Exploring Clear Channel: Debunking Myths & Facts

[Tarheel]

All Michael Powell cares about is censoring things he finds offensive.

This isn't exactly true.
All Michael Powell cares about is censoring things the religious whackos find offensive.

He has stated that the FCC doesn't monitor broadcasts so much as they just react to complaints.
And who are the freaks that sit around writing complaints? The religious whackos.

The rest of us just change the channel.

 

[Informal Logic]

You could just... stop listening?

Rest is political one-sided rhetoric not worthy of a response.

Like Scalia regarding display of the Ten Commandments on government property, and his comment that people do not have to look at it... This is the biggest @##!*%$ cop out type of reasoning I have ever heard.

What is the use of having a society and wanting the best world if there is no accountablity for things, like the constant barrage of crap over the airways?

 

[loseyourname]

This was one that really shocked me, that CC would "punish" entertainers that had a opinion on politics other than that of their own.

Wether you agree with those statements or not, I think that in America people are afforded the right to say what they think without reprisal.

This wasn't overlooked. People made a big deal about this for months. It was also discussed here, although it was a while back now.

Imagine that you were at a lunch conference with your boss and politics was a topic of discussion.
You felt differently about the policy of our current administration than your boss.
He fires you.

The Dixie Chicks were not fired. I don't exactly like the idea of radio stations being told what to play according to corporate playlists (in principle anyway - in reality, I don't listen to radio so I could care less), but if you own the station, it's your right to say what can and cannot be played on it. If the FCC banned the Dixie Chicks from all air waves because of their comments, then I can see them having a legitimate grievance, but as it stands, that's just business. You may not always agree with corporate actions, but as long as they are behaving in accord with federal and state laws and the constitution, all you can do is boycott Clear Channel stations.

 

[Informal Logic]

...its making waves because liberals haven't been as successful as conservatives at exploiting it.

Good to see you admit the conservatives have been successful at exploiting the media better than liberals. So what is wrong with checks and balances visa vis the liberals lowering themselves with the same tactics as grass roots movements, talk show radio programs, sensationalization...you know, all the things conservatives perfected long ago? Ah but not to worry. The liberals are not very good at militant fear mongering, and certainly not good at leveraging religious emotions. Conservatives will still have the upper hand.

 

[loseyourname]

What is the use of having a society and wanting the best world if there is no accountablity for things, like the constant barrage of crap over the airways?

How is their no accountability? Ratings are one of the most perfect forms of accountability there is. Shows get aired that people listen to. If nobody listens, the show gets cancelled. What more could you want in terms of accountability? Or do you simply not want to have aired shows that you find objectionable, regardless of how many millions of people enjoy them?

 

[Informal Logic]

How is their no accountability? Ratings are one of the most perfect forms of accountability there is. Shows get aired that people listen to. If nobody listens, the show gets cancelled. What more could you want in terms of accountability? Or do you simply not want to have aired shows that you find objectionable, regardless of how many millions of people enjoy them?

So since there are a lot of people who like to molest children we should allow child porn on the Internet? I disagree that ratings (popularity) are a form of accountability. People like a lot of things that are disgusting, and norms established through societal condemnation or approval are needed.

 

[Tarheel]

You may not always agree with corporate actions, but as long as they are behaving in accord with federal and state laws and the constitution, all you can do is boycott Clear Channel stations.

Your logic is faulty.
This is why I provided you with the simple analogy of the Boss/Lunch.

The Dixie Chicks were played on CC Stations (in heavy rotation) prior to this incident and then pulled due to a political statement, not because their music sucked. CC even admitted this was true.

i.e. Your boss can fire you because you suck at your job, not because you disagree on politics, religion, race or sexual preference. It is ILLEGAL

 

[Tarheel]

So since there are a lot of people who like to molest children we should allow child porn on the Internet?

Wow, you are twisted dude.
The difference is that a child is a victim in that scenario.

Who is the victim when Howard Stern tells a weiner joke?

 

[loseyourname]

So since there are a lot of people who like to molest children we should allow child porn on the Internet? I disagree that ratings (popularity) are a form of accountability. People like a lot of things that are disgusting, and norms established through societal condemnation or approval are needed.

So you're saying that conservative commentary should be pulled from the airwaves because it constitutes some kind of affront to human decency? You can't possibly be serious.

 

[loseyourname]

Your logic is faulty.

I didn't make an argument. How could I have used faulty logic?

This is why I provided you with the simple analogy of the Boss/Lunch.

The Dixie Chicks were played on CC Stations (in heavy rotation) prior to this incident and then pulled due to a political statement, not because their music sucked. CC even admitted this was true.

i.e. Your boss can fire you because you suck at your job, not because you disagree on politics, religion, race or sexual preference. It is ILLEGAL

And? Again, the Dixie Chicks were not fired, and Clear Channel is not their boss. There are labor laws in place ensuring that you have a right to keep your job so long as it exists and you meet your company's performance standards. No such law exists guaranteeing musicians the right to have their songs played on a privately owned radio station. It is the decision of the owner and privilege they have the legal right to revoke for any reason. You may not like it, but they didn't do anything illegal, and you saying otherwise isn't going to change the law.

 

[Tarheel]

No such law exists guaranteeing musicians the right to have their songs played on a privately owned radio station. It is the decision of the owner and privilege they have the legal right to revoke for any reason. You may not like it, but they didn't do anything illegal, and you saying otherwise isn't going to change the law.

Good point. Can we agree that it was a morally inapropriate (at least Un-American) thing to do?

I see your point and realize that it does lie in a gray area legally, however, If the Dixie Chicks were so inclined to bring a lawsuit against CC I think you may be surprised by the outcome.

 

[Tarheel]

I didn't make an argument. How could I have used faulty logic?

I considered the statement that you directed towards me, which was in direct opposition of my statement, an arguement.
I must apologize.

 

[outsider]

payola & mutually beneficial relationships are nothing new... happens in every area of business... it's very American since we are capitalists...

as for morality, it is fortunate that some people have the morals not to go about it (business) this way.

 

[Informal Logic]

Wow, you are twisted dude.
The difference is that a child is a victim in that scenario.

Who is the victim when Howard Stern tells a weiner joke?

So you're saying that conservative commentary should be pulled from the airwaves because it constitutes some kind of affront to human decency? You can't possibly be serious.

No, I am saying that ratings = popularity. Popularity does not = something that is okay because it is popular. I was using the popularity of child porn as an analogy of something that may be desired (i.e., something Pengwuino could make a lot of $ with) but no necessarily good. True, an example of something that is not illegal would be better. In reference to Howard and getting kicked off mainstream media, personally I just found the show to be a bunch of chatter about worthless things. Life is too short to waste BTUs on this.

 

[SOS2008]

In the news today...

"U.S. government urges delay in ‘.xxx’ domain
'Unprecedented' opposition to virtual red light district cited"
Associated Press
Updated: 7:10 p.m. ET Aug. 16, 2005

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, stopped short of urging its rejection, but he called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to "ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8973683/

 

[Skyhunter]

So what? Why should this trouble anyone? Better yet, why does it trouble you that there is a lot of conservative rhetoric on the radio, but not trouble you that liberal rhetoric is growing? Isn't that contradictory?

Is it a contradiction to want balance?

It isn’t so much the conservative rhetoric so much as the hate directed at “liberals” or anyone else who doesn’t agree with their narrowly defined ideology. I am not suggesting that there are not some left wing hosts that use hate speech, but for the most part they are trying to do what Bush said he wanted to do, unite us not divide us.

During the build-up to the election, Rush Limbaugh took a lot of heat - even to the point of being blasted by Congressmen on the floor of the House. The problem?: Rush Limbaugh has the highest rated (most listeners) political talk show there is. So people complain about bias in the media based on this. But when push comes to shove (as your above quote indicates), it isn't the fact that biased talk shows exist that is getting liberals up in arms, its the fact that they don't have enough!

Rush was the first to be nationally syndicated, and was heavily promoted. He has a core base audience that will believe anything. They call themselves "dittoheads". I remember listening to Rush 20 or so years ago, when he said, "don't think, I will tell you what to think." I turned him off. Rush is hypocritical (“People who use drugs illegally should go to jail.”) hatemonger with no regard for the truth.

Oh, and as for his ratings.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/10/214541.php

You are completely mischaracterizing my quote.

Could you read what is there and not what you would like to see in order to further your argument. I never said I wanted more left wing propaganda. What I said was we are finally seeing a balance to the lop sidedness of the propaganda coming from the right wing hate mongers like Rush Limbaugh, and after 20 years it is about time.

So let's cut to the chase here, guys - this issue isn't making waves because it shows bias exists in talk shows and private corporations (of course it exists!), its making waves because liberals haven't been as successful as conservatives at exploiting it. You're not serious about that, are you? Michael Powell may be a Nazi-censor type, but the FCC not giving more control to corporations than it used to. The FCC has nothing to do with the integrity of the content and it never has. I think you may be mistaking some rhetoric you heard somewhere for fact. All Michael Powell cares about is censoring things he finds offensive.

Once again you missed the point. I was referrng about him trying to give away the public airwaves.

http://www.radiodiversity.com/archives/000907.shtml

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000333.php

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure how this story was overlooked by everyone but here it is.



http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2003/03/17/daily14.html

This was one that really shocked me, that CC would "punish" entertainers that had a opinion on politics other than that of their own.

Wether you agree with those statements or not, I think that in America people are afforded the right to say what they think without reprisal.

Imagine that you were at a lunch conference with your boss and politics was a topic of discussion.
You felt differently about the policy of our current administration than your boss.
He fires you.
...

edit: Note that the link I found was to a local Florida paper and therefore addresses the 2 CC stations in that area, however The Dixie Chicks were pulled from all CC Stations in the Nation, which makes it obvious that someone very high up was responsible for the mandate.

You may not believe it due to the source but this is what Clear Channel Coperate had to say on the matter...

MYTH: Clear Channel radio stations banned air-play of the Dixie Chicks after political comments.

FACT: The radio company that banned the Dixie Chicks was Cumulus Media, not Clear Channel. That company also hosted the CD-smashing ceremony outside its Atlanta, Ga. headquarters, during which bulldozers crushed the group's CDs. Simon Renshaw, the Dixie Chicks' manager, told the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in July that Clear Channel Communications did not ban the group's music and had received a "bad rap."

In reality, and in response to forceful and overwhelming demands from local listeners, some Clear Channel radio stations increased airplay of the group's music in the weeks after Natalie Maines made her comments; other Clear Channel radio stations temporarily suspended airplay.

In fact, according to Mediabase's Airplay Monitor service, Clear Channel Radio played Dixie Chicks songs more often - a full 10,069 times - than any other major radio broadcaster in the two weeks following the statement by Natalie Maines.

Clear Channel Radio stations are programmed, operated and managed locally based on extensive audience research. Local managers make their own decisions about programming and community events.
http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/corporate_ktf.aspx

He has stated that the FCC doesn't monitor broadcasts so much as they just react to complaints.
And who are the freaks that sit around writing complaints? The religious whackos.

The rest of us just change the channel.

Maybe that's the problem. If you want something to change then speak up. What is it they say that goes along the lines "If you didn't vote then you have no right to complain"... Well in this case it seems to be rather true doesn't it? If you never speak up then those that do will be the only ones heard.

It isn’t so much the conservative rhetoric so much as the hate directed at “liberals” or anyone else who doesn’t agree with their narrowly defined ideology. I am not suggesting that there are not some left wing hosts that use hate speech, but for the most part they are trying to do what Bush said he wanted to do, unite us not divide us.

I could easily transpose the terms liberal and conservative here and the statement wouldn't be any less true. Some of the most hateful bigotted vitriol I have read since Bush was reelected has come from popular liberal comentators.

 

[Tarheel]

Maybe that's the problem. If you want something to change then speak up. What is it they say that goes along the lines "If you didn't vote then you have no right to complain"...

Should I then write the FCC every day with something along the lines of... "Listened to Howard Stern again today, I found it enjoyable and not offensive"

The only time people are to "speak up" is when they complain. There are obviously thousands more people that enjoy a Howard Stern type show than those who wish to remove it, but there is no "vote" on the matter.

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe that's the problem. If you want something to change then speak up. What is it they say that goes along the lines "If you didn't vote then you have no right to complain"... Well in this case it seems to be rather true doesn't it? If you never speak up then those that do will be the only ones heard.

Excellent point.

I could easily transpose the terms liberal and conservative here and the statement wouldn't be any less true. Some of the most hateful bigotted vitriol I have read since Bush was reelected has come from popular liberal comentators.

True. But I was referring to radio commentary, where the clear majority of hate speech is coming from the right.

Most, but not all of the hate from the left is directed at Bush personally.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Should I then write the FCC every day with something along the lines of... "Listened to Howard Stern again today, I found it enjoyable and not offensive"

The only time people are to "speak up" is when they complain. There are obviously thousands more people that enjoy a Howard Stern type show than those who wish to remove it, but there is no "vote" on the matter.

There may be no vote but there is a voice in the matter. If you hear about a campaign to get Howard Stern off the air and you want him to stay on the air then you should wirte in, e-mail, call, or something to let them know you don't want Howard Stern off air. These things generally don't just happen over night, you have time to do something about it. Howard Stern was taken off the air by Clear Channel due to pressure from the FCC. Maybe you should run a campaign against how strict the FCC has become if you think it's too harsh. Have you done anything? Does anyone who complains about it care? If not then those little old bitties who get there pampers in a bunch over Howard Stern are gong to be the only people heard on the matter. They become the majority by default.

 

[champ2823]

Wow, some very good points being made here. I also hate the conservatives bashing liberals and using that as an excuse and vice-versa. I think the problem with absolute liberal outlets and absolute conservative outlets is that they always point the finger at each other. Actually, even more so I think that the bigger issue is how they blatantly lie about facts and evidence. From what I see, Fox News is probably the worst propaganda machine out there. That Hannity I just want to slap after watching like 10 minutes of that program. I saw him have this expert on about some issue I forget and Hannity cut him off every 5 seconds basically stating he was wrong and an idiot. When the guy said he could show all documents he said he wouldn't let him. The best thing about that show was when the rapper Paris was on. Hannity just thought he was some uneducated rapper who was on the show to support violence in some documentary movie. Actually he supported freedom of expression but didn't support the movie and is an investment banker with a degree in Political Science and since I like his music, I can say he is well educated. Well Hannity tried his smear techniques and Paris just blasted him about how crappy their reporting of the news is. He was saying that they don't even report the real news and Hannity got all mad and Paris responded by saying, well what about unfound WMD and illegal wars...Hannity just started yelling. It just seams to me that whether its a liberal or conservative view, its just a smear campaign with no real information being dispersed. I'm so fed up with our mainstream media that I don't even bother with them much and use the alternative media to get the news...or really to get the documents and reports that the mainstream are too afraid to touch. So far my favorite reporter has to be Greg Palast from the BBC as he seams to actually do the investigative work and provide the documents with his work. Oh, and its always funny to check the headlines of the tabloids like The National Inquiry at the check out line and try to figure out how the hell they have the imagination to come up with their stories. The last one was hilarious...It was about a huge govt. cover-up of Giant Bats attacking airplanes. i wonder if they just open up a couple encyclopedias, take the first two pictures they see and somehow combine them to make up some sort of story. "Hey I see a bat" yells Johnny..."Oh I see an airplane" says Sally...so Clyde injects,"How about Giant bats attacking and destroying commercial airplanes" Brad then replies, "I'll get on it, it will be our cover story...so what's for lunch? LSD or Ecstasy while we write this?"

 

[outsider]

Ultimately, the media will not bite the hands that feed it... some radio shows receive the right to independent / "unbiased" programming / creative control or whatever... but these people sometimes lose their shows mysteriously too. Who pays you every 2 weeks ass(o)? I will be away from PF for a few days... enjoy!

 

[russ_watters]

Is it a contradiction to want balance?

If liberals wanted balance, then it wouldn't be a contradiction, and that's the entire point: they don't want balance. If liberals wanted balance, they'd complain as much about the liberal dominance of the print media as they do the conservative dominance of the radio. Better yet, if liberals wanted balance they'd complain about the liberal bias of the news media - the one media that is supposed to be unbiased.

The quote I responded to sounded like a shot: a 'haha, we're gaining', not a 'haha, its getting more balanced'. And in response to the Ape man's point about the "vitrol" from the left, you said this:

True. But I was referring to radio commentary, where the clear majority of hate speech is coming from the right.

So clearly, you aren't interested in balance except in cases where liberals don't have the majority of the rhetoric.

Once again you missed the point. I was referrng about him trying to give away the public airwaves.

http://www.radiodiversity.com/archives/000907.shtml

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000333.php

The first link is about the transition from analog to digital. It sounds like the way the FCC wants to do it is flawed and biased toward existing radio stations (unsurprising), but it isn't a giveaway, just a continuation of existing policy. The rhetoric in the second link is so thick that it's tough to penetrate, but it appears to be about the move to de-regulate the ownership of tv/radio stations (allowing networks to own more than one station in a market, for example). It is also not about giving away the airwaves.

So I guess in that sense you're right - I still don't see a valid point there. could you explain exactly what it is you object to (and more importantly, why) instead of just posting links with no comment?

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't exactly true.
All Michael Powell cares about is censoring things the religious whackos find offensive.

I'll buy that.

Should I then write the FCC every day with something along the lines of... "Listened to Howard Stern again today, I found it enjoyable and not offensive"

The only time people are to "speak up" is when they complain. There are obviously thousands more people that enjoy a Howard Stern type show than those who wish to remove it, but there is no "vote" on the matter.

Actually, http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm does a pretty good job at finding out what people listen to and why. Ie, Howard Stern knows (it was in his movie) that people who hate him listen to him longer than people who like him.

Good to see you admit the conservatives have been successful at exploiting the media better than liberals.

Just to be clear here, the part you cut out of that quote says that I was talking about radio talk shows and certain specific media companies - I was not talking about the media as a whole.

So what is wrong with checks and balances visa vis the liberals lowering themselves with the same tactics as grass roots movements, talk show radio programs, sensationalization...you know, all the things conservatives perfected long ago?

Nothing - just don't characterize it as "checks and balances", as if its an attempt at fairness.

Ah but not to worry. The liberals are not very good at militant fear mongering, and certainly not good at leveraging religious emotions. Conservatives will still have the upper hand.

True - liberal rhetoric is more about convincing people the sky is falling. Economic and social fear mongering.

 

[Skyhunter]

If liberals wanted balance, then it wouldn't be a contradiction, and that's the entire point: they don't want balance. If liberals wanted balance, they'd complain as much about the liberal dominance of the print media as they do the conservative dominance of the radio. Better yet, if liberals wanted balance they'd complain about the liberal bias of the news media - the one media that is supposed to be unbiased.

And what evidence do you have of the print media being monopolized by the liberals?

I think that once again you are shooting off your mouth without educating yourself first. The majority of newspapers are owned by conservative corporations, and the advertisers that supply the revenue to all newspapers are mostly conservative corporations.

I would say that the majority of reputable news media is objective. Some have a slight liberal editorial bias while others have a slight conservative editorial bias. Even in San Francisco Chronicle, which serves a very liberal readership, is a conservative newspaper.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

The quote I responded to sounded like a shot: a 'haha, we're gaining', not a 'haha, its getting more balanced'. And in response to the Ape man's point about the "vitrol" from the left, you said this:

True. But I was referring to radio commentary, where the clear majority of hate speech is coming from the right.

So clearly, you aren't interested in balance except in cases where liberals don't have the majority of the rhetoric.

Once again you missed the point and are resorting to politics 101 as you call it by rephrasing what I said, thereby giving it a different meaning.

The first link is about the transition from analog to digital. It sounds like the way the FCC wants to do it is flawed and biased toward existing radio stations (unsurprising), but it isn't a giveaway, just a continuation of existing policy. The rhetoric in the second link is so thick that it's tough to penetrate, but it appears to be about the move to de-regulate the ownership of tv/radio stations (allowing networks to own more than one station in a market, for example). It is also not about giving away the airwaves.

So I guess in that sense you're right - I still don't see a valid point there. could you explain exactly what it is you object to (and more importantly, why) instead of just posting links with no comment?

I would like to see opportunity for more local organizations to have access instead of just handing it over to the existing monopolies. Maybe "give-away" is the wrong term but I don't know what else to call it. The public airwaves are being used less and less to serve the public interest. The airwaves are controlled by a smaller and smaller pool of media conglomerates and diversity in information and opinions is ever dwindling.

Let's just keep relaxing the rules governing corporate rights until the US General Everything Corporation owns the world! And if you are not a stockholder yop are SOL!

And yes, the second link was full of liberal rhetoric. I just wanted to see if you actually read any links I post, since so many times your responses do not reflect the information provided.

 

[ray b]

a quote from
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

"Whether owners interfere explicitly or implicitly in the newsroom, evidence of it continually surfaces. Here are just a few examples:

* During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies. (15)
* Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC's top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards. Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries. (16)
* Walter Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, used his paper to attack a candidate who opposed action that would have benefited the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Reason: he was the single largest stockholder. (17)
* Rupert Murdoch's Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory. Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan. (18)
* A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business. (19)
* Journalist Elizabeth Whelan asked ten major women's magazines to run a series of articles on the rise of smoking-related diseases in women; all ten magazines refused. Reason: "I frequently wrote on health topics for women's magazines," says Whelan, "and have been told repeatedly by editors to stay away from the subject of tobacco." (20)

The above stories are anecdotal, but they show specifically how editors and advertisers interfere with the objectivity of the media. Now let's look at broader statistics. All feature the same theme: the power of editorial selection. Editors play a crucial role in deciding which stories get covered and which ones don't. This is an important tool for shaping and influencing the nation's debate. Due to the abuse of this power, three giant trends have grown within the media as big business continues to monopolize it:

The first is that pro-labor stories are almost completely absent, even though blue-collar workers make up the vast majority of this nation's work force, and indeed the news media's audience. The majority of stories should include the conditions they work under, the challenges they face, the wages they earn and the hazards that maim and kill them. But the media is curiously silent on nearly all these natural topics. In 1989, researcher John Tasini studied ABC, NBC and CBS for a year to see how much coverage was devoted to workers' issues, including the minimum wage, workplace safety and child care. He found it amounted to a dismal 2.3 percent of all coverage. In fact, all three networks carried only 13 minutes of coverage on workplace safety for the entire year! The worst offender was NBC Nightly News, who devoted a total of 40 seconds to worker safety. This is not surprising, since its parent corporation, GE, has an appalling work safety record. (21) Elsewhere, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 53 percent of the nation's newspaper editors were pro-management, but only 8 percent were pro-labor. (22) The pro-corporate bias of our media is one of the most important reasons for the decline of labor unions in this country.

The second trend is the increasingly conservative selection of experts to be quoted in the news. Think tanks are ideal places to find such "experts." (True academics have a low opinion of think tanks, which are simply propaganda outlets for the giant corporate foundations that pour millions of dollars into them.) Think tanks are highly partisan, and the quality of their work is mediocre at best. Why? They lack the checks and balances which keep academia honest, such as peer review, the scientific conference and independence of funding. Unfortunately, it has been a growing trend in journalism to rely on think tanks more than academia. That's because think tanks have conducted an aggressive campaign to become media friendly, packaging their findings in nice sound-bites and faxed press releases. This is in stark contrast to academics, who have little interest, expertise, funding or organization to conduct mass media relations. And this is not to mention that corporate-owned media organizations are encouraged to gather their facts from corporate-funded think tanks.""

there once was a liberal media in the USA
the so called undergound newspapers
but THEY ALL DIED IN THE EARLY 1970s
every mainstream newspaper is owned by the CORPS
and supports the CORPS viewpoint
the NEO-CONs are so biased that they fail to see that
BUT THE NEO-CONs do love the BIG LIE an idea from the very same source
as the media is liberal charge made by the NEO-CONs
if you know where ideas come from
then you can see their bias

 

[Skyhunter]

Thanks Ray, very pertinent excerpts. And as is obvious it isn't a liberal or conservative bias. It is a corporate bias!