Why does the US media behave as if it was state-controlled?

[bdk3clash]

Draw your own conclusions, I didn't mean to editorialize (too much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]):

TV/Movies/Music
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates

1998
Total Amount: $2,831,696
Total to Democrats: $1,263,629 (45%)
Total to Republicans: $1,568,067 (55%)

2000
Total Amount: $3,364,544
Total to Democrats: $1,454,475 (43%)
Total to Republicans: $1,910,069 (57%)

2002
Total Amount: $3,724,402
Total to Democrats: $1,730,473 (46%)
Total to Republicans: $1,993,929 (54%)

2004
Total Amount: $4,385,534
Total to Democrats: $1,834,187 (42%)
Total to Republicans: $2,551,347 (58%)

2006
Total Amount: $6,110,860
Total to Democrats: $2,664,202 (44%)
Total to Republicans: $3,406,158 (56%)

[JackWhite]

here is a great video from yesterday's Tucker Carlson show. Click on "Watch Video" underneath the top picture.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063292/

[sledghammer]

Here is a study that shows empirically that watching U.S. media distorts your view of reality. In this case it isn't a liberal/conservative bias, just a bias towards the Iraq war (which is obviously specifically conservative, but is clearly not all inclusive).

Media and misperception

The study measures survey response to a variety of questions concerning the Iraq war, which are demonstrably true/false (have we found wmds in Iraq, did Iraq support the 9/11 attacks, what was world opinion of our invasion, etc) as well as taking a variety of data on individual's media consumption habits. It showed that people who watch TV news (both republicans and democrats) universally had a distorted view of reality, with FOX news watchers at the extreme.

"Misperceptions According to Level of Attention to News
While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media, and to some extent those who primarily watch CNN, have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention." (16)

[GoodCallYouWin]

In the week before the Iraq war, of the 400 and some interviews done by the three major media only 4 where opposed to the war.

[Mr Rat]

[ QUOTE ]
The unfortunate truth here is that most people in America don't want to hear "truthful" news, and that in actuality politics and the machinations of politicians aren't really interesting them in favor of bizarre or celebrity stories; i.e., Paris Hilton, the man who [censored] a goat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree...almost all of my buddies and coworkers as well as myself agree that the major media channels suck and don't offer much content. There is no place to get real news. If you look for an alternate news source then you end up finding some hard-core left or right wing oriented viewpoint. If you watch the media channels, you get 'fluff' followed by a session of three people screaming back and forth about that same freakin 'fluff.' It's sick. A lot of us do want to see real news but it seems to not exist...we are being spoon fed a bunch of crap and it really does suck. Radio is not much better. I have yet to find a good internet site that supllies consistent non-biased news as well as a fluff-less motif. Vent...vent...ugh.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The unfortunate truth here is that most people in America don't want to hear "truthful" news, and that in actuality politics and the machinations of politicians aren't really interesting them in favor of bizarre or celebrity stories; i.e., Paris Hilton, the man who [censored] a goat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree...almost all of my buddies and coworkers as well as myself agree that the major media channels suck and don't offer much content. There is no place to get real news. If you look for an alternate news source then you end up finding some hard-core left or right wing oriented viewpoint. If you watch the media channels, you get 'fluff' followed by a session of three people screaming back and forth about that same freakin 'fluff.' It's sick. A lot of us do want to see real news but it seems to not exist...we are being spoon fed a bunch of crap and it really does suck. Radio is not much better. I have yet to find a good internet site that supllies consistent non-biased news as well as a fluff-less motif. Vent...vent...ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newspapers? Magazines? Yahoo news is basically just the AP wire and is fine for getting the facts.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The unfortunate truth here is that most people in America don't want to hear "truthful" news, and that in actuality politics and the machinations of politicians aren't really interesting them in favor of bizarre or celebrity stories; i.e., Paris Hilton, the man who [censored] a goat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree...almost all of my buddies and coworkers as well as myself agree that the major media channels suck and don't offer much content. There is no place to get real news. If you look for an alternate news source then you end up finding some hard-core left or right wing oriented viewpoint. If you watch the media channels, you get 'fluff' followed by a session of three people screaming back and forth about that same freakin 'fluff.' It's sick. A lot of us do want to see real news but it seems to not exist...we are being spoon fed a bunch of crap and it really does suck. Radio is not much better. I have yet to find a good internet site that supllies consistent non-biased news as well as a fluff-less motif. Vent...vent...ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newspapers? Magazines? Yahoo news is basically just the AP wire and is fine for getting the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the value of 'news'?

I do not watch the news, rarely watch any political commentary shows, occasionally briefly watch senate hearings, and occasionally read a couple of articles out of a newspaper. What am I missing out on?

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Draw your own conclusions, I didn't mean to editorialize (too much ):

TV/Movies/Music
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates

1998
Total Amount: $2,831,696
Total to Democrats: $1,263,629 (45%)
Total to Republicans: $1,568,067 (55%)

2000
Total Amount: $3,364,544
Total to Democrats: $1,454,475 (43%)
Total to Republicans: $1,910,069 (57%)

2002
Total Amount: $3,724,402
Total to Democrats: $1,730,473 (46%)
Total to Republicans: $1,993,929 (54%)

2004
Total Amount: $4,385,534
Total to Democrats: $1,834,187 (42%)
Total to Republicans: $2,551,347 (58%)

2006
Total Amount: $6,110,860
Total to Democrats: $2,664,202 (44%)
Total to Republicans: $3,406,158 (56%)


[/ QUOTE ]

During most of these years the Republicans controlled the government. Those seeking influence tend to give more money to the party in power. That is one explaination. Even if it was ideologically driven, you then need to make a connection between the corporations that own the media and the content. When you watch movies, entertainment television shows, listen to music etc...do you detect a conservative bent? I don't.

[AzDesertRat]

This is one of the best articles I have read about this topic and includes the "fairness doctrine" and why Air America failed.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the best articles I have read about this topic and includes the "fairness doctrine" and why Air America failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, it reminds me of why I stopped reading the Economist.

The arguement he makes is that there is more chance for variety now-a-days while ignoring the fact that Clear Channel owns most radio stations and even broadcasts republican propaganda on its music channels.

Dude also states that "shock jocks" lean left. Not Opie and Anthony by a mile and they are numero uno.