Elect ? Wrong verb.
Posted on 02/06/2012 10:15:49 AM PST by Lazamataz
No one can honestly say that the mass media is not political. Furthermore, it would take a truly deluded individual to claim that the media is not biased towards the extreme left.
The mass media has been trying to manipulate and shift events since the time America was born. Unfortunately, the mass media has taken such a radical turn to the left, that we find them ignoring crimes by Democrats, while trying to make criminal out of innocuous acts by Republicans. We find them championing every form of socialism, and decrying capitalism and conservatism at every turn.
I have a modest proposal: I suggest we start ELECTING the heads of every media organization in America. Perhaps then, the media will more closely mirror our electorate.
There might have to be some thought given to the methodology, but it's long past time to strike at the worst enemy America faces: A leftist press. They are far more formidable because they are persistant, relentless -- inexhaustable -- in their pursuit of American communism.
Not weird, but still....
Chris Matthews entertained a Senate run in PA. What a laugher that would have been..
I remember the last debate between Hillery and Obama. I would have voted for Russert.
I actually think that people who run the media organizations could stand some election-year scrutiny.
Hmmmm...
The same process that gave us Barney Frank, Al Franken, Reid, Pelosi, and the whole clown crew up to and including a certain BHO??
What could possibly go wrong??
Not a bad plan.
Starting with the incumbents. Using machetes.
It also gave us Ronald Reagan, Alan West, and a host of other greats.
Act 3, scene ii of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
Mark Antony: “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones”.
We do vote, it is called “ratings”.
Normally, ratings would suffice to curtail the most egregious press excesses, except I remember reading the words of one Norm Lenhart (who, by the way, knowns nothing about reloading) in which he mentions he was in the media for a time, and that the members of this group are so ideologically driven, that they simply don’t care what their ratings are. They will pontificate for Socialism and Communism until their last dollar is spend and the company doors are padlocked.
Elect ? Wrong verb.
The answer, of course, is competition. Once upon a time cities had at least two newspapers. While the straight news was reported - editorials were clearly defined. Printed election results have no vocal inflections or facial expressions such as we witness on TV - very submliminal and very effective.
Competition in the market place is the only answer. An unbiased news channel would only be possible if it was owned by individual investors with no majority owner and a rotating Board of Directors. All employees would be contracted to a limited term.
I don’t think electing the media would be an improvement. Using the GOP primaries as an example - we would finish up with the same old stereotypes in the Boardroom and the anchor desks.
Smooth talking airheads and blond bimbos.
Will my shame ever end? (LOL!) ;)
Just to fill the background, I was a reporter/then page editor at a western tri-state paper for several years. Prior to that I was in Internet media (OHV/landuse issues).
My personal experience is that you have a couple dynamics at work.
1. Media outlets are fiefdoms for their owners. Period. I assure you that there is no honesty in modern reporting - at least reporting that actually hits the printed page/screen or TV newscast, for one simple reason. The modern ‘editor’ is nothing but an intermediary between the will of the ownership/publisher and what they WILL have written in their respective publications.
I have personally had several stories tanked in my career by the high command because the ‘truth’ of the story did not match the public position they wanted portrayed.
Second, the editors themselves are hired not for their skills, but because of their willingness to comply with edicts from above. The best Ed I ever worked under was pushed out for his refusal to cooperate and is still slimed to this day.
Third, I personally have experienced both sides of the fence - Internet and print journalism in a professional capacity - as an Editor and as a writer/reporter. I can tell you, and the facts we read daily (death of the Dino-media articles on FR), that the net is killing print/TV.
Now one must ask, in light of multi-million dollar losses and staggering declines in reader/viewership, why it is that the powers that be in traditional journalistic outlets refuse to change the game plan.
The answer is given above. Summed up, They do things ‘their way’ and their way is to promote two things - Agenda and personal profit.
“But Normie” you say, “If they are tanking in readership/ad dollars, where’s the profit?”
The top of the food chain slashes page counts and production costs mercilessly, but you notice they all get their bonuses at the end of the year. And you notice that in light of all the failing of their companies financially, they push ever harder to promote liberal ideals.
Regardless of liberal ideals and teaching to the contrary, 1+1=2 in reality.
Lastly, it is no secret that the vast majority of newsrooms are filled with libs. So one may ask, “They have to see this happening - budgets cut, layoffs ect., so why don’t they speak out in numbers? Why not expose the very people who screw them?”
Because as we all know, Liberal first, everything after. It’s for the cause. And it really is that simple.
Normie - Who vows to never reload again! ;)
And another thing! ;)
Some may remember an episode of All in the Family where meathead was denied a promotion to a black man who was not as qualified due to the push for “racial equality” in the workplace policies. He stood there alone talking to him self, shaking his head and muttering “I understand...it has to be this way” or something similar.
THAT is exactly the attitude the lib reporters have as they are laid off/fired/downsized and put to pasture, never to report again.
It never dawns on them that they created their own demise, nor that their whole ideology is responsible for it.
I am just stunned, every day, at the way people allow this propaganda to come into their homes 24/7.
You say the net is taking over but I don’t see an sign of it. I wish.
And no, I don’t have a television. I never liked it, even as a kid.
Look at all the “Huffington Post” style deals. Look at the recent report about ad dollars for the first time have been greater for net than traditional media.
I gave up TV years ago as it is 700 channels of BS. You and I are both living examples of why the net is taking over.
Why spend good money for crap you don’t want when you get most of it free or pay specifically for that which you do ‘a’la carte’ on the web? More people daily come to that conclusion.
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.