90% of all TV and print media is owned by the same handfull of people. You do know that? From where I see it is hard right - war, bombs, and violence.
I'm wondering where this socialism is? We live in a corporate fundmentalist rule. Ask yourself, what counts more: your vote in an unaudited voting machine every four years, where the Supreme Court can overturn your vote? OR...the daily billion dollar bribe industry of weapons/pharma/tobacco lobbyists?? 50% of your tax dollar are spent on WMD and Military. There are more Corporate Contractors on the ground in Iraq than military folks. Just who is gaining from this? Cave dwellers or Corporations? If we do not inject our kids with dangerous and often unneeded drugs they are not allowed into school. Parents can be arrested for refusing a needle to their kids. We have 0 choice. Monsanto has sued our of existance many family farms. Do a quick google search for this. Just a few example of how corporations have all the power over us. We are ruled by corporations.
TorontoTrader, that is interesting. I too see it as very geared towards publicizing the "voice of government" in times of conflict. They present the arguments of those initiating conflict mostly unfiltered, or fail (striving) to present both sides in a balanced, fair way of reporting. E.g all the "embedded journalists" that we see today. They do present many sides of combat, but are exclusively presenting only one side of the conflict. Action journalism sells, and especially nowadays when we can watch invasions and huge bombs live - to get our adrenaline going. We only get to see some reflection, analysis and hear tough questions when the conflict has settled down somewhat. Anything else would "upset everyone", and be seen as "unpatriotic". Therefore I think the media is biased, no matter how you look at it. Each different type of news story unfolding is treated in a biased way. Seldom do we care for the in-depth analysis. Fareed Zakari's GPS on CNN is actually very good and balanced - surprisingly so. Also International Correspondents on CNN is ok - but the rest is totally bullshit, I think. I far more prefer BBC, DW, Reuters, Bloomberg etc for better insight and better reporting. The main US news outlets today are just flashy bangs - the FOX way - and too emotional for my liking. Bloomberg US/BR/UK are some of my favourites - because they treat their news segment pretty well, and offer great insight sometimes.
The anchors are not reporters. And this was a shallow cheap response. 95% of reporters are making very basic wages. Over 80% of reporters vote democrat. is that bias? I think it started with woodward/bernstein when the 60's counterculture people in thier mind felt they proved Goverment immoral.
Everyone knows about what happened to Clinton and the scandals of the Clintons. Why? The media reported it. Right, left and center, they all reported it. The right never complained when the media reported democrat corruption, but they just pee their pants when they are exposed.
I have always been curious about that.Whats a ball park figure for how much anchors like olbermenn,cooper,blitzer ,campbell brown etc make per year ?
Anybody know how much that leftist Peggy Noonan at WSJ makes - the one that called choosing Palin "political bulls--t" narrative?