blood boiling to point of incoherence here

[annabanana]

The following editorial appeared in my paper this morning, from one of the major editors of one of the biggest papers in the NY Metro area.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/akst-get-an-opposing-opinion-1.2982973

So Keith Olbermann is back, this time on Current TV, the network cofounded by Al Gore. Olbermann is smart, talented and effective (just ask him), as are many of his counterparts at both ends of the political spectrum who thrive by essentially preaching to their choirs on Fox and MSNBC.

It is the KING of false equivalencies and it really really needs to be rebutted by someone who can write. Newsday is owned by Cablevision, part of a huge media conglomerate that also owns Madison Square Garden and lots of other stuff.

When the facts have a liberal bias, as they clearly do.. How can we combat this lazy "both sides do it" mentality that infects CorpoMedia© from top to bottom? If I could write a coherent sentence I'd craft a LTTE to point out the mess that is in this thinking.. but I end up sounding like the "left wing crazy" that a fact-based, angry person always sounds like to ears so thoroughly glommed up by crap thinking.

I need help.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Let's write your newspaper and let them know they're full of @#$% nt

[CBGLuthier]

2. Having lived without Cable for one year now I find

I miss FOX and MSNBC equally. Which is to say not all.

Both stations are VERY much about preaching to the choir, or as us vulgarians put it, a circle jerk. I watch the postings here about Olbermann and wonder exactly WTF is wrong with people to waste so much time on people like him. He is a fluffer.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Why would that piss you off? The article is simply saying that...

we are becoming divided in our "news" sources, as we are.

Olbermann fans don't watch O'Reilly, and vice versa. Anyone arguing with that?

But, the real problem is that neither of them are reading or watching that much neutral news any more. The NY Times is demonized by both sides as being a corporate tool or liberal rag, and Newsday's circulation is down so far that someone had to buy it. NPR and PBS' News Hour are as demonized by both sides as the Times is.

The prevailing attitude around here is that anyone who would pay two bucks for the Times today is an idiot or corporate tool, but the latest rant on Alternet is the Revealed Word of God.

The truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle but clouded in a fine mist.

[Myrina]

5. +10

n/t

[JoePhilly]

6. Equalting MSNBC with Fox is lazy, and easy to prove.

MSNBC gives conservative Joe Scarbarough 3 hours every morning.

Which three hour block of time does Fox News give to a liberal?

[slackmaster]

10. The whole point of whatever any TV channel runs is to sell stuff

The content itself is secondary to the size and demographics of the audience that it draws.

Discussions like this both amuse and disappoint me.

[JoePhilly]

13. Not under the banner of "News"

Shows come and go based on ratings, sure. But if you think none of it is about influencing people, you'd be wrong.

Fox has been successful because there are lots of people who like to be told that they have been right for the last 30 years, even when they were wrong. And by telling those people they are right, Fox can then SELL those people stuff.

There is a reason that News people on Fox, and other stations claim that this is a "center-right" country. And its not because it IS, but because they know that many can easily be manipulated to believe that. And those who aren't paying attention will simply JOIN the herd.

Here is the comparison of Fox and MSNBC ...

Morning ... both are right wing.

During the day ... FOX is all right wing, MSNBC is right leaning.

After 5 PM, FOX goes so to the very far right, MSNBC goes to the left.

Weekend ... Fox is all right wing all the time, MSNBC is running prison stories.

Fox business channel is the lowest rated cable show on any network ... why isn't it dead? Because it helps fill in the right wing ideology.

[slackmaster]

14. The only reason those stations run so much RW material is because it sells

It's all about profit, which is based on revenue, which is based on the value of advertising time, which is based on ratings.

The revenue that drives media companies comes from their advertisers, not from political organizations. Advertisers are mostly corporations that sell products or services. They're all run by people who have opinions, of course, but their motivation is profit.

[JoePhilly]

15. That is naive.

We are talking about CORPORATE media.

You ever work for a big corporation?

I have. One of the things a corporation can do is use its most profitable business areas to SUBSIDIZE those that are less profitable. They do this so they can under cut competitors, drive them out of business, and then gain market share.

There is a reason that Fox is usually on basic cable, and MSNBC is almost always on a higher tier (that costs more).

Or .... let's try this ...

Fox news claims that the MSM is LIBERAL. If that were TRUE, then using your logic, they would SWITCH because that's where the viewers would be.

Of course the Fox claim is a LIE. Most of the media presents a right leaning view ... and Fox provides a far right wing view. And then MSMBC has about 3 hours a night with an actual liberal view.

Now ... either the country is LIBERAL as Fox claims, and so THAT is where you want to be to get advertisers, or ... that claim is BS.

The corporations control the media, and they can PICK what you see. And then you pick within that. And currently, you get mainly right leaning content from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox ... with Fox claiming the others are "liberal".

[slackmaster]

16. Is my view naive, or is yours paranoid?

You ever work for a big corporation?

Yes, several times. They're all about money.

...Fox is usually on basic cable, and MSNBC is almost always on a higher tier...

Cite? Both are on my basic cable subscription (on Cox).

The corporations control the media, and they can PICK what you see. And then you pick within that. And currently, you get mainly right leaning content from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox...

You have another option: Don't watch any of them.

[Codeine]

11. Well said, you TreasonousBastard.

:hi:

[sufrommich]

12. +11. nt

[TheKentuckian]

17. How is the truth "always in the middle"?

The truth is the truth, not some floating object between two random places.

Neither could be the truth, one or the other could be telling the truth, one or the other could be telling the truth.

One cannot logically think that if you have two different tales that on every occasion there is some split that is fact. Reality is more demanding than that.

Further, even if such a thought was viable it would depend on actually getting both extremes but that is beside the point.

[ImNotTed]

4. Olbermann, like Hannity, has a lot of yes-guests

I vastly prefer Rachel.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. MSNBC is NOT a left-wing propaganda organ even remotely like Fox News

and pundits seem "worried" by John Stewart more than they are about, say, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

:wtf:

[annabanana]

18. Thank you!

I have noticed that when some here are faced with this fact, they revert to the old "so turn it off" trope. These stations influence millions of people, and the majority are being propagandized into inactivity, lazy thinking and disorganization. The media, as it is now, is used to atomize the populace into ineffectiveness.

Unless either EVERYONE "turns them off" we have to keep fighting the malign influence they have on this Country.

[slackmaster]

8. I think you are assigning way too much importance to television programming

Try turning it off.

[annabanana]

19. Not unless EVERYONE does. The yak box is the soundtrack of millions

of lives. Even if people only half pay attention to it, it wields tremendous influence.

[JHB]

9. Remember when Newsday was a "liberal" paper?

When did they veer so rightward? When Cablevision took over?

Point out that had several shows (and thus several hours in the evening) with notably liberal viewpoints. Most of the schedule does not have an especially liberal perspective, and its morning show is a three-hour block with conservative Joe Scarborough. In contrast, Fox is 24/7 promotion of conservative Republican perspective, in both its opinion and "news" shows.

Fox had nearly the entire group of prospective Republican candidates on its payroll. Leaked memos show that they practice precisely what they accuse the "liberal media" of doing: slanting news for expressly political and ideological purposes.

How many times has MSNBC "accidentally" shown the wrong party affiliation for congressmen embroiled in a scandal or bad press. Yet Fox has a long track record of such "errors", all in the same direction: Republicans suddenly have a "D" after their name when they're caught up in some scandal. Wouldn't want any bad associations falling on Republicans, right?