in the classroom. Opinions became reinforced into orthodoxy.

Does anyone in the DC area remember the initial reaction to the Washington Times? News boxes were vandalized, entire truckloads of papers were stolen, carriers refused to do home deliveries. Part of that was fed from an anti-Moonie sentiment, and I think there were union issues as well. But a good portion of the resistance was because the newspaper dared to break the orthodoxy and print a conservative point of view.

For an interesting perspective on this topic, check out http://www.capitolhillblue.com/. The editor and owner, Doug Thompson, is an ex-newsman, with an ax to grind on the current state of affairs in the news media today.

Marty
 
They own the media for the same reason that they own the schools.

When the serrious young men went to boot camp all the flakey loosers decided to go after masters degrees and PhDs. Since they were more flakey than smart they went after degrees in English Literature, Philosophy, Education, Poltical Science, and Ethnic Studies instead of Engineering, Chemistry, or Physics. After the war the only thing they were qualified for was teaching and writing B.S. Combine this with the fact that being a radical leftie results in lots of female company and you have the current situation in the media.

Its been my long time belief that this country will not be "right" again till a fair number of Baby Boomers are in the grave.

------------------
Bullwinkle

Sonny, anybody with his gears meshed wants to be free, doesnt matter what sex or age, and freedom always calls for a little hardware."
Lucy Kropotkin
 
Bullwinkle: That's right; They own the media, but WE own the engineering departments and tool rooms. Too bad it's the former that wins you elections...

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I'm able to offer a modest opinion regarding this matter, as it relates to the media's attitude regarding "gun control".

As new housing developments and the like continue to encroach on previously rural acreage, the line of demarcation between city and country is becoming increasingly blurred. Johnny doesn't go shooting after completing his chores anymore, simply because it isn't likely that Johnny lives in an area where even a BB gun could be discharged with a modicum of safety.

The young graduates who are entering the parallel universe of journalism are just like Johnny: they were most likely not exposed to firearms at any age, and they aren't interested in learning, either.

Let's repeat the crux of the issue, folks: Journalists aren't interested in learning about firearms, yet they deem themselves worthy of presenting their biased claptrap for public consumption. This is an issue of character. I'm not sure if there is a pill that can address this particular malady. Certainly we can't blame poor parenting. :mad:

One other ingredient in the media bias mix is the lack of a national draft. It is my opinion that an all-volunteer military force is necessarily of higher quality than one composed of conscripted troops. However, conscription does expose a great many young men to things that they would otherwise never have experience with, no matter how badly they need it. Of course, I'm making reference to firearms.

Now, during USAF Basic at Lackland AFB, I did in fact bunk with some boys who had no business leaving the farm... ;)

-Tall Man

"Take a look to the sky
right before you die
it's the last time you will."
For Whom the Bell Tolls/Metallica
 
Bullwinkle, you have described my life in 1970 almost to a "t," with some notable exceptions. Born and bred to be an engineer, I wandered off into creative writing :( . Got "liberalized" by wacko professors, some of whom in retrospect I believe were certifiably insane. Dropped out of school when I saw that there was a real world that bore no relation to academia. A number 314 kept me out of the draft.

Voicing a conservative opinion in most college courses would have much the same effect as yelling an ethnic slur in central Harlem. The universities over the past many decades have become bastions of conformity of thought. So, when you take a young person with no technical ability and who aspires to a low-paying albeit "creative" job, and then insulate them in that academic culture, you create a liberal. The only known cures are to
a) have them open their own business b) have them buy a gun c) have them write their own personal check to the IRS every month instead of having taxes withheld by their employers or d) shoot them.

My personal favorite is "c."

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Freedom of the press has nothing to do with the media, they are making money and that is what drives them.

They can not alter the truth with doublespeak and call it the 1st Amendment.

Someday, someone will call them on this, and they will have to stop their biased mentality towards conservative methods and values.

The lack of morals in this country, has a lot to do with fueling the present media agenda.

Waterdog
 
I think it's necessary to note that the education system is controlled by Marxist Socialists. The kids who are mainly brain dead anyway, who hit the universities and colleges, have already been brainwashed almost totally by their Marxist Socialist teachers. When they get to college, their Marxist Socialists professors and their teaching assistants finish the job.

They have no other way to think than"Won't the world be great when we establish our 'Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Police State Utopia.' "

The media are controlled specifically by these Marxist Socialist young, medium, and old age people. FWIW. J.B.
 
I think that the media is so left because of two things. One, that many, perhaps most, of the people in the field who studied Journalism did so because they wanted to "change the world" and have a "positive impact on society". Two, that many of these folks are left brained types who naturally lean towards writing, art, social sciences and the like and are more "idealists" than "pragmatists".

When I studied Journalism in the early to mid 60's(I had to in order to prepare for Advertising) there was much ado about the press being the so called "Fourth Estate", e.g. the guardian of the people who would shine the "light of truth" on the dishonest pols, the cheating businesses and the dangerous criminals. It was considered almost a "calling" to be a Journalist, To be one of those who could manipulate public opinion and effect the outcome of significant events.

How did we reach the point where we are today? When the media has lost all sense of fairness or objectivity and degenerated into a disgraceful, pandering accomplice to a major political party.

It is apparent that the state of journalism has spiraled into severe decline when a repected journalist like Christine Ammanpour (sp?) can stand up at a trade convention recently and bemoan the fact that the press is not pursuing it's obligations to society vigouously enough and as proof of same, berate her colleagues because they let someone as ill-equipped for the Presidency as Bush get this far without "doing something about it".

Something needs to be done alright and it isn't by the Journalists nor their keepers. What needs to be done is for the people to force the news oranizations and the practitioners of Journalism to adhere to previous standards of objectity fairness and truthfulness.

We need no more primadonnas and elitists serving as presenters of the facts. Hit them in the pocketbooks and support those media outlets that at least atttempt fairness to a reasonable degree. For me that is Fox New Channel -Fair and Balanced, and certain Internet sites along with a few magazines.

For the liberals it must be like Jack Nicholson said in a movie "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

The left is desperate, just look at the actions of their allies in the media and you can tell. The coming elections has them worried. It will be hard to elect a stiff, socialist liar to the presidency over a bright, personable, principled and sincere man.




------------------
"The more perfect
civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government." Thomas Paine The Rights of Man 1792
 
Brett/Monkeyleg

Glad you guys liked my take. My baby-boomer parents-in-law think I'm insane.

You are very right about option C. This society would turn around in an instant if everyones paycheck came with all the money you earned, fica, social security, everything. Everyone woult think it was great until they recieved a monthly bill from government for its "services" and had to write a check with their own hand for 40% of their salary. Sounds like a good constitutional amendment to me.

------------------
Bullwinkle

Sonny, anybody with his gears meshed wants to be free, doesnt matter what sex or age, and freedom always calls for a little hardware."
Lucy Kropotkin
 
Long ago in a faraway place, little Johnny may have lived on a farm or in a city; but he had responsibilities. His parents had the responsibility to raise a responsible child. Whether farm or city, there were chores to do, homework and interaction with peers and adults. If Johnny got an allowence, he earned it. He didn't spend a major portion of the day out of body, watching the telly or playin video games. When a wee tad the chores were token, as he matured the chores became more important and challanging. He was being nurtured to become a responsible and well adjusted adult.

Alas, the Johnny of yore is becoming increasingly rare in our modern "society" wherein the young are pampered and coddled with no instillment of self worth, respect for others and responsibility.

"Less government, more individual responsibility."...JBS

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
The answer is really really really simple

It all boils down to these two things:

1) The liberal media revolves around lies.

2) Lies can always be what people want to hear, truth cannot.

Plain and simple, that's why liberals have the power in the media, because they give people what they want to hear, and people don't want the truth in many cases if it sounds bad.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
I don't know why the press/media/hollywood is so anti in the political arena. I have no clue. The romance they hold with the gun in the movies is kinda silly, and these untruths they show on the movies are taken as fact. Which then increases the public's fear. Irrational fear at that.

Don't forget the anti crowd also uses sneaky wording to advance their agenda. One example is this:

"Gun Show Loophole" This is a brilliant phrase to scare the sheep. Look at the phrase. "Gun Show". Who goes to a gun show? Criminals of coarse. Gun shows are nothing but a cafe of illegal arms and a den of felons. Next is "Loophole". We just hate that the tax code has loopholes in it. How unfair is it that someone might be able to evade paying taxes via some "loophole"? Loophole is a loaded word. Loaded with negatives. Now put the two words together. You get a powerful phrase to influence the sheep into thinking criminals have a loophole around the law. It's akin to allowing someone get away with murder.

This is the phrase that won't work.

"Governmental control of the sale of private property between individuals no matter what the cost of the property, no matter where the exchange is taking place".

There goes the yard sale. There goes intrastate commerce. Here comes Big Brother.

Yet when it comes to the freedom of the press, the media is quick to use terms that persuade the sheep for their cause. How about something like:

"Internet Censorship"?

Who is for Censorship?
How many are on line?

Don't get me wrong, I'm am for the freedom of the press in the most liberal fashion. But I'm even more pro-RKBA. And the freedom under the most violent attack today is without question, the same one protected via the second amendment. Anybody else notice this?

Regards,
MP
 
When President Reagan signed that bill deregulating a lot of things, one of the things deregulated was the law forcing the news media to present both side of an issue in a fair manner. Granted, when it came to guns, they were fair only to the oint of what they could get away with in not being fair, but at least we were heard to some degree.
Another point. I read somewhere, that the person that wrote the textbook that most journalism classes use, was an out an out Communist, and he put as much of their doctrine in his textbook as possible. "For the greater good."
I believe that it was Nikita Khruschev (sp) that said, " There are more Communists teaching in the American schools today, than in all of Russia." Isn't that a scary thought?
Frankly, I have no idea of how to combat this situation. Personally, I'd just like to string them all up. These people have really dragged our country down into a cesspool of socialism that I find totally repugnant.
A pox on them all.
Paul B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top