Ever wonder why the "Liberal Media" tends to be liberal?

If I recall Noam Chomsky's, "Manufacturing Consent" correctly, mainstream media, considered by some as too liberal, is a propaganda machine for big business, capitalism, etc..

I agree completely. Perspective is a lot of it. However, (other than fox news) I generally don't hear people complaining that the media is too conservative. I think it is safe to say that media does take a liberal lean. Right wrong or indifferent.

Unfortunately it is. Why talk about the state of the economy when a beached whale paints such a pretty picture. But is this the fault of the media or the american people and what they want to see.

Damn, I hate that myLot won't let me edit posts. "If a person whose viewpoint" should read "if a person's viewpoint."

Well, I did say they generally aren't proponents of liberalism. Also, many of those who use the term "liberal media" seem to think it's Greenpeace-level liberalism.

I agree... to a degree. Let's ask the Kennedy's if there's money in liberalism. Let's not make the assumtion that because it is corporate, it is not liberal.

A grain of salt is a good idea. The biggest issue seems to stem from where the source of our information is coming from, and (more importantly) what we're NOT being told. It can be pretty difficult to point out who is right at any given moment.

I don't think we've reached the fall of Rome just yet simply because I don't think that Bush can play the violin. In any case, I think that the American people's "BS-detector" has been severly malfunctioning for many years now.

Hmmmm... interesting response. Let's start with the last first. I love and admire the way you research your information. Take the extremes and meet in the middle. Very resourceful. Very productive. Very Zen. I did find it interesting that your argument that it is not intelligence, research, etc. that creates a liberal media falls back to acadamia. I would hope that my experiences have influenced my philosophies rather than individuals, but if they were influenced by people, I would hope that it would be academics who, in my humble opinion, base their political philosophies on intelligence, research, and an understanding of the working of politics in general.

Hello MrShasta, I apologize that I forgot to welcome you to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here. It is a fascinating community, with much to offer! Which leads me to a friendly suggestion: Many members have reported that they are less inclined to respond to a discussion where the Best Response (BR) has already been chosen. So, while I thank you for the BR award, I would offer that you'll likely receive a broader variety of responses if you hold off on choosing the BR. I've noticed that many seem to favor a one week time frame. Anyway, just a suggestion that I hope you find helpful. Also, thank you for the kind words about my research tendencies. On to the meat of your reply: "... academics who, in my humble opinion, base their political philosophies on intelligence, research, and an understanding of the working of politics in general." Ahh, would that it could be so! Pointing to the wit and wisdom of the cliche: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Now to be absolutely fair, there are many, many dynamic instructors out there, with a commanding mastery of their respective disciplines. However, there are also a great many who achieve tenure by the hair on their chinny, chin, chin! To attribute "intelligence, research, and an understanding of the working of politics in general" to such miserable failures is a very generous act of kindness! I'm reminded of my undergraduate days, where I knew many of the Ed. Students. To say that they were grossly underchallenged would be a serious understatement! I'll also point out that the Education department accepted H.S. students with a lower G.P.A. than any other department! This is not speculation or conjecture -- it's simply fact. I effort myself to try to always give the benefit of the doubt. Though, experience and interraction soon replace novel etiquette, rendering us able to fairly assess or pass judgement (shudder to think that I would dare to suggest that passing judgement on word and/or deed is other than a mortal sin!). In the same respect that there are terrific and rotten apples in the world of journalism, so too of the world of academia. If I had a nickel for every lousy teacher or professor that I have ever studied under, collaborated with, or known -- I would be a very wealthy woman! On a slightly different note: I suspect that you would agree that the world of academia offers an insulation, a protection as it were, from the big, bad world. As such, I tend to believe that collegiate academia has the tendency to draw to itself those who lack to grit necessary to compete in the uninsulated world. This has a tendency to weaken one's intellectual elasticity -- as the realm of the theoretical rarely intersects the world of the practical. While I am thankful that I have been blessed with a fine education, I am regularly humbled that many of the wisest souls that I have known have had no formal, post-graduate education. Including those who never finished high school, yet were voracious readers, and committed observational analysts. My point is that academia is certainly no guarantee of intelligence or understanding.

I agree, MrShasta. I believe academia generally represents intellectualism, and as such form opinions rationally and intelligently. Nothing conspiratorial or pernicious about that. Anti-intellectualism (and other means off smearing liberalism) is currently more of a problem in this country.