[Zwischenzug]

Forgive me if this question has been asked before but I can't help but notice that in the news media, there is a significant focus on what the GOP is up to at the time. It always seems that the GOP's agenda is the main focus and pundits would praise it from the right or scrutinize it from the left. Left wing and libertarians views (with some exceptions, for example Judge Napolitano's former show) get little coverage. From the libertarian perspective, talk about cutting any of the big three (medicare/social security/military) aren't taken seriously. From the left, there was little talk in the mainstream media about


Why is this the case?

[redcarpet]

All societies have a certain range of views permitted.

In the US it is especially narrow. Outside the US political discussion in the elite media is more broad, esp. in Europe & East Asia.

Remember the elite media are part of the elite; they won't discuss issues or ideas that don't service the ruling class.

[Daktoria]

Remember the elite media are part of the elite; they won't discuss issues or ideas that don't service the ruling class.

Yes.

Journalism is about being fashionable, and part of that is the circle jerk of how TV is dedicated to short term attention spans.

Social democracy is the simplest, most emotional, and most short term ideology of all, so it's not very surprising to see social democratic criticism of non-social democratic ideals.

Sometimes, you have to wonder if journalism is really just an escape valve for envy. Fashionistas know they're envied, so they talk about why they're envied to the audience which envies them.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

ask yourself this question:
to what extent is the main priority of a TV news station to make money?
to what extent is the main priority of a TV news station to shape public debate/present propoganda

I would argue that both priorities exist, but that making money wins out unless there is an over-riding need for the shaping of a debate. Otherwise news channels like Fox or Msnbc...well yes they control the perimeters of the debate but they generally allow a pundit from either side of an issue to get out there and try to make their case. And depending on whether that pundit works for a specific campaign or interest, or whether they are simply a professional talking head whose assignment that day is to take a certain side of a certain argument (like debate class, gotta argue a side you may or may not agree with, it's just a task, a job)

[septimine]

Forgive me if this question has been asked before but I can't help but notice that in the news media, there is a significant focus on what the GOP is up to at the time. It always seems that the GOP's agenda is the main focus and pundits would praise it from the right or scrutinize it from the left. Left wing and libertarians views (with some exceptions, for example Judge Napolitano's former show) get little coverage. From the libertarian perspective, talk about cutting any of the big three (medicare/social security/military) aren't taken seriously. From the left, there was little talk in the mainstream media about


Why is this the case?

I consider it a function of the fact that the GOP holds more power than libertarians or even Democrats. The GOP can hold up a lot of things that the Dems would want to do in the near future, and the likelhood of a GOP white house and a GOP Senate means that in a very short timeframe, you have the possibility that the GOP will be able to repeal a lot of legislation as well as continue to hold up Dem bills. That makes the actual policy of the GOP very important -- it's likely that a milder version of that policy agenda will be the de facto policy of the USA in the near term. Knowing and debating that policy is essential in making sound decisions about it. Unfortunately, the GOP agenda is mostly spun negative, though the FOX stations tend to be at least neutral about it. I've yet to see a real and earnest debate about some of the statements that Santorum has made about birth control and abortion, or about college.

[doc ob]

The problem stems from the limitations of discussion. Whether left or right views are being expressed, they are always within these set parameters. Altheide's discussion about what he terms 'war programming' highlights this in terms of international conflict debate / inability to dissent. The centralised media play a huge role in diminishing the democratic responsibilities each citizen has to their input of the public sphere. This is nothing new; the theory has been developed since Lippmann's book in 1922 Public Opinion.

[maxstep]

Mainstream political media is a joke. I was just watching Bill O'Reilly last night on FOX. The guy doesn't even know what keynesian economics are. John Stossel had to correct him in pronunciation, he didn't contribute anything to the debate other than saying things like "Now that may or may not be true"; "We don't have time for a history lesson"; and my favorite, calling those who disagree with him "pinheads." I find it amusing that the judge who determines who the pinheads are and who the patriots are is a complete moron with no understanding of anything besides blaming everything on Obama and the democrats.

MSNBC on the other hand reports based on emotion rather than fact. Both of these "news" organizations do nothing but spew nonsense about eachother. They lie and cover up stories, my favorite being this one on CNN where the reporter is trying to get a soldier to badmouth Ron Paul. When the soldier starts speaking in favor of Ron Paul's policies, they cut away and blame it on "technical difficulties." Im not sure how to post videos on the forum, but here is a link to the video if you are interested:

In a word, to me mainstream media is bullshit. I watch it to get a good laugh and to feel better about myself.