The Dynamic Duo Strike Again

[Cknolls]

Chicago Tribune Jan 9th or 10th had a synopsis of all Senators on the Judiciary

 

Committee. They described John Kyl (Ariz.), Sam Brownback (Ks.), and either

 

Tom Coburn (Ok.) or one other Repub. Sen. as either Conservative or very

 

conservative, but described Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy and Chuck

 

Schumer as the Senators from their respective states. Are they not liberal????

 

Just one example, however slight, of media bias.

[Balta1701]

Without a citation or link to the exact article...how in the world do you expect us to be able to evaluate that claim?

[Controlled Chaos]

I don't know what newspaper coverage you get but The Monitor and Valley Morning Star had a AP story on their front page almost every day regarding the swifties. They found every angle possible.

 

And the GOP radio network isn't mainstream? We must have different definitions of mainstream.

 

BTW, it seems that during the GRN shows, they also run news stories.

 

Of course you have a different definition of mainstream. That has been your argument for ever. You compare Bill O'Rilley and Rush Limbaugh to MSM....which is totally ridiculous. The GOP radio network isn't mainstream. It isn't even close to mainstream. It is listened to by other GOPers. As is Rush, Hannity, etc...

 

CBS, NBC, ABC are mainstream. The Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, LA Times, Associate Press are mainstream. Thats what everyday people read and watch. The guy who has no real party affiliation and isn't really "into" politics isn't flipping to Fox News or listening to Rush. He is watching one of the national news shows at 5:30 or reading the paper and he is getting fed with the lefts view of things instead of a moderate view.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Controlled Chaos

[kapkomet]

Of course you have a different definition of mainstream.  That has been your argument for ever.  You compare Bill O'Rilley and Rush Limbaugh to MSM....which is totally ridiculous.  The GOP radio network isn't mainstream.  It isn't even close to mainstream.  It is listened to by other GOPers.  As is Rush, Hannity, etc...

 

CBS, NBC, ABC are mainstream.  The Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, LA Times, Associate Press are mainstream.  Thats what everyday people read and watch.  The guy who has no real party affiliation and isn't really "into" politics isn't flipping to Fox News or listening to Rush.  He is watching one of the national news shows at 5:30 or reading the paper and he is getting fed with the lefts view of things instead of a moderate view.

Don't confuse this conversation with any facts, Chaos.

[Texsox]

OK you win. Sorry to disagree.

[Rex Kickass]

Don't confuse this conversation with any facts, Chaos.

He hasn't yet. I'm still waiting for them.

 

The average newscast on CBS or ABC or NBC reaches 10 million people.

 

Rush Limbaugh reaches over 15 million a week.

 

Who's more mainstream?

[YASNY]

He hasn't yet. I'm still waiting for them.

 

The average newscast on CBS or ABC or NBC reaches 10 million people.

 

Rush Limbaugh reaches over 15 million a week.

 

Who's more mainstream?

 

15 million divided by 5 broadcasts = 3 million. Now, who's more mainstream? Geez, Mr. Twister, you compare an average newscast, that's singular, vs. a weeks worth of Limbaugh's broadcasts and try make a point like that. How many people in a week are reached by the network newscasts? 3 networks times 7 days a week times 10 million people ... of course, we are only talking about the nightly network news. We won't include viewers to the morning hours long news shows, such as the Today Show, or the magazine format news shows such as '60 minutes, or the Sunday discussion shows such as Meet the Press, etc.

 

Should we talk newspapers and magazines now?

[Texsox]

15 million divided by 5 broadcasts = 3 million.  Now, who's more mainstream? Geez, Mr. Twister,  you compare an average newscast, that's singular,  vs. a weeks worth of Limbaugh's broadcasts and try make a point like that.  How many people in a week are reached by the network newscasts?  3 networks times 7 days a week times 10 million people ... of course, we are only talking about the nightly network news.  We won't include viewers to the morning hours long news shows, such as the Today Show, or the magazine format news shows such as '60 minutes, or the Sunday discussion shows such as Meet the Press, etc.

 

Should we talk newspapers and magazines now?

 

Why is there such a media bias? Why hasn't the GOP been able to change this? And isn't it better for Republicans when their supporters will not believe any bad news because of media bias?

[YASNY]

Why is there such a media bias?  Why hasn't the GOP been able to change this? And isn't it better for Republicans when their supporters will not believe any bad news because of media bias?

 

[Texsox]

Just asking a couple questions. The GOP wouldn't change a thing. As long as any negative stories are explained by a media bias, they remain perfect in the eyes of their supporters. Brilliant. And with fringe talk shows like Rush catering to a narrow listener base and repeating it until those people believe it, they have the perfect PR campaign.

[Rex Kickass]

15 million divided by 5 broadcasts = 3 million.  Now, who's more mainstream? Geez, Mr. Twister,  you compare an average newscast, that's singular,  vs. a weeks worth of Limbaugh's broadcasts and try make a point like that.  How many people in a week are reached by the network newscasts?  3 networks times 7 days a week times 10 million people ... of course, we are only talking about the nightly network news.  We won't include viewers to the morning hours long news shows, such as the Today Show, or the magazine format news shows such as '60 minutes, or the Sunday discussion shows such as Meet the Press, etc.

 

Should we talk newspapers and magazines now?

 

Actually, that's not the way it works. That 15 million is not split up evenly, and I'd be willing to bet that the real number day to day is close to or equal to the amount of people who watch the news. It's just the way they estimate radio listenership, since the process of evaluating listenership is different.

 

And the 15 million is a conservative estimate.

[YASNY]

Actually, that's not the way it works. That 15 million is not split up evenly, and I'd be willing to bet that the real number day to day is close to or equal to the amount of people who watch the news. It's just the way they estimate radio listenership, since the process of evaluating listenership is different.

 

And the 15 million is a conservative estimate.

 

Don't bet it. Back it up. You made that totally ridiculous comparison of a week's worth of Limbaugh vs. a single evening network newscast and I pointed out what a farce that comparison was. You asked who was more mainstream. I gave you my answer.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Don't bet it.  Back it up.  You made that totally ridiculous comparison of a week's worth of Limbaugh vs. a single evening network newscast and I pointed out what a farce that comparison was.  You asked who was more mainstream.  I gave you my answer.

I'm thinking that since Rex is the radio guy he probably has an idea how the ratings books work even if you and I don't. I agree, YAS, on face it seems like an apples/oranges comparison. But I think when radio ratings talk about a listenership, that takes more into account than the ratings for a single television broadcast.

[Texsox]

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their liberal counterparts (none here so I can't name names), have a greater impact on people's opinions than the 10:00 news. And opinions and the subsequent voting is what counts in the political arena. The GOP wants to steer people away from news accounts and towards conservative talk shows that push the party agenda. That is good business for them.

 

Neither party wants people to make up their own opinions when they have prepackaged opinions there for the asking. They want us to just listen to them (dem or rep), agree that the the media lies, and they (the parties and politicians) will tell us the truth.

 

I here way more people talk about Rush's show than the newscast. That is influence.

[YASNY]

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their liberal counterparts (none here so I can't name names), have a greater impact on people's opinions than the 10:00 news. And opinions and the subsequent voting is what counts in the political arena. The GOP wants to steer people away from news accounts and towards conservative talk shows that push the party agenda. That is good business for them.

 

Neither party wants people to make up their own opinions when they have prepackaged opinions there for the asking. They want us to just listen to them (dem or rep), agree that the the media lies, and they (the parties and politicians) will tell us the truth.

 

I here way more people talk about Rush's show than the newscast. That is influence.

 

On what, exactly, do you base the first sentence of this post? That was stated as fact, not opinion.

[YASNY]

I'm thinking that since Rex is the radio guy he probably has an idea how the ratings books work even if you and I don't.  I agree, YAS, on face it seems like an apples/oranges comparison. But I think when radio ratings talk about a listenership, that takes more into account than the ratings for a single television broadcast.

 

I don't have a clue as to what you are trying say here.

[Controlled Chaos]

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their liberal counterparts (none here so I can't name names), have a greater impact on people's opinions than the 10:00 news. And opinions and the subsequent voting is what counts in the political arena. The GOP wants to steer people away from news accounts and towards conservative talk shows that push the party agenda. That is good business for them.

 

Neither party wants people to make up their own opinions when they have prepackaged opinions there for the asking. They want us to just listen to them (dem or rep), agree that the the media lies, and they (the parties and politicians) will tell us the truth.

 

I here way more people talk about Rush's show than the newscast. That is influence.

A person has to listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly for their views to impact their opinions. So who are their listeners?? The average joe's?? I don't think so. The people that listen to them are already aligned with their ideals. Just as the people that listen to Air America are already aligned with their ideals. I don't think the average joes are listening to political radio or watching political commentary on tv. They don't care that much about politics.

 

Of course the GOP wants to steer people towards conservative talk shows and the Dems want to steer people towards the liberal talk shows. FINE. Have fun with your campaign. What I want is the MSM to be fair. To tell both sides. If something good is happening report it. If something bad is happening report it. If the economy is doing good...report it that way. If it's doing bad...report it that way.

 

The conservatives can listen to their conservative commentators spew their commentary and the liberals can listen to their liberal commentators spew their commentary and the people in the middle, the average joes, the ones that are truely influenced in who they vote for can get unbiased coverage from the media.

It's not that much to ask for.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Controlled Chaos

[Texsox]

On what, exactly, do you base the first sentence of this post? That was stated as fact, not opinion.

 

A 45 second report will not make the same impact as a 3 hour discussion with a dozen people calling in and agree with and complimenting the host on how smart he is. Humans like to be part of a group, and talk radio is able to do that. Through the host, the listener can feel like he's "in on it" and part of the superior intellect. A talk show is designed to sway opinion. They bring in experts to amplify and "prove" how smart and correct the host is.

 

Don't you agree?

 

And to reply to another post, talk radio is able to bring followers tighter into the fold. Once the people are inside, they become more ardent followers. At first they may disagree with some points, but after hearing the points made over and over again, and by expert after expert, and hearing from all those listeners who agree, they start to agree also.

[Rex Kickass]

Don't bet it.  Back it up.  You made that totally ridiculous comparison of a week's worth of Limbaugh vs. a single evening network newscast and I pointed out what a farce that comparison was.  You asked who was more mainstream.  I gave you my answer.

 

OK, if you want to spend the quarter million dollars worth of money it would take for me to do that research, I'm right down with it. But because the numbers released publically, don't include anything but cumulative weekly audience and overall share of audience in a timeframe, I can't get specific.

 

What I can tell you is according to Rush Limbaugh's syndicator - during any given 15 minute time frame of his show, there are 1.2 million people listening in the top 25 markets in the US. That is not an accurate measure of nationwide listening.

 

And, beyond that, you're right. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

ABC, CBS, NBC is actual news.

The Rush Limbaugh show is a three hour festival of opinions and anger.

[YASNY]

A 45 second report will not make the same impact as a 3 hour discussion with a dozen people calling in and agree with and complimenting the host on how smart he is. Humans like to be part of a group, and talk radio is able to do that. Through the host, the listener can feel like he's "in on it" and part of the superior intellect. A talk show is designed to sway opinion. They bring in experts to amplify and "prove" how smart and correct the host is.

 

Don't you agree?

 

And to reply to another post, talk radio is able to bring followers tighter into the fold. Once the people are inside, they become more ardent followers. At first they may disagree with some points, but after hearing the points made over and over again, and by expert after expert, and hearing from all those listeners who agree, they start to agree also.

 

In the Central Time Zone, Rush is on from 11 to 2. People get bit's and pieces as they go to and from lunch. The nightly network news has a sit down pay attention audience for 30 minutes.

[YASNY]

OK, if you want to spend the quarter million dollars worth of money it would take for me to do that research, I'm right down with it. But because the numbers released publically, don't include anything but cumulative weekly audience and overall share of audience in a timeframe, I can't get specific.

 

What I can tell you is according to Rush Limbaugh's syndicator - during any given 15 minute time frame of his show, there are 1.2 million people listening in the top 25 markets in the US. That is not an accurate measure of nationwide listening.

 

And, beyond that, you're right. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

ABC, CBS, NBC is actual news.

The Rush Limbaugh show is a three hour festival of opinions and anger.

 

So why do you throw out Rush as an example of mainstream media?

[Rex Kickass]

I didn't. Someone else did.

 

I just followed the example someone else gave.

 

Of course, I could have said that NPR's Morning Edition reaches over 20 million listeners a week. More than any other radio show on the air today.

 

I think the whole issue is fruitless. I don't think that there's an overt or intentional bias in the MSM. If there was a liberal bias, the Swift Boat Vets would not have been taken seriously. If there was a liberal bias, the media would not have exploded the Monica Lewinsky story to the point where the media was affecting what Congress thought. If there was a liberal bias, the Abramoff story would have broke months - if not years earlier.

 

I don't think the media is liberal. I don't think the media is conservative. I think the media is opportunistic and lazy. Period.

[kapkomet]

I don't think the media is liberal. I don't think the media is conservative. I think the media is opportunistic and lazy. Period.

Now that's 100% true.

 

Re: Monica. It was the sex. Otherwise, that story had no legs. Pun not intended.

[Mplssoxfan]

I must admit, it is very convenient to be able to define the very group you are bashing. If I were to define "mainstream media", I would certainly include CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post (among other "liberal" sources) in the list. I would also include Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh (among other "conservative" sources). I think you have to include Rush because of his vast listener base. Perhaps I'm wrong there. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Or is "mainstream" just some kind of code for "liberal"?

[kapkomet]

I must admit, it is very convenient to be able to define the very group you are bashing.  If I were to define "mainstream media", I would certainly include CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post (among other "liberal" sources) in the list.  I would also include Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh (among other "conservative" sources).  I think you have to include Rush because of his vast listener base.  Perhaps I'm wrong there.  Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Or is "mainstream" just some kind of code for "liberal"?

IMO, it's my opinion that you cannot simply equate the two.

 

Having said that, the tendencies are certainly there of the media streams you speak of.