Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
It's paranoid and ineffectual to chalk this up to some kind of conspiracy. If there's a reason for this double-standard, it has something to do with money. People just like seeing right-wingers acting out (whether in a positive or negative light) moreso than lefties. Why is it that people like Olbermann are so much smaller, both in number and in acolytes, than Coulter, Hannity, and their ilk?
It's merely a matter of the media giving people more of what they want: right-wing angst, though i'm not sure why exactly they make so much more money on it than leftists
|
Yeah, it's absolutely not a conspiracy; it's far too big, for one thing. But I really don't think it has anything to do with profitability. Too many of the liberal dominated media establishments of old are in dire financial straits for that to be the case. It has gotten to the point that Dan Rather is banging his cane on the table and demanding that the government step in and save them because the country needs an independent media, and they'll be super independent if they're getting money from the government... somehow.
It's most likely just a matter of group think. Far more journalists identify as liberal than conservative. It's only natural that people who work in something of an echo chamber are going to overemphasize some things, underemphasize others, and miss out on some things altogether, even if they have the absolute best intentions. It's a true bias, in other words.
|
Could be viable. If the government broadened the fairness doctrine such that giving equal voice to ideologies across the board meant the difference between getting extra funding or not, the news groups would comply, especially if it was applied equally, thus removing the question of fairness as being bad for competition out of the equation.
|
Oh because MSNBC and ABC,CBS,NBCand NPR do not have a left bent. And The government defining what is fair by funding? It's called NPR a network that is bent left
