Broadcaster's Bias Against Liberal Hosts and Guests

[RBA]

"Liberal Media" Reuters fires editor for writing an Anti-Coulter book...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/media/09reuters.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


hmmm

 

[evnlee]

"Liberal Media" Reuters fires editor for writing an Anti-Coulter book...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/media/09reuters.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


hmmm

the most hilarious part of your story:

"A Reuters employee who insisted on anonymity out of concern at angering management said that the 20 or so employees at the markets desk where Mr. Maguire had been one of two editors in charge “took a group coffee break” in solidarity on Thursday. "

Wow. That's takes a brass set, huh? ;D

 

[dampier]

An AP article points out Obermann's time slot was occupied by liberal host Phil Donahue and NBC tried to squelch liberal viewpoints. The article quotes former Donahue producer Jeff Cohen as observing that less than four years ago Donahue's show imploded primarily because MSNBC and its corporate owners were afraid to have a show seen as liberal or anti-Bush at a time those opinions were less popular.

Actually the politics of this for once isn't as important as the quest for cash. Donahue's show, which by the way had higher ratings than the MSNBC shows have today, actually was doing reasonably well for MSNBC when it was running. I never agreed with their decision to book him as a nighttime host - Phil Donahue says daytime all over him and they could have easily put him on with some of the same topics at 3pm or 5pm ET where Tucker languishes right now.

MSNBC, which has been fairly rudderless after the Monica stuff finally ended, was losing viewers right and left. Like so many stupid programming decisions, MSNBC decided they could outfox Fox, and brought in a boatload of right wingers. Also, when the Iraq war started, to be hollering on the air against the war was going to be a major problem for your advertisers (and a lot of right wing viewers who will burn down the phone lines). Remember what happened to Bill Maher on ABC once the war got going. He's a martyr for free speech along with the Dixie Chicks. People need to remember just how intolerant opposing views were treated just after 9/11 through the beginning of the war.

But I don't think the politics was the biggest reason for MSNBC's stupid programming moves. It was hiring moron producers and program directors who went along with the concept of cancelling the news on cable news.

I think MSNBC has learned it is pointless to outfox Fox. You'd have to run Hitler as a talk show host to do that. Instead, they seem to be heading to the left in some ways, which is actually a smart strategy to counterbalance Fox. They still have Tucker and Scarborough (who is remaking himself as a moderate), but Keith Olbermann has become the star of the show.

Of course, my whole issue with all of these cable news channels is that there is no news on them, especially at night. It's talk show after talk show. And like blogs, I don't trust talk shows to give me the news.

The AP story also reports MSNBC's Keith Obermann's ratings are going up the more he adopts a Bush-critical stance on his broadcast. In contrast, his right-wing Fox competitor, Bill O'Reilly, an administration and war supporter is in a "ratings slump." NBC is a division of General Electric, a major military and government contractor.

As I've said on this before, when Fox News becomes the Radio Moscow/house organ of the Bush Administration, and that administration is unpopular, viewers are not going to want to listen to talking points and Ann Coulter night after night. Olbermann's show has become activist and that attracts a new audience that has never seen a show like his before. But he needs to be careful with these "Special Comments" he is running, because Olbermann's anger moments don't look real to me. He's far better doing humor and bemused commentary. It has been amusing watching him hand over his show to Scarborough after he reads one of those firebrand commentaries however, just to see Joe's reaction.

Of course, again, we're not talking about radio but rather politics and television. This is a better topics for OTA.

 

[fred flintstone]

Phil, I offered this thread as an example of how the true bias of much the broadcasting industry - including radio - is conservative. If you go "town to town, up and down the dial," one of the consistencies is you find yourself working with people with a strong conservative bent. The whole culture of broadcasting (except NPR and the elite news people at the TV networks) is skewed conservative. For some reason, the same personality types that gravitate to the trenches of radio, gravitate to conservatism. And for this reason you have a mind-set in radio that says liberal talk can not work. You have a mind-set that promotes uncritical coverage of the war, the military, the cops and government authority, in general. You have a mind-set that generates various "support the troops" and other patriotism-based promotions. You have a mind-set that bans the Dixie Chicks. Even on non-talk stations, in various ways, subtle or obvious, radio helps promote the war and promote the establishment agenda.

The so-called "liberal media" have become a designated enemy for conservatives to rally the troops, any authoritarian philosophy needs designated enemies. But a closer examination shows that radio, radio news, radio promotion and radio programming all support conservative agendas. The same applies in cable, too.

 

[RBA]

On the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, veteran talk show host Phil Donahue remarked on being fired from MSNBC in February 2003. As The New York Times reported at the time, when Donahue's MSNBC show, Donahue, was cancelled, "he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC."

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.
HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals.

DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me.

More:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004

Chuck? LOL

 

[evnlee]

On the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, veteran talk show host Phil Donahue remarked on being fired from MSNBC in February 2003. As The New York Times reported at the time, when Donahue's MSNBC show, Donahue, was cancelled, "he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC."

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.
HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals.

DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me.

More:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004

Chuck? LOL

ahhh. yes. the very 'objective' media matters, founded by a guy who claimed to be a 'hit man' for the right. but was, in fact a 'Foley' in sheep's clothing.

So, we can take the word of the VP,Phil Griffin who said " if Donahue had gotten ratings, it would not have mattered,he would still be on the air".... or the guy who got canned because he could not deliver said ratings.

Truly sad. :

 

[fred flintstone]

So, we can take the word of the VP,Phil Griffin who said " if Donahue had gotten ratings, it would not have mattered,he would still be on the air".... or the guy who got canned because he could not deliver said ratings.

The latter. Suits lie. Suits meddle, screw things up and then scapegoat.
Suits tell people to do things and when what they said to doesn't work, suits blame THEM.
It is the nature of the beast.

Wonder whom Ailes will find to blame for Fox News Channel's declining ratings?

Everybody here has opinions, viewpoints and standards - often strongly-held.
What is interesting is how bias only occurs in the second and third person (as in "your bias" or "their bias") and never in the first person (as in "my bias").
Objectivity lies in being able to recognize bias, not in avoiding it - in being able to recognize one's opinions as opinions.

 

[FightingIrish]

ahhh. yes. the very 'objective' media matters, founded by a guy who claimed to be a 'hit man' for the right. but was, in fact a 'Foley' in sheep's clothing.

So, we can take the word of the VP,Phil Griffin who said " if Donahue had gotten ratings, it would not have mattered,he would still be on the air".... or the guy who got canned because he could not deliver said ratings.

Truly sad. :

Yes, but I'll bet you, like other Republicans, ate up all the stuff that David Brock wrote about Anita Hill and the Clintons back in the 1990s, when he was working for GOP financer Sun Myung Moon's propaganda rags. Over time, he became disillusioned with the whole RW propaganda mill and grew tired of writing fiction for people who felt he didn't attack their enemies enough.

Media Matters is a pretty good site. It's very 'just the facts', meaning that, for the most part, they basically post factually inaccurate or biased reports from media outlets. It seems to me that they're more for accuracy and accountability in the media than pontificating. Most of what they publish is transcripts. So, when someone like Bill O'Reilly says, "any American who undermines that war ... is a traitor.", Media Matters makes note.

Are they biased? Absolutely. And they don't claim otherwise.

And likening Brock's homosexuality to Foley's is a cheap shot, even for you. But FAUX News viewers have been shown in the media to be very ill-informed:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003

In the meantime, there are some good books out there about Brock's time in the RW propaganda machine. "The Hunting Of The President" is a great book by Joe Conason, and is very telling about what so-called 'conservatives' pull out of their backsides, even if it is not true. Brock has also written a few books about his time shoveling sh!t: "Blinded By The Right" and "The Right-Wing Noise Machine".

 

[evnlee]

Media Matters is a pretty good site.
Are they biased? Absolutely. And they don't claim otherwise.

And likening Brock's homosexuality to Foley's is a cheap shot, even for you.

I have never said I was unbiased. I admit it. I also admit that sites like Media Matters and the Media Research Center are biased as well.

Media Matters actually thinks NPR is slanted too conservative. How can anyone take seriously thier claim that the Brookings Institute ( once on Nixon's ememies list!!!!) is conservative?! Good grief!

In 2003, the show I produced interviewed Brock. We also interviewed David Horowitz. One was a former liberal, that has an 'epiphany' and turned conservative. One was a former conservative that turned 'liberal'.

It's just too 'convenient' that they both had thier life changing episodes and began a crusade lambasting thier former friends and employers when they were cutting book deals. Think I'm making this up? Read the books.

Need another example? Who is another person who had a life changing episode that turned them away from thier so called 'evil former life' and persuaded him to follow a different course?

Why would that be one Evan Cohen, the former AAR exec who's dissapeared as of late!!

And, calling Brock a 'Foley' is most definitely NOT a cheap shot. Both were homosexuals that hid thier true sexuality to get in the good graces of the GOP. If you actually know any gay friends, go ask them what they think of Foley AND Brock. They won't be praising thier 'bravery' , if you catch my drift.

And here's a little story that is a good analogy for both Horowitz AND Brock.

http://www.textfiles.com/stories/psf.txt