1. Matrix Reloaded is somehow better seen at home. And It's all about the car chase baby.
2. The Strategic Humor Initiative sounded really swell on this morning's Morning Edition. Sadly it didn't come close to delivering many laughs. Note to self, satire doesn't always work across borders.
3. The Office - Season One is now available in finer stores. Let's hope it's better than the aforementioned program.
4. Frontline's season premiere details the hunt for a sleeper terrorist cell in the United States.
5. There are way too many great games coming this holiday season. Not even Santa's got the bling for that kind of retail.
6. And while it would be good wholesome nerdy fun to hang with the dorks at the Panther party next Friday, I'll wait and buy it for half price on Saturday. Ah the benefits of being married to a hot coed.
7. The Producers is far, far better on stage than on film. Mel Brooks is a comic genius and broadway is lucky to have him. Also, live performances make web design somehow seem like a variant of wood shop.
8. Okay weblogs are starting to get a little old. It's time to evolve the web and continue forward. Personal publishing is great, but it's time for someone to unveil the next greatest thing.
9. Emusic why have you forsaken us all?
10. I inherited a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, but by the time I open the door in the morning, it's already old news. What a waste.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
No worthwhile observation... I just wanted to post the first comment. ;^)
Since this post has generated little response in the last twelve hours lets move on to a new topic.
I hear a lot of people talking about the "liberal media" and how it is hell bent on causing problems for conservatives and Republicans — specifically for President Bush, Head Buffalo of the Fraternal Order of Conservative Land Creatures and Warmongers.
Yet it was the "liberal media" that helped push for the impeachment of President Clinton, Grand Poo-Bah — Brotherhood of World Leaders and Hallway Lovers, Local 127. As anyone will recall it was the news story that would not die and was covered with the same media frenzy and insanity as the O.J. Simpson trial.
While it's well believed that the press has a liberal sway in their coverage, are they really operating under a larger, ultra liberal, left-wing, controlled agenda?
Or are conservatives not able to handle criticism well? And where does Fox News play into the fray?
The "Liberal Media" is a fiction, and a drum well-played by conservative 'entertainers' like the pill-popping pig boy, el Rushmo. The largest American media conglomerate (NBC) is owned by the largest American defense contractor (General Electric). To somehow believe that there is a bias against Republicans, capitalism, or corporate culture is at best delusional, at worst panderingly insincere. As Greg points out, what the American media does love is blood in the water — the bigger the bleeding fish the better — Liberal, Conservative, Martian, whatever. Certainly, I'd admit that the personal politics of prominent media talking heads like Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, etc. are most likely left-leaning (or at least that's their 'act' — see the current Newsweek article on Limbaugh), but to think that the personal politics of the glamor-pusses who speak the news really affects content is ridiculous. It's much more likely that the corporate interests of the huge mega-corps that control the media dictate what to talk about, and what to critique to present enough of an illusion of a "free press" that isn't a completely subservient lapdog. If the media were liberal you'd have Chomsky doing commentary on Sunday morning, not George Will, William Safire, or William Kristol.
You heard it here first, folks. Blogging is out. What's next?!
Why spend money on Matrix Reloaded
Blogging is out. What's next?!
Walks in the park, fresh air, sunshine, exercise, and real intrapersonal communication.
Tom is blind to his own bias.
Of course there is not "vast, left-wing conspiracy" but if you simply look at the voting practices of the employees that run our nations media corps, you'll see it's a tad slanted to the left. And by "tad" I mean in the range of 75-85%. If you don't believe (I wouldn't be surprised) but you can look it up.
How this is relevant is that everyone, and yes, I do mean everyone, acts with bias. You do it. I do it. We cite examples that help our case, and casually ignore ones that don't. News people do the same.
I'm convinced that being truly impartial is, in fact, impossible.
I'm neither blind to my own bias, nor claiming I have none. What I'm claiming is that the personal, or even institutional, left-leaning-ness of media personnel or even media organizations is a non-factor in what passes for "news" in America. It certainly doesn't make coverage lean left — example: Ted Turner (a classic liberal personally) and CNN's Entertainment Tonight-style coverage of Iraq II. The major media companies are huge fortune 100 mega-corps, closer to the oil companies than the Green party on the bell curve of liberal to conservative. I understand it's a comforting notion to convince yourself otherwise, and as right-wing pundits have found, it's a fiction that resonates with a certain demo, no question.
> Or are conservatives not able to handle criticism well?
Greg, you may enjoy this:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031020&s=pollitt
Beerzie this is a "No Spin Zone". How could you bring that in here?
>What I'm claiming is that the personal, or even institutional, left-leaning-ness of media personnel or even media organizations is a non-factor in what passes for "news" in America.
Non-factor? Surely you don't believe that? You are either in denial or refuse to believe the statistics merely because they come from an opposing source.
I'll accept the statistics. What I'm saying (listen carefully) is that it doesn't matter. Personal politics are 'non-factor' and your statistics confirm it rather than counter it. What I'm saying is the [alledged] fact that up to 85% of media personnel vote on the left-side of the spectrum doesn't make overal media coverage left-leaning or contrarian. Rather, on the contrary, there is little more than heel-biting from the mainstream press on any of the substantive issues, and the major news orgs act like schoolgirls elbowing each other out of the way to get front row shots of el Presidente on the carrier deck. Print is better than TV, who are all now by and large cheerleaders, maintaining a charade of questions and answers (pre-approved and scripted) and acceptably illusionistic repartee. It's a show and it's disgraceful. Remember, the news divisions are part of the entertainment divisions at all the major networks.
(con't) .... Meaning, the thing that shapes news, or what gets called news is above all else:What will make people watch? Whether this particular story we'll call news fits a conservative or liberal agenda is a distant second place (if that). Even Limbaugh — in words and certainly in deeds — has admitted his schtick is largely an act, albeit an immensely profitable and evidently psychically painful one.
>What I'm saying is the [alledged] fact that up to 85% of media personnel vote on the left-side of the spectrum doesn't make overal media coverage left-leaning or contrarian.
I hear you, I just can't believe that you believe what you're saying. In order for that to be true, people would have to be truly impartial, and I don't believe anyone (especially journalists out to "make the world a better place") has the ability to be impartial.
I agree that news has the primary goal of ratings, subscribers, sales, etc. but to deny that they have additional goals is shortsighted.
Greg wrote:
"Boysen, you wanker. ; )
Come back and let's have a real discussion."
Who are you, Liz Hurley? ;^)
btw, "Where's that bloody preview button?"
Tom,
After clicking away I came up with an example that might shed some light on this for you.
In the movie industy, for many years now, G-rated movies have consistently out-performed R-rated movies in the box office. If you're argument was true, wouldn't Hollywood produce more G-rated movies than R-rated ones? The reverse is, in fact, the reality. This tells us that for some other reason, Hollywood prefers these kinds of films. Perhaps, it's the increased freedom to create what they like? Perhaps, these are the kinds of films they themselves would prefer to view? Perhaps, they want their films to expose, promote, or propagate a particular message?
If you've seen Runaway Jury, you'll see firsthand a wonderful example of using a movie to promote an agenda. The anti-gun crowd in Hollywood jumped at the chance to re-write Grisham's book and make gun manufacturers this century's great evil.
If this example does't make it clear, I'll have to throw in the towell.
Ok, Boysen, we're making progress. Stay with me, we're almost there. You're still making a couple leaps, please stay on the path and keep your hands completely inside the vehicle. Here goes:
I don't believe anyone is impartial. I [strongly] believe that the personal, political, partiality of up to 85% [allegedly] of media personnel is a "non-factor" for two reasons, the second of which is exponentially more important than the first reason:
While perhaps out-gunned in terms of sheer numbers and marketing savvy, I think no reasonable person with a political view left of Genghis Khan would argue that the right is under-represented in today's media landscape. Talk Radio is dominated by conservatives, Fox is a 24/7 parody, mainstream news is more Entertainment Tonight than issue discussion. What conservative media personnel might lack in numbers they more than make up in mania and hyperbole. Cries against the "Liberal Media" are simply resonant fiction. There's bias on both sides, so if the personal beliefs really sway coverage one way or another (in big ways or in a thousand little ways) — and yes they probably do — I'd still say things are about a wash. Especially because of the second reason:
Infinitely more powerful than individual bias is institutional bias. Institutional bias trumps individual bias, gets people fired, and operates largely behind the scenes. As I posted earlier, America's largest media organization (NBC) is owned by the largest defense contractor (GE). What the board of directors want is what happens. You think an anchor gets to report on whatever he wants, even if it might damage the stock price? As always, the people who control the money are in control, and like most obscenely profitable industries, the media industry is just about as in the boardroom as any other. ClearChannel dominates radio, outdoor advertising, and controls thousands of performance venues and wields their conservative agenda as a blunt weapon whenever possible. Fox, well, enough said. The Wall Street Journal makes up news to put the squeeze on our old-Europe non-allies, and gets by without a beating. I could go on, but why bother. Do you really think there is such a thing as a liberal Fortune 100 corporation?
Wasn't Paddy Chayefsky on the money in Network? (1976, damn!) If by some chance you haven't seen this Oscar-winning film, I suggest you rent it — highly entertaining. From the Chairman of the Board's speech to the renegade anchor Howard Beale:
"... There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a collage of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale! And it has been since man crawled out of the slime...."
Re: Movies G vs. R — sorry, that's a small picture argument that doesn't hold much water. Successful G-Rated movies are very hard to make, and the market is dominated by one and a half players who know how to do it: Disney & Pixar. It's a specialist marketplace, and many other studios have tried to do it and gotten badly burned.
R-rated movies are easy to make. They are targeted to the least discriminating customers (teenagers), and the highest sought after advertising demographic. You really think a Hollywood that pumps out Terminator, Matrix, Bad Boy, etc. movies by the dozen is anti-gun or anti-violence? Dig a little deeper, m'friend.
No media bias? Oh, if I had time to chronicle the sheer number... but alas, for today we'll see this amazing piece of CNN spin.
Again, in baby talk this time: I haven't said there is no bias. I have said there is bias in both directions, and the bias that supports the fundamentally conservative mega-corporations that own the news organizations is the bias that wins out in the end. Look closer. Think deeper.
Aren't all media liberal? :)
Mad props on the site dude. Long time no see! Thomas up here in AK...Due for six to ten inches of snow tonight (FINALLY!)
Take care bug guy.
TJ