Didn't Murdoch coin the "liberal media" myth?

As long as they associate their media with George W Bush, the "Destroyer in Chief", the Democrats will do fine.

In the last 7 years, the dollar has declined significantly and this decline in value is having an impact globally. During the 2008 election, just remind voters that the Republicans and Bush are responsible for the deficit and the decline in the dollar. This will push moderate Republicans to vote for Democrats because the only thing Republicans care about is MONEY.

Hey guys! Fron the Continent, Merry Christmas to all of you. It was an emotional year. It could've been better, but it won't be as long as the asshole in Chief is still there.

I'm just not in mood tonight.

Coffins draped in flags @ 3:

As long as they associate their media with George W Bush, the "Destroyer in Chief", the Democrats will do fine.

In the last 7 years, the dollar has declined significantly and this decline in value is having an impact globally. During the 2008 election, just remind voters that the Republicans and Bush are responsible for the deficit and the decline in the dollar. This will push moderate Republicans to vote for Democrats because the only thing Republicans care about is MONEY.

CDIF:
You strike me as an optimist - believing that voters pay attention to things like the deficit and the decline in the dollar.

This background on Bass is very telling indeed. It is just another example of the Bush Administration's moves to eventually control all media sources just like any other oppressive regime. It is funny, when the average person in America thinks about dictatorship or some other form of oppressive Government its almost as if they automatically think that those regimes took total control in one day. In most cases, however a oppressive regime takes control a little at a time.  They will pass a law once in power to take some minor rights away at first, then they take control of the media and then take all of your rights until they control it all.  This is how Hitler did it.    The only exception to this would be a military backed coup.

Who has been advocating the relaxation of media ownership?

it would be interesting to monitor these stations to see what kind of coverage they offer during the election and what impact, if any, it might have.

I think it will be like a bunch of Baby-FOX'S. Licking at the blood of the people of the U.S.

Joe O. @ 12:

Blue Lensman @ 7:

Coffins draped in flags @ 3:

As long as they associate their media with George W Bush, the "Destroyer in Chief", the Democrats will do fine.

In the last 7 years, the dollar has declined significantly and this decline in value is having an impact globally. During the 2008 election, just remind voters that the Republicans and Bush are responsible for the deficit and the decline in the dollar. This will push moderate Republicans to vote for Democrats because the only thing Republicans care about is MONEY.

CDIF:
You strike me as an optimist - believing that voters pay attention to things like the deficit and the decline in the dollar.

Your right. Most voters do not notice the dollar, the deficits and more than likely won't even notice any take over of the media by the Bush regime. I've pointed all of this out to many people and get this blank stare in return. I see the weakening dollar first hand as I import a lot of luxury chocolates from Europe. In 2005 my favorite chocolates cost around $55 a box. Now, its closer to $100.

Absolutely ... Americans are asleep on the couch, they have become slave in what they think is their freedom. I just left New Zealand (Tauranga) after swinging through Tonga on my way back to Asia. It cost twice as much now as it did four years ago. My friend in NZ thanked mr. bush for switching all of the US farms to Bio-Fuels, he has a Dairy Farm in NZ and milk prices have doubled because of the Bio-Fuel jump. But Bio-Fuels wont cure anything, they still keep us from weening ourselves off of Carbon Engines.

Crony Capitalism at it's finest.

PinkyLeftBrain @ 18:

With the falling dollar I didn't see that many 'quality' imported items with huge sales going on.

Sure, plenty of crap from China on sale but from my small amount of walking the stores (and not buying much) I didn't see too damned many sales this year. Was it just me? I do not enter Wal*Fart or Sam's Crap Club ever...

I may go out this afternoon just to see what's going on. I was shocked at the empty parking lots that I saw.

Dick's - empty. Barnes & Noble - empty. Target - FULL. Meijer's - empty. Pet Smart - empty. (Well, all empty were nearly empty) Nice to see people voting with what remains of their wallets?

Perhaps Target is the first to offer the dreaded "after Christmas sales"..

YAY! Dukes of Hazzard, Bass Fishing, NASCAR, and 700 Club on EVERY channel!!!

I don't understand. What's the difference? Murdoch? Bass? They're both fascists.

Does this mean they're bring back American Gladiators?

Plumb Bob @ 24:

Laughable. Here is the argument, no implicit assumptions are necessary.

1. Whoever owns a news outlet controls those that run the outlet.
2. Whoever runs the outlet determines the content.

Exhibit A: Faux News

Care to claim that FN is just another liberal media outlet? I didn't think so.

Plumb Bob @ 24:

The Leftist meme has become "all the media outlets are owned by corporations." I have yet to hear a single Leftist defend the the assumptions implicit in the inane, straw-man argument, namely:

FIFY

As far as I know, Faux News is the only media outlet that went to court to defend its right to sling bullshit.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

Blue Lensman @ 27:

Plumb Bob @ 24:

Here is the argument, no implicit assumptions are necessary.

1. Whoever owns a news outlet controls those that run the outlet.
2. Whoever runs the outlet determines the content.

Exhibit A: Faux News

Care to claim that FN is just another liberal media outlet? I didn't think so.

About what I expected to receive in reply.

1) Completely unresponsive to the first point. You have yet to establish that any of the owners of media corporations are, in fact, conservative, aside from Rupert Murdoch. The argument is simply bad-smelling air until you do that.

2) Displays a 6th-grade level of understanding concerning the working of major corporations. No chief administrator worth even a tenth of his bloated salary would be caught dead micro-managing the actions of subordinates 4, 5, or 6 levels below them. The editorial choices of the newsroom are controlled by the owner if, and only if, the owner personally decides to interfere with the decisions of the editor; and most professional editors really would consider that interference, and would probably resign if it happened more than once or twice.

As to "Faux" News, aside from the sophomoric and limp attempt at comedy which substitutes a word pronounced "Foh" for a word pronounced "Focks," you, I, the mailman, and my 10-year-old stepson all know that Fox News is the stand-alone exception to the general rule about the slant of news organizations (you call it conservative, and anyone who's actually read research on the subject calls it moderate); so you also know that you're attempting to divert attention from the facts that you know perfectly well prove my point.

People interested in truth don't do that; people trying to spin inconvenient facts do. Allow me to suggest that you'd probably feel better about yourself if you deliberately chose to be one of the former rather than one of the latter.

Plumb Bob @ 33:

Blue Lensman @ 27:

Plumb Bob @ 24:

Here is the argument, no implicit assumptions are necessary.

1. Whoever owns a news outlet controls those that run the outlet.
2. Whoever runs the outlet determines the content.

Exhibit A: Faux News

Care to claim that FN is just another liberal media outlet? I didn't think so.

About what I expected to receive in reply.

1) Completely unresponsive to the first point. You have yet to establish that any of the owners of media corporations are, in fact, conservative, aside from Rupert Murdoch. The argument is simply bad-smelling air until you do that.

2) Displays a 6th-grade level of understanding concerning the working of major corporations. No chief administrator worth even a tenth of his bloated salary would be caught dead micro-managing the actions of subordinates 4, 5, or 6 levels below them. The editorial choices of the newsroom are controlled by the owner if, and only if, the owner personally decides to interfere with the decisions of the editor; and most professional editors really would consider that interference, and would probably resign if it happened more than once or twice.

As to "Faux" News, aside from the sophomoric and limp attempt at comedy which substitutes a word pronounced "Foh" for a word pronounced "Focks," you, I, the mailman, and my 10-year-old stepson all know that Fox News is the stand-alone exception to the general rule about the slant of news organizations (you call it conservative, and anyone who's actually read research on the subject calls it moderate); so you also know that you're attempting to divert attention from the facts that you know perfectly well prove my point.

People interested in truth don't do that; people trying to spin inconvenient facts do. Allow me to suggest that you'd probably feel better about yourself if you deliberately chose to be one of the former rather than one of the latter.

I'm not seeing any "point" being made. Just alot of words strewn out in such a way to make the reader feel less intelligent than you. Much like one of those frilled lizards in Australia, you're just walking into an opposing forum with your dewlap extended pretending to be more than what you are. But I respect your guile if not the methods. If we found a way to have a dialog where it's more than essentially "you're stupid for thinking this" maybe we'd have some actually have some progress.

And as far as liberal denial. You probably think Iraq was a good idea, FEMA did a bang up job in Nawlins, Larry Craig really does have a wide stance, Alberto Gonzales didn't try to turn the DOJ into an arm of the GOP, and that Iran has nukes pointed at the Statue of Liberty.

Somebody told me the other day "Cheer up! Things could be worse."

So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse.

Plumb Bob @ 24:

The Leftist meme has become "all the media outlets are owned by corporations." I have yet to hear a single Leftist defend the assumptions implicit in the argument, namely:

1) All corporations are conservative; and

2) The content of news outlets is controlled more by who owns it than who runs it.

The first is clearly and obviously false. The corporation is by far the most common form of organizing a business in the US; unless you're claiming that liberals never engage business, you'd need to prove that the corporation in question is active only in conservative causes in order to establish your case.

The second is probably even further off track than the first. The newsroom tends to be several layers below the largest investor, who is frequently not even slightly involved in the running of the business. Editorial decisions are made by editors, not by owners.

Every serious, objective analysis of American news for the past 40 years confirms that in actual practice it is routinely, significantly, and nearly uniformly liberal in its staffing, it's content, and it's editorial slant. The continued attempt to deny this fact based on such a thoroughly lame argument as "it's owned by a corporation" merely serves to illustrate the depth of Liberal denial.

Is your real name Stuart Pitt? The furniture store guy who does those campy commercials where he wears a crown and calls himself the "Sofa King?"

Cuz when I read your post I thought you were Sofa King Stu Pitt.

It appears that the MSM may be doing itself in. People don't need it so much anymore. It's a fountain of lies and hypocrisy. . . and who the hell needs that?? They may think that they can control things, but ultimately, people know better. . .

We need the fairness doctrine back and the repeal of the telecommunications act of 1996 asap

Of course. Follow the money...

Who would the Fox media criminal sell to:

--> "Bush Pioneers"

All in the Family...

Texans for Public Justice has more..
http://www.tpj.org/reports/gusher/profiteers.html
http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/lee_bass.html

GWB got $210,000 from PACs of the oil-rich Bass family.

Lee Bass
Occupation: President & Owner, Lee M. Bass, Inc.
Industry: Energy & Natural Resources
Home: Fort Worth, Texas
Net Worth: $3.9 Billion (53rd in the Fortune 400)

As Gov, GWB appointed Lee Bass chair of the Department of Parks and Wildlife

That Aggressively Acquisitive Conservative, Rupert Murdoch, continuing a long personal holiday tradition, stood outside the doors of the Wall Street Journal all day Monday, and personally gifted each departing employee with a dime, a begrudging smile, and a muttered 'bah merry christmas bah'.

Plumb Bob @ 33:

Blue Lensman @ 27:

Plumb Bob @ 24:

Here is the argument, no implicit assumptions are necessary.

1. Whoever owns a news outlet controls those that run the outlet.
2. Whoever runs the outlet determines the content.

Exhibit A: Faux News

Care to claim that FN is just another liberal media outlet? I didn't think so.

About what I expected to receive in reply.

1) Completely unresponsive to the first point. You have yet to establish that any of the owners of media corporations are, in fact, conservative, aside from Rupert Murdoch. The argument is simply bad-smelling air until you do that.

2) Displays a 6th-grade level of understanding concerning the working of major corporations. No chief administrator worth even a tenth of his bloated salary would be caught dead micro-managing the actions of subordinates 4, 5, or 6 levels below them. The editorial choices of the newsroom are controlled by the owner if, and only if, the owner personally decides to interfere with the decisions of the editor; and most professional editors really would consider that interference, and would probably resign if it happened more than once or twice.

As to "Faux" News, aside from the sophomoric and limp attempt at comedy which substitutes a word pronounced "Foh" for a word pronounced "Focks," you, I, the mailman, and my 10-year-old stepson all know that Fox News is the stand-alone exception to the general rule about the slant of news organizations (you call it conservative, and anyone who's actually read research on the subject calls it moderate); so you also know that you're attempting to divert attention from the facts that you know perfectly well prove my point.

People interested in truth don't do that; people trying to spin inconvenient facts do. Allow me to suggest that you'd probably feel better about yourself if you deliberately chose to be one of the former rather than one of the latter.

Plumb Bob @ 24:

The Leftist meme has become "all the media outlets are owned by corporations." I have yet to hear a single Leftist defend the assumptions implicit in the argument, namely:

1) All corporations are conservative; and

2) The content of news outlets is controlled more by who owns it than who runs it.

The first is clearly and obviously false. The corporation is by far the most common form of organizing a business in the US; unless you're claiming that liberals never engage business, you'd need to prove that the corporation in question is active only in conservative causes in order to establish your case.

The second is probably even further off track than the first. The newsroom tends to be several layers below the largest investor, who is frequently not even slightly involved in the running of the business. Editorial decisions are made by editors, not by owners.

Every serious, objective analysis of American news for the past 40 years confirms that in actual practice it is routinely, significantly, and nearly uniformly liberal in its staffing, it's content, and it's editorial slant. The continued attempt to deny this fact based on such a thoroughly lame argument as "it's owned by a corporation" merely serves to illustrate the depth of Liberal denial.

Just one major outlet, NBC, owned by the largest war profiteering corporation in the world, G.E.

Credability in news is secondary to the parent corporation's bottom line.

Bottom line, when the slobs over at NBC, (K.O. excepted, and I assume he's just there to pay the bills) put some war chicken hawk like ..... oh I don't know, say the morally bankrupt, fecal speaking Ann Clouter time after time it's to feed the red raw meat to the 25% Republican base. Real liberal.

Sorry - this was in response to Plumb Bob

kaypicts @ 50:

Exhibit A: Faux News

2) Displays a 6th-grade level of understanding concerning the working of major corporations. No chief administrator worth even a tenth of his bloated salary would be caught dead micro-managing the actions of subordinates 4, 5, or 6 levels below them. The editorial choices of the newsroom are controlled by the owner if, and only if, the owner personally decides to interfere with the decisions of the editor; and most professional editors really would consider that interference, and would probably resign if it happened more than once or twice.

- Micromanaging is rampant everywhere - the agenda is not always the balance sheet. Do you have any experience past B-school?
The $$ to be made are in controlling the message for the political perks

I don't buy that Rupert Murdoch is a true conservative, just a smart businessman. He created the "liberal media" lie to sell papers and get people to watch Faux Noise. What the left needs is a liberal Rupert Murdoch. I'd settle for Ted Turner at this point, ever since the AOL/Time Warner merger Ted Turner has been almost invisible.

purvis ames @ 23:

I don't understand. What's the difference? Murdoch? Bass? They're both fascists.

This is an opening round under the FCC's new guild lines.

Murdoc sells off a few stations to a "friendly" camp "A". Camp A can then consolidate the market ownership in newspaper / TV / radio in that area. A few others stations get sold off to a friendly camp "B" and consolidation occurs there too. Meanwhile, Murdoc buys up the alternate media (news paper, TV, Radio) in the key markets he retains.

I think it will take a while for the pattern to emerge, but it will.

Camp A, B (C, etc,) and Murdoc will have a patchwork of wholly owned media metropolitan areas all carrying the "friendly" message.

But because the general public will not look at the details, the kind that is outlined in this C&L post, there will be no out cry... Except the overwhelming "friendly" message slamming everyone that raises concern as a radical liberal, extremist, or just a plain crack-pot.

Folks should check out the Bass clan, who helped financed a big project for W's company Harken energy, and apparently bought a large chunk of W's stock which helped him buy a piece of the Rangers. The Bass' money manager named Rainwater who owned the Rangers with Bushie, along with a guy named Thomas Hicks. Hicks being one of the folks that made Georgie very rich by buying his Texas Rangers. When W was Gov. he put Mr. Hicks in charge of the University of Texas investment fund worth about 9 billion I believe. In return Mr. Hicks invested that money in things like the Carlyle group as well as other companies that were owned by large Bush political donors including of course the Bass Brothers. Is it any wonder why the rich in this country keep getting exponentially richer? They are truly incestuous, but it's everyone else that are actually getting screwed. It is a conservative mantra that government doesn't work, but the reality is that the extremely wealthy in this country have always had the government work to make them wealthier.