Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Vanity) Fixing this mess - Seeking Freeper input
Today | Me

Posted on 09/03/2012 9:01:44 AM PDT by TheZMan

There has been a rather endless list over the years of "things we can do to fix this mess". Some of it is obvious, some not so obvious, but the common theme is that it will take many years and a fair amount of luck.

I'd like to focus on one item in the list - our Activist Media. Whether to the right or the left it is a fact that the MSM is today largely damaging to the citizenry. The 24-hour news cycle, "opinion" news, and biased reporting (read: lying) is a daily problem that I believe is the greatest reason behind an uninformed, or worse, misinformed populace. I have friends that go vote based on what CNNABCCBSNBCMSNBC tells them.

In that vein I'm seeking Freeper input on things that can be done to fix our media. I miss the days of turning on the news and being presented with (God forbid) actual news, and not what the reporter *thought* about the news.

Keep in mind, of course:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It would be quite easy to say "the news media is no longer allowed to insert opinion into its reporting", but that isn't possible without also "abridging the freedom of the press".

It is this conundrum that brings me here today, asking for your input. Maybe we just wait for them to go out of business, but that tactic hasn't panned out like we hoped it would. At near sub-basement ratings they keep on trucking, spewing their garbage to a gullible audience.

So, thoughts?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: dinosaurmedia; freedomofthepress; msm; war

1 posted on 09/03/2012 9:01:53 AM PDT by TheZMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

It starts with the individuals. Educate children better and when they grow they will have better BS meters. when there are no ratings for false news it will go away.

This process will take a while but it is the best way.


2 posted on 09/03/2012 9:08:59 AM PDT by barmag25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

You cannot change the MSM. They cannot help what they do. They simply don’t know any better and education will not help. The only thing to do is to discredit, marginalize and ultimately, throw them out of jobs due to their irrelevance. That means activism on out part. When MSLSD comes out with a load of crap, you discredit the garbage AND you ridicule them. The second part is important because CONSTANT RIDICULE WILL LEAD TO LOSS OF REVENUE. That is the only way to get through to the people that hire these Red Guards.


3 posted on 09/03/2012 9:09:58 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
This is a valid question. At the risk of appearing facetious, perhaps we should simply "play Eastwood" for them and all the so-called Journalism schools who train them.

Witness the events of the past few days. Clint Eastwood "reported" what most ordinary Americans knew in their hearts should have been reported in recent years than all the major networks and "talking heads."

For instance, a President of the U. S.--whoever he/she is--doesn't immediately respond to what he/she and his/her team consider to be a second-rate "performance" by a senile 82-year-old man!

Further, all who have worked in the "conservative" movement for decades know for a fact that a primary tool of so-called "progressives" and the media which supports them has been to ignore challenges to their ideology--believing that by ignoring, they delegitimized such challenges.

Yes, Eastwood made a real "mark," because he carefully dissected and exposed what has been camouflaged and ignored by the media hacks who now pass for journalists in America.

As an example, one wonders at the often self-described “intellectual” “progressives” who support an "elderly statesman" image of Biden’s Vice Presidency status while, about Clint Eastwood’s brilliant satire, they flocked to the TV cameras these past few days to offer faux “pity” and sincere criticisms of what they described as everything from senility to chants that his "sad" appearance of being a “doddering old fool.”

4 posted on 09/03/2012 9:14:16 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
CONSTANT RIDICULE WILL LEAD TO LOSS OF REVENUE.

Correct. Money talks...BS walks!

5 posted on 09/03/2012 9:14:51 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan; All
Ooops! First line of second paragraph in my post above should have read: "Witness the events of the past few days. Clint Eastwood "reported" more of . . . ."
6 posted on 09/03/2012 9:17:04 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

Only prayer can defeat that media monster.

yes, revenues are shrinking a bit due to innovation, etc. Be sure all the companies that you own/manage do not advertise in the NY Times.


7 posted on 09/03/2012 9:19:00 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

8 posted on 09/03/2012 9:19:03 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
Launch a tactical 'Newt' on them.
9 posted on 09/03/2012 9:19:33 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

Find a virus that kills whatever makes people RINOS, liberals, progressives, democrats, socialists and communist.

Short of that we’ll always have the mess we have.


10 posted on 09/03/2012 9:22:32 AM PDT by maddog55 (OBAMA: Why stupid people shouldn't vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
Step 1

Every freeper (and I speak to myself as well) should make a list of 10-20 media outlets.
Every freeper should write two letters a day, addressed to just 2 of the outlets on their master list.
Each letter should be very short and blunt, and should merely point out the blatant left-wing bias in a news story covered by that media outlet in the previous 24 hours.
By rotating topics and outlets, you will not be perceived as a constant irritant, and will be less likely to be ignored.
If every freeper did this. there would be an avalanche of mail to the media.

Step 2

Every freeper (and I speak to myself as well) should make a list of 10-20 advertisers who support media outlets.
Every freeper should send copies of two letters a day ...

11 posted on 09/03/2012 9:24:34 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

A good start:

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=936&bih=562&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=C64Oqrmz4BNdpM:&imgrefurl=http://yedies.blogspot.com/2011/05/kill-your-tv.html&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uO03UL2ZZOY/TcCzN57d3TI/AAAAAAAAEZc/sB_n4tWIMiw/s1600/kill_your_tv.JPG&w=640&h=480&ei=g9lEUO36AojhiwLl8IHAAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=117&vpy=136&dur=1984&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=131&ty=128&sig=114696557978823437174&page=1&tbnh=162&tbnw=216&start=0&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:102


12 posted on 09/03/2012 9:25:56 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Encourage all of your Democrat friends to get out and vote on November 7th, the stakes are high.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
Those who call themselves “conservatives” and rant about the media could toss in a few bucks and buy a newspaper at bargain rates. A conservative management could use its barrels of ink to counter the liberal message and sell papers and advertising to a conservative audience.

But don't hold your breath waiting.

13 posted on 09/03/2012 9:31:51 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
They cannot help what they do. They simply don’t know any better and education will not help.

Incorrecto. They know EXACTLY what they do and willingly do it. For that reason education will not help the media. Remove the money, the message will change. There is a willing body of paying customers who believe in the message the MSM feeds them every hour.
14 posted on 09/03/2012 9:52:39 AM PDT by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: barmag25; 17th Miss Regt; loveliberty2; Don Corleone; campaignPete R-CT; smokingfrog; ...

Thank you all for your replies.


15 posted on 09/03/2012 10:55:10 AM PDT by TheZMan (Obama is without a doubt the worst President ever elected to these United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; TheZMan; Anima Mundi; abb; ebiskit; TenthAmendmentChampion; Obadiah; ...
Those who call themselves “conservatives” and rant about the media could toss in a few bucks and buy a newspaper at bargain rates. A conservative management could use its barrels of ink to counter the liberal message and sell papers and advertising to a conservative audience.
But don't hold your breath waiting.
That last is the only thing in your post that I agree with. Conservatives will not invest in conservative journalism because there is no market for conservative journalism. It is a fool’s errand.
The Market for Conservative-Based News

Journalism is about bad news, which means that journalism is criticism. Conservatives believe that “It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . .” Conservatives believe that although it is possible to attempt objectivity, no one can know that he/she is objective. The only way to even attempt objectivity is to openly address all known reasons why you might not be objective. Accordingly no one can even attempt objectivity and simultaneously claim to actually be objective.

You can't attempt objectivity while belonging to a mutual-admiration society knowing it will claim objectivity for you, either. And that is in part what the Associated Press - that is in part what any wire service - is. Because the business model of wire service journalism requires it. Wire service journalism is pseudo-objective journalism, inherently.

I emphasize wire service journalism because IMHO if there is a solution to the conundrum of tendentious anti conservative journalism it must attack the central thing which connects journalism into a single institution. Before the advent of the AP, newspapers were fractiously independent and notoriously didn’t agree about much of anything. In our lifetimes, however, that has never been the case. If there is to be a solution to the leftism of wire service journalism, it can scarcely come by buying a newspaper and using “barrels of ink” to counter the liberal message. Talk radio reaches millions, and although it is a help it has not broken the back of the AP monopoly on the hearts and minds of the median voter.

If not direct competition, what? IMHO it needs a civil lawsuit. Triple damages under RICO. Naming the AP, and each of its members individually. The tort? That is a challenge to articulate, but it starts with the fact that (according to a web site which has changed and isn’t as accessible as previously, the AP was held in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. Back then, the AP was too big to fail, and nominally it still is. And yet, with the advent of cheap bandwidth via satellite and fiber optic cable the core mission of the AP - the conservation of expensive bandwidth in the transmission of news - is obsolete. It is a commonplace to FReepers to find that stories can suddenly become big "news” days after the initial reports were already hashed out on FR.

But what can we actually claim as a tort, other than the homogenization of news and destruction of ideological competition (not that that is nothing)? What we know is that the flattery and derision of wire service journalism intimidates people who theoretically work for we-the-people into de facto working for wire service journalism. You show me someone journalism labels “liberal” or “moderate” or “progressive,” and I’ll show you someone who is being flattered by journalism for being critical of “the man in the arena” and not being critical of journalism. You show me someone journalism labels “conservative” or “extreme” or “right wing” and I’ll show you someone who is being derided for not criticizing “the man in the arena,” and/or for criticizing journalists.

You show me an absurd abuse of prosecutorial judgement such as the attempted railroading of the Duke Lacrosse Team, and I’ll show you “the public’s watchdog” wire service journalism cheerleading for the prosecutor. The Trayvon Martin case looks like another example. In such cases the responsibility for the tendentious stories is often diffuse, or seemingly so. But if you sue the AP and its membership individually, you should be able to hold the correct institution accountable and let the membership fight among themselves to avoid the blame they all richly deserve in such cases.

Another commonplace is the smearing of “conservative” candidates or even individuals who may not all be conservative (SBVT) but who promote a cause which helps conservatives in a particular case.

Then there is the infamous case of broadcast journalism’s calling states much faster for Gore, margin of victory being equal, than for Bush in 2000. The extreme was of course calling Florida for Gore while Bush was ahead in the popular vote and the polls were still open in a conservative section of the state. A call which was ultimately proven wrong, but transparently was intended as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Had the result in Tennessee and Arkansas been reported as quickly as a Gore win by the same margin would have been, voters in some close states ultimately won by Gore would have been treated to the knowledge that Gore had lost his home state, and that Bush had won Clinton’s home state, while the polls were still open. A long shot, of course - but it was possible that those tendentious behaviors of broadcast journalism could have been the difference between Bush or Gore winning even if Florida had in fact been won by Gore.

What would the Republican Party have perceived to be the value, if under counterfactual circumstances it had had the ability to raise funds to buy off broadcast journalism from making an erroneous call of Florida for Gore until after the polls closed in the Florida Panhandle? Assuming that no “campaign finance reform” law were operative, would it not have been in the billions of dollars??? It was a tremendous tort. And yet, the talk on the retrospectives after the event dropped the premature and erroneous call for Gore into the memory hole, and focused on the idea that the correct call for Bush over nine hours later was “premature.”

The special characteristics of broadcast journalism are that

  1. broadcasting is regulated and licensed, in direct contravention of the First Amendment. For that reason, even more than print journalism, theoretically owes objectivity to the public. And,

  2. broadcast journalism is accessible to the public in real time. The tendentious possibilities in variability of delays in calling states for Bush or Gore is dependent on this fact. We would, ironically, have known sooner who would be the POTUS in 2001 if there been no broadcast journalism.
As we have seen, journalism (or anyone else) which claims to be objective is on that very account highly subjective. Journalism and Objectivity
Journalism which, by its business model or, worse, as a condition of operation without let or hindrance by the government, claims to be objective is inherently illegitimate. Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

16 posted on 09/03/2012 1:50:34 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
"broadcasting is regulated and licensed, in direct contravention of the First Amendment."

You hit the nail on the head.

First step to INSTANTLY fixing the news media is getting rid of the FCC. The result of having the FCC is that our entire freedom of speech media capability is neutered by government control. This turns all media into government run operations.

Another thing I'd like to see is a "Truth" amendment passed which empowers anyone who can prove that the media is lying or purposely misrepresenting an issue or event to sue that media for damages and part of the punishment would be an equal presentation of what the truth really is/was. Provide a penalty of loss of broadcasting ability for multiple offenders.

17 posted on 09/03/2012 3:55:54 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

This is just about the most long winded and pointless blow I’ve read in a while.


18 posted on 09/03/2012 4:00:44 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
"broadcasting is regulated and licensed, in direct contravention of the First Amendment."
You hit the nail on the head.

First step to INSTANTLY fixing the news media is getting rid of the FCC. The result of having the FCC is that our entire freedom of speech media capability is neutered by government control. This turns all media into government run operations.

Another thing I'd like to see is a "Truth" amendment passed which empowers anyone who can prove that the media is lying or purposely misrepresenting an issue or event to sue that media for damages and part of the punishment would be an equal presentation of what the truth really is/was. Provide a penalty of loss of broadcasting ability for multiple offenders.

The fundamental problem is that the FCC systematically promotes the value of its licenses by making them scarce. Technologically, there is now no scarcity of bandwidth - but what there is is a scarcity of licenses to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be on an equal footing with the broadcast networks. The problems are twofold - one is the governmental imprimatur which is granted to licensees, and the other is the inability of Tom, Dick, and Harry to compete on a level playing field. The governmental imprimatur is a serious issue, because it leads ineluctably to tendentious claims of objectivity, and when the license is granted it means that the government says that the broadcaster, who has just proven himself a liar, is a truth teller.

With cell phones and especially smart phones it is technologically possible for Tom, Dick, and Harry to podcast, and yet we have the phenomenon of journalists being able to claim that Tom, Dick, and Harry are “not journalists, not objective.” As if wire service journalism were objective. There, the problem is as Adam Smith defined it:

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .

It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough.

Breaking the general public of the habit of “credulity” is indeed a challenge.

19 posted on 09/03/2012 4:47:36 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan; conservatism_IS_compassion
Great question but one that doesn't have an easy answer IMHO, if in fact it has an answer at all. Oddly enough, for much of our history we had competing medias, Dims vs Pubbies essentially. If you could determine what happened to conservative media beginning somewhere around the 60's or so you might find some answers.

Sensationalism and "yellow" journalism is better suited to "progressives"; conservatives need not apply. Maybe it's in part a cultural thing; that is, progressives invariably want to make the world a better place for all of Mankind via the utopian dream and getting other people(producers) to pony up their hard earned cash for various and sundry social causes is right up their alley. Conservatives(producers) on the other hand are actually DOING things to make the world a better place: Creating and growing companies, providing for their families and generally keeping their noses to the grindstone. Their(our?) efforts maintain the economic engine that truly makes the world go round so there's little time to meddle in others' lives. FWIW...

20 posted on 09/03/2012 7:05:49 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

There have been stabs at conservative media, and they almost invariably fail. The reason is that conservatives have a tendency to think that they are above the, “And today Jennifer Aniston appeared on the red carpet in a revealing dress” story, which when you get right down to it, is the story that draws in readers and viewers.

Compare circulations:

People Magazine: 3.5m
National Review: 150,000


21 posted on 09/03/2012 8:21:12 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

Since 1 in 5 now work for government, any suggestions will be met with bottles and rocks.


22 posted on 09/03/2012 8:25:33 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

BTTT


23 posted on 09/04/2012 1:33:28 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
Label opinion as such. While there would not be much 'news' left with today's programming, at least people would know what they are hearing is spin and not necessarily fact. Passing editorials as news has hurt a lot.

I'm not sure today's crop of newsreaders on TV knows the difference.

24 posted on 09/04/2012 1:43:51 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; TheZMan
This is just about the most long winded and pointless blow I’ve read in a while.

Longwinded, I’m afraid you’re right. And if it seemed pointless, I expect its length would contribute to its opacity. And it doesn’t go from point A to point B as smoothly as I’d like. Perhaps I can achieve a Cliff Notes version:

We all know the problem called “bias in the media;” what to do about it is the topic of this thread. TheZMan, perfectly on target IMHO, focuses on the bias in journalism, because you can’t actually insist on neutrality in fictional storytelling without absurd censorship. IMHO. And we do not, as TheZMan emphasizes, wish to “destroy the village in order to save it.” We want to keep the First Amendment intact. Full stop.

The overarching problem is how to constrain government to be small enough, and humble enough, to allow for the maximum freedom consistent with public order. It is human nature for the people in any organization to want to make that organization more important. This applies to government, and it applies to journalism. In American polity, it takes big journalism to enable and justify big government. The bigger (more unified) the journalism, the bigger it will enable and justify the government in becoming.

Historically our journalistic institutions were small, and they didn’t agree on much of anything. There was freer ideological competition because the various journalistic institutions were independent. Then, along came the telegraph. The telegraph, and - hard on its heels - the Associated Press. The AP was aggressively monopolistic in nature - it cut exclusive deals with telegraph lines to preclude the existence of competitive wire services, and it insisted that journalists were “objective.”

Trying to be objective is of course a laudable pursuit. But ironically, when it comes to objectivity the situation is the opposite of what Star Wars’ Yoda declaimed. Yoda said, “Do or do not. There is no ‘try.’” The situation with objectivity is, Try, or try not - there is no ‘do.’” Because you can never know that you have done it, that you have achieved full objectivity. Thus, when you claim to be objective, the claim denies itself - if you think you are objective, you do not understand yourself, and you are sure of something which is not true.

The result is that an organization which tries to - indeed, fabulously succeeds at - convincing the public that its reports are all objective not only is not actually objective but it is hypocritical about it. Logically, all objective reports would be non-contradictory, and the AP definitely achieves that. It achieves unity, but not objectivity. The unity it defaults to is, inevitably, self interest. Journalism’s interest is in simultaneously being perceived as representing the public interest, and at the same time interesting the public. How many times have you heard a journalist claim that journalism is objective in reporting the sensational story because doing so "follows the rules” - and yet those rules are designed to interest the public and have nothing to do with the public interest?

I am saying that journalism as such is inherently not conservative, even is inherently opposed to conservatism - and that is no cause for shame to conservatives. I am saying that you can hold the First Amendment as sacrosanct and still make a very legitimate case against the Associated Press. And when I say, “Associated Press” I do not merely mean the institution itself. I include in that, the members of the “Associated” Press. Membership in the AP corrupts the member news organization.

And I am saying that there are laws against that. Anti Trust Laws. Tort laws enabling civil suits against organizations conspiring against the rights of citizens to equality before the law. And there are laws which are unconstitutional because they conflict with equality under the law. McCain-Feingold, for example, abridges freedom of speech and press - unless of course you are a member of the AP. Journalistic “shield laws” give special rights to journalists.

I am saying that the FCC assigns a license to broadcast that you or I can’t get, and assigns the licensee with fiduciary responsibility which is never enforced. And the standard for a homogenized journalism should be impossibly high, which is another way of saying that the AP must be broken up. It would take a civil suit, appealed to SCOTUS, to accomplish that.

I am saying that an “objective” journalism will always be an anti conservative journalism, and that a conservative voice must be an explicitly, and can be unapologetically, conservative.

I’m sorry, I’m long again. We live in a world of Newspeak, not English, and that means that it is difficult to be clear and concise. You may have thought that you would get a flame war response to your criticism - but I want criticism. I want to clarify my understanding of this exact issue, and promote thought in others as well. And you at least responded.
25 posted on 09/04/2012 10:22:35 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Great question but one that doesn't have an easy answer IMHO, if in fact it has an answer at all. Oddly enough, for much of our history we had competing medias, Dims vs Pubbies essentially. If you could determine what happened to conservative media beginning somewhere around the 60's or so you might find some answers.
The trouble with that question, IMHO, is that Senator Joseph McCarthy was not railroaded by a “conservative media” but by the “objective” journalism of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Attempting objectivity - openly scrutinizing how "where you stand” might “depend on where you sit” is of course laudable. But claiming to actually be objective is the very opposite of that. And of course the establishment in America is all about that sort of faux “objectivity” - the appearance of objectivity with none of the substance of a serious attempt at objectivity. The appearance of objectivity and the reality of mere uniformity.

26 posted on 09/04/2012 11:09:09 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
“I am saying that an “objective” journalism will always be an anti conservative journalism, and that a conservative voice must be an explicitly, and can be unapologetically, conservative.”

At one time newspapers were recognized for what they are...a vehicle to carry the owner/publishers opinion and the pseudo objectivity of the Journalism Schools unknown.

Can you imagine Hearst being “objective “ about his stories and competitors? hardly, but he did have a clarity of purpose that obvious to all....money.

Todays papers have no real idea why they exist, pretend to be objective and are going broke.

“We all know the problem called “bias in the media;” what to do about it is the topic of this thread”

Hence my suggestion that conservatives buy one of the failing papers. Make it a sort of Rush Limbaugh and FR in print. And it would be that “conservative voice must be an explicitly, and can be unapologetically, conservative”.

27 posted on 09/04/2012 3:20:45 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
“We all know the problem called “bias in the media;” what to do about it is the topic of this thread”
Hence my suggestion that conservatives buy one of the failing papers. Make it a sort of Rush Limbaugh and FR in print. And it would be that “conservative voice must be an explicitly, and can be unapologetically, conservative”.
Right. But, being conservative and thus minimizing superficiality, it could have a less urgent deadline - most of the early newspapers were weeklies. And some had no deadline at all, and just went to press when the printer was good and ready.
But I’m just not sure you are then talking about a “news”paper. Do you buy a paper belonging to the AP? That’s how you get the cornucopia of news stories - but then, those stories have the pseudo-objective slant which is actually left wing.

28 posted on 09/04/2012 6:20:36 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

On a more personal level...I just don’t read or buy the mags and papers. None. It seems enough other people feel the same way too.


29 posted on 09/04/2012 7:06:00 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I just don’t read or buy the mags and papers. None. It seems enough other people feel the same way too.
I hear ya. We still get the Wall Street Journal. More for the editorial page, mostly. But we do look at other things, too.

30 posted on 09/04/2012 7:39:42 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson