People still watch CNN?

the myth of the liberal media is the number-one factor in moving our country so far to the right in the last twenty years. today's democrats are yesterday's republicans. today's republicans are yesterday's john birchers. and the reason the fringe right is now mainstream is because the media presents them as such.

twenty years ago, if you had said the president's birth certificate was fake and that he was an ineligible usurper, you wouldn't have been given the time of day by the media. today, you're given prime airtime, and your views aren't debunked - they're just presented as "balance." hell, even NPR gives time to utter loons who claim obama is a socialist - something that is patently and demonstrably false. but they present it anyway lest they be tarred with the "liberal" brush.

virtually every serious issue that this country is facing today is due to the rise of the far right. and its rise could not have happened without the complicity of the so-called mainstream media.

AverageAmericanGuy: "Lamestream mainstream media"?

Its almost like you had this awesome burn, but then you went and farked it up.

FlashHarry: and its rise could not have happened without the complicity of the so-called mainstream media.

Calling it "complicity" is being polite. Hell, they're hiring these nutjobs as political analysts and treating them as if they're experts.

make me some tea: FlashHarry: and its rise could not have happened without the complicity of the so-called mainstream media.

Calling it "complicity" is being polite. Hell, they're hiring these nutjobs as political analysts and treating them as if they're experts.

Heck, MSNBC has Bryan Fischer on their payroll even though he's part of a recognized hate group. They might as well just give David Duke a contract while they're at it.

And they're the "liberal" network.

I was forced to watch a lot of CNN this last weekend while airport-hopping. They push the "EVERYTHING IS EQUAL THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG" mantra in their political coverage so aggressively I'm surprised they have a single viewer.

Except for OWS, of course. They either demonize it or pretend it doesn't exist.

At HLN Jautz successed in raising both ratings and revenue by turning the channel into a trashy TV tabloid reliant on celebrity gossip and characters like Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck (yes, Jautz gave Beck his first job on television)

Successed, eh?

During no week in the five months studied was coverage of Mr. Obama more than 10 percent positive. On average, it was judged to be about 57 percent neutral and about 34 percent negative. "These numbers are very stark for Obama," said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the project. Even the week in early May that Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, was killed, the positive sentiments were far outnumbered by negative ones. "That was striking," he said.

Link (new window)

Damn that liberal media! Always demanding tax hikes and greater regulation on behalf of owners who benefit greatly from tax cuts and deregulation! Damn them all to hell!

rynthetyn: make me some tea: FlashHarry: and its rise could not have happened without the complicity of the so-called mainstream media.

Calling it "complicity" is being polite. Hell, they're hiring these nutjobs as political analysts and treating them as if they're experts.

Heck, MSNBC has Bryan Fischer on their payroll even though he's part of a recognized hate group. They might as well just give David Duke a contract while they're at it.

And they're the "liberal" network.

That's pretty much why I can't stomach any network news anymore.

Dr Dreidel: smitty04, that's very depressing and all, but they don't compare the number of people getting their news from TV to the number reading the internet.

Or even those who get their news (as I and most of the people I know) from multiple news stations (WTOP is a CBS affiliate, WCSP is public, Fark is an aggregator, TDS is Viacom/CBS...).

I don't trust any one of those more than another (though I trust certain sources on Fark more than I trust PajamasMedia, for example).

Like science, if you only get information from a single source, if you only examine one circumstance, you're not going to get good results.

I was gonna say, I think that those results reflect a stampede to online sources for news by the under-65 demographic. With liveblogs and streaming video from local and international sources easily available, it's not even necessary to tune in to any particular channel for breaking events. I used to always switch on CNN whenever something big happened, now I can't remember the last time I did that.

I spend one hour a day maximum watching news on TV, and that's usually PBS Newshour. I haven't watched any network or cable news consistently since Peter Jennings resigned from cancer. The only reason I even watch Newshour is to shore up the major headlines in case I'd missed anything looking around online.