I think they're both crap, honestly. One suggests a hatred of a group (which I don't think is true), and the other suggests and shady attempt at brainwashing (which is equally crap). They both seem pretty ominous to me. It's petty shit like this that runs pragmatism out of DC.
I have never thought of it as brainwashing. It's always seemed more like simple dishonesty on a large scale. Both parties are loaded with crybabies. The longer I live through, the more I believer there's no real difference between the two. I might sound like a crackpot, but it seems more and more like it's all just a show on both sides.
Your analogy suggests a belief that an accusation of political bias is on par with that of being called a racist. Did you intend that, or are those two STD's much more disparate than I am aware?
To quote Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "Now you're thinking, boy-o!" Why would they be "dishonest" in your eyes if they weren't trying to influence others by distortion and lies? They would be propagandizing which goes hand in hand with brainwashing. No one is dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. There are always ulterior motives with dishonesty....not saying that I agree with a media bias conspiracy, mind you.
Go to Hell's Kitchen. Straight-laced as it gets. The financial sector though...... pretty damn conservative.
I know the difference. I also know that Mitchell and Todd are frequently introduced on NBC Nightly News and the Today Show as "Reporting from..."
What would be the purpose of a news organization's real or imagined "political bias"? Is it not to influence others' thinking? Is not attempted brainwashing through propaganda not as diabolical as racism? I would say it is. The STD's were thrown in to illustrate that both racism and propaganda suck. The level of sucktitude assigned to each would vary from individual to individual based off of their values. But, they both suck.
What's the difference? In the television media coverage I have seen, I have not noticed one complete sentence of unbiased journalism. I am beginning to believe that the 4th estate completely imploded sometime during the Clinton administration and has secretly been replaced by advocating robots. I could have written the "news" stories for either Fox news or NBC before hearing any speeches. In fact, I'm fairly certain that is exactly what they did.
For many, there is no difference. But, there are still some intelligent folks out there that can discern the difference between the subtle nuances of a news article with facts presented allowing the reader to make up their own mind and an op-ed piece written by some jakeleg with a chip on their shoulder and a medium in which to spew their biased agenda.
Reporting imploded once corporations began consolidating their interest in the major networks and decided entertainment was more critical than actual journalism, rendering the days of major news sources having an Edward Murrow on staff as obsolete.
That is what this is all about. You characterize it in extremes as far as Obama being a penniless fool. But that is what has the rich in arms giving Romney buckets of money. They know they have had it good paying virtually nothing in taxes for a long time. Obama is bringing that time to a close. H\e does so under the flag of healthcare. Hey we can have Obamacare and not raise taxes but that would mean cutting defense spending and somehow Ryan and the American Taliban are not ok with this.
Good thing Obama doesn't have any rich buddies. I'm sure guys in Mitt Romney's position, who get very little money from traditionally taxable income, are really worried about going broke from Obamacare.
I saw a recent pole asking - Who will the media try to help? Obama - 60% Romney - 15% Neither - 25% But I am sure it is just conservatives whining.
It's a version of The Big Lie. Conservatives spend an immense amount of time decrying the "liberal media." Thus, it eventually becomes part of the collective consciousness of the unthinking. I'm just glad to see a quarter of the people aren't idiots.
Wait, were you expecting public perception to serve as a relevant rebuttal? That poll is a reflection of decades of conditioning by the Republicansof claiming "liberal bias".
On which channel do these knights of journalistic integrity air their reports? I'm not sure what the poll is supposed to show, or how broadly the term media should apply, but just about every televised news source I've seen advocates on political matters rather than reporting on them. Fox is having a cheerleading session. NBC is having a bash fest. I can't watch them all, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb in guessing that CNBC thinks the convention is great while CNN thinks it is really bad. All of these positions will reverse in about a week when the Democratic convention starts. That's not journalism.
