Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Television

Journal ncc74656's Journal: More Media Bias 7

Journal by ncc74656
I was going to tack this onto bmetzler's JE, but he appears to have disabled comments.

On the way home from work today, Bill O'Reilly made a point that goes to the hypocrisy of the Left. We're now hearing all kinds of whining from the "mainstream" media (and lefties in general) about CBS's decision to shelve the hit piece it planned to air against Ronald Reagan. All of the usual suspects--the New York Times, USA Today, Tom Daschle, and Barbra Streisand are the ones that come to mind--have weighed in on how CBS's response to market forces is somehow bad for public discourse. They're caterwauling that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is somehow censoring an opinion.

O'Reilly asked where these people were when certain special interests tried to get Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV show driven off the air. The silence from the New York Times and its ilk with regard to the silencing of Dr. Laura was deafening. The not-so-good ratings she was pulling in on TV didn't exactly help, but for the elite-media powers that be to have their knickers in a bunch over CBS and "The Reagans" is the very definition of hypocrisy.

(The latest I've heard about this work of slander is that Showtime plans on running it sometime, following an episode of a series called "Queer as Folk." If you're a Showtime subscriber (I'm not and never have been), you might want to let them know that you think running a hit piece against a man who's no longer in a position to respond to their slander would be a Very Bad Idea.)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Media Bias More

More Media Bias

Comments Filter:
  • For a winger, you are showing poor understanding of what constitutes market forces. The Republican National Committee and its mighty wurlitzer of subsidized spokesmen/journalists do not constitute a market force. They are, to be sure, a political force but be honest about what your side has done:

    The RNC successfully ginned up a campaign of intimidation, lobbying and publicity to get a company to drop a product and the product was never allowed to reach the market.* If market forces had been allowed
    • We all can't be the "silent minority" now can we?

      You peppered you comment wit a few speaking point words of Left so I'll assume you're a dyed in the wool/Kool-Aid drinker... and that's cool. {subsidized, ginned, intimidation, snuffing, ghetto}

      The problem is your final answer will read something like: Bush is Satan/a liar/evil/a frat boy/a scumbag/a Nazi/a thief/the Resident. So let's ditch that and move forward.

      The squeaky wheel gets the oil. This time it was the RNC last time it was the Gay Rights (
    • Tell me...what does the DNC's Kool-Aid taste like? :-P

      You claim no market forces are involved here and that it's all the RNC's fault. I realize that left-wingers like you think that drive-by ad hominems constitute debate, but that's not how things work out here in the real world.

      How about all the people who threatened boycotts of CBS and of any advertisers if this show went forward? If you're CBS and lots of people announce in advance that they're not going to watch your shows, do you want to run the

      • The Media Research Center is funded largely by the Scaife, Bradley and Olin Foundations. Those foundations show up over and over in funding far right "independent" organizations like Bozell's Media Research Center. It ain't a vast right wing conspiracy. It is a small right wing conspiracy with large checkbooks and vast numbers of retainers.
  • (OK, I'll just assume that we're in agreement that, in a perfect world, both shows would be given a fair and purely ratings-given chance to fly or fall.)

    O'Reilly asked where these people were when certain special interests tried to get Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV show driven off the air.

    While Dr. Laura is fairly famous, she wasn't ever president. (And, to be fair, she was pushing a specific agenda about current events, not an unflattering slant on a 15-year past president).

    Merely being silent about a

  • Mskfisher had comments enabled, you should have commented there.

    You pointed out Dr. Laura, also Michael Savage on MSNBC is another good example. I posted a JE when Savage's show was cancelled, and the response I got was strangly different to the response to Reagon's show.

    If conservatives are upset about a show and get it cancelled it violates the first ammendment. If liberals are upset about a show and get it cancelled it is just a smart business decision.

    Also, consider Mel Gibson's Passion movie.

  • One significant difference between the two instances:

    - Dr. Laura, using her show, openly slandered and ridiculed an entire group of Americans based on their sexual orientation. Because of her comments specific liberal groups, using their 1st Amendment Right, demanded sponsors leave her show and the network cancel it. Sponsors had the choice to stay or go. The network had the choice to keep the show or not.

    - The Reagan Mini Series has never been shown to the public, hence no damage was done to the Reaga

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. -- Thomas Alva Edison

Close