Many conservatives, including myself, have long subscribed to the belief that the mainstream and highly liberal media has been a silent but effective ally for Democrats. In recent years, however, the liberal media seems to have been doing as much harm to the Democratic Party as good.
Personally, I think this negative cycle started in 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton. The media feeding frenzy began during the campaign with allegations, which later proved true, of a long-standing extra-marital relationship between Gennifer Flowers and Clinton. Clinton denied the claim and dodged the issue as much as possible, but Americans, who have long loved a good scandal, rewarded the media's focus on this issue with increased viewership and readership.
Lets face it, Bill Clinton's election as President was a godsend to mainstream media in this country. Blame Clinton's troubles on the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" if you will, but, one way or another, the liberal media loved his outrageous behavior. Why? Because Americans tuned in en masse to read of his latest troubles. Who knows, perhaps the massive growth of Internet sites was partly due to the seemingly insatiable appetite of readers for more political dirt.
For the mainstream media, President Clinton was both ammunition as well as an icon. On the one hand, he was always getting into some kind of trouble, while; on the other hand, he reflected the liberal values that fellow liberals in the media sought to promote. So, as a result, these media liberals developed the interesting habit of patting the President on the back with one hand while slapping him in the face with the other.
Personally, I knew that, if George Bush won the 2000 election, the liberal media was going to hit hard times. President Bush was not going to produce the kind of scandals that plagued his predecessor. When that happens, the only thing left to do, then, is to make it up! And that is exactly what they have done.
Here's the problem with that strategy... Because the Internet is such a powerful communications tool, ultra-liberal voices in the Democratic Party have gained an undue influence over the party as a whole. Most liberals in the media, as well as DNC analysts will openly admit they do not know how large the “Angry Left” of their base actually is. What they do know, however, is that their candidate, Howard Dean, is the front-runner of the party and may just be a train wreck waiting to happen should he win the nomination.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - BrownBoognish
Please read Al Franken's new book, as it dispels the notion of a liberal media. For a more in depth look at the propaganda spread by the media, read Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky, which is the best book i have read on the media.
2 - David Flanagan
I've read quite a few different books and articles on the topic and I think the case FOR media bias is far stronger. The sneaky trick that people use to attempt to disprove media bias is to point out that news outlets report certain things at certain times and give coverage to various candidates, but there are two types of sins in this world; the sin of commission and the sin of omission.
I think what the liberal media has done for years is omitting certain pieces of information regarding a story, or a candidate, or an issue. Instead, they emphasize the viewpoints they subscribe to and marginalize the ones they do not. An example that Bernard Goldberg used in his book "Bias" is when he was working for 20/20 and another reporter produced an incredibly one-sided story related to the flat tax proposed by a candidate.
First of all, they only interviewed economists who disagreed with the flat tax and never included a single opposing viewpoint, though, there are many renowned economists who do support the concept of a flat tax. Secondly, the reporter used very deragatory language regarding proponents of the flat tax, making it sound as if only crackpots would take this idea seriously. Bernie Goldberg was shocked that not only did the network consider the piece to be a good one, no one even saw the bias they were injecting into their reporting.
And that, of course, is the final issue to be dealt with; the fact that a lot of liberals in the media believe they are making every effort to be unbiased, but are clueless as to how biased they really are. I remember the day after Saddam Hussein was caught by the military. Katie Couric wore black and was looking rather sullen as she asked one guest on the show, "does the capture of Saddam Hussein really mean anything at all?" Or something to that effect. She knew how much Hussein's capture was going to help the President and she did not like it one bit.
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. Suffice it to say, there is no such thing as an unbiased media. Not NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News, or anyone else. The best you can do is report all the facts and let people decide, which is exactly what most networks DON'T do. Yes, Fox News has some commentators who express a bias, but they also have opposing viewpoints on every show to give the other side of the story. I trust that far more than someone who has chosen to "filter" the news for me on the assumption that they know better than I what details I should know and which ones I should not.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
3 - Doc
I guess that's why right wingers like yourself have no forums for your shrill commentary on the so called liberal press? Whoops! And who owns all these media outlets? Right wingers. Let's talk about the right wing control of the media from Rupert down. No?
Please, I know you're reading from the GOP talking points memos (with such poll tested chestnuts such as the words "angry", "liberal media", "Bush wants to run against Dean", "criticizing the president is anti-american" etc.). That kind of attack has already cowed the meekest of the centrists (like the Washington Post).
Am I angry? Damn right and I know a lot more people that aren't liberal are too at the way the economy has been handled. The congress has been gerrymandered into senesence but I think Bush will *again* get fewer votes than his oppenent in 2004. This time the electoral votes will follow that. He'll be another one-termer like poppy.
Bring back the estate tax, bring back the capital gains tax, penalize companies that move off shore. I think Americans are realizing that people like Paris Hilton don't quite deserve to inherit all $360 million bucks tax free (so we can subsidize her hubris).
I know that the GOP tries to spin all this as "good" for the middle class (who get a much greater tax increase as a result from property/school taxes) but it ain't selling Sally.
4 - debbie
"And who owns all these media outlets?"
It doesn't make any difference who owns them, they do not read every commentary, or every new story that their paper prints. Most owners own more than 1 paper, they wouldn't have time to read everything and give their 'personal' ok. I don't care who owns the media, I care about how it is presented by the TV anchors, how the story is written by the reporter, how the article is edited and whether both sides are presented by the story. Most of the time, it is not. It makes sense if you think about it, who ever writes the story has a certain viewpoint. Everything that he sees is through this viewpoint. His viewpoint is what creates the questions that he wants to ask, it also dictates how the answers are preceived.
"Am I angry? Damn right..."
That much is obvious... You need to take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your lips, and relax.
"Bring back the estate tax, bring back the capital gains tax, penalize companies that move off shore."
The estate tax never left, it was changed. Instead of being able to leave a total of $675000 before being taxed the amount was raised to $1 Million. This amount will be slowly increased to $3.5 Million by 2009.
The top tax rate will decrease from 55% to 45% through 2007-2099.
Beginning in 2002--2004, the state death tax credit is reduced 25% each year and repealed in 2005. It is replaced by an estate tax deduction.
The Capital Gains Tax is also still there, but it has been reduced. The lower income would only pay 7.5%, middle income would only pay 14% and upper income would only pay 19.8%. Taxpayers would be able to make an adjustment for inflation on all gains from certain capital gains, like stocks.
The Capital Gains tax from the sale of your residence is a little different. In 1997 Clinton signed a bill into law that allows for the following:
tax bill grants married couples up to a $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for the sale of a principal residence where the owner has resided two of the last five years. Singles enjoy a $250,000 exclusion. Any profits in excess of the caps will be taxed at the new lower capital gains tax rate.
"I think Americans are realizing that people like Paris Hilton don't quite deserve to inherit all $360 million bucks tax free (so we can subsidize her hubris)."
Well first, Paris wouldn't inherit all $360 Million tax free. But you said that 'Americans' are realizing... I think that it should actually read 'Socialist and Communists' are realizing that people like Paris Hilton don't deserve to inherit....
My first point is - it isn't a question of whether Paris deserves to inherit, it is a question of whether the forefathers that earned the money should be able to pass it down to heirs.
I'm not debating that Paris comes off as a spoiled, self-absorbed, ditzy airhead. But that shouldn't make the least amount of difference.
When I die, I certainly think that whatever I own should be able to be passed down to my children. I have already paid taxes on everything I have bought and every penny I have earned. Why should the government be able to take 1/2 of what I have after I die?
"I know that the GOP tries to spin all this as "good" for the middle class (who get a much greater tax increase as a result from property/school taxes) but it ain't selling Sally."
The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
--President John F. Kennedy, 1963
It isn't just the GOP that believes that cutting the Capital Gains Taxes helps everybody.
5 - David Flanagan
Debbie:
Wow! Good post and very good information for me to keep on file. Would you do my taxes this year? ;-)
Thanks again for your excellent factual response to our emotional Dean supporter. I think if Dean wins the Democratic primary and tries to go into debates with the President bragging about his intention to eliminate all the tax relief and even, from what I've read, raise additional taxes, he's going to find out just how many Americans disagree with him.
My response to you today Doc is the same as it was yesterday and the day before, and the day before, to others who say the same thing... First lets see the federal government learn to spend the money it ALREADY has responsibly, THEN we'll see about giving them more. Its something a parent forced to live in the real world on a real budget might say to a child asking for more money to buy candy after already having wastefully spent their regular allowance.
Thanks
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
6 - JR
"When I die, I certainly think that whatever I own should be able to be passed down to my children. I have already paid taxes on everything I have bought and every penny I have earned. Why should the government be able to take 1/2 of what I have after I die?"
Gee, let's just get rid of the government altogether and see if you have anything to pass down to your children. Or even whether you still have children.
It believe it benefits society to let people pass wealth on to their children, up to a point. But what good does it do anybody else if $360 million gets passed from a person who may have earned it to their child who did nothing more than get born? I'm not even sure it does the child any good, although that's not my concern.
The extremely wealthy benefit most from economic stability, national defense and law enforcement; let them pay more for it. Who cares how many times they're taxed?
7 - debbie
JR,
You sound like the poster child for 'penis envy'.
"It believe it benefits society to let people pass wealth on to their children, up to a point. But what good does it do anybody else if $360 million gets passed from a person who may have earned it to their child who did nothing more than get born?"
Out of that $360 million (if Paris' parents live to 2009) she will inherit $199 Million. That is still $161 Million to the Government. That is plenty. None of our children do nothing more than get born into families when their inherit.
Like I said before, they will still be taxed on everything except the same exemption that we get. I don't understand the 'rage' against wealthy people. I don't really worry about what other people have...
There are a lot of things in this world that I would like to have that I know that I will probably never get. I still wake up a happy person, it gives me something to work towards. I have enough blessings in my life that I don't stay awake at night cursing how unfair life is.
You are missing the point. Capital gains taxes means less money that is invested in businesses that drive our economy. When there are less investments, there are less jobs, when there are less jobs who is it that gets hurt the worst? The middle income and lower income people.
8 - debbie
"The extremely wealthy benefit most from economic stability, national defense and law enforcement; let them pay more for it. Who cares how many times they're taxed?"
Since taxes are figured up on a percentage they do pay more for it than you do. Even if the percentage amount was the same, they would still pay more for it than you do. I'm not argueing that they should be exempt from taxes, but I don't think that people should be punished for making good decisions in their life either
9 - David Flanagan
"The extremely wealthy benefit most from economic stability, national defense and law enforcement; let them pay more for it. Who cares how many times they're taxed?"
JR,
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of this thing called "the American Dream," but its this concept which has existed as part of the American philosophy for a very long time. The dream is that you can come to this country with little or nothing, and even though you may have to work very hard to get by, you and your children can quickly enjoy the fruits of your own labor without heavy handed government interfering too much.
The fact is, if you look at the majority of those in this country who are considered "wealthy," you'll find that most of them earned their wealth through hard work and innovation rather than through inheritance. In this country, parents dream of earning their way and of giving their children a chance to do even better than they. And if their children work hard and dedicate themselves, its very likely that they will do just that.
But it sounds to me as if you would treat the hard-working innovaters in this country -- who create wealth and, by so doing, create jobs for others as well -- as donkeys. You want to put an unfair yoke on the wealthy so that you don't have to work quite so hard, and that is what I find objectionable.
By the way, the system you propose has already been tried in places like the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Cuba, and you can see the results for yourself.
Which country would you rather live in JR?
As for your argument regarding the ones who benefit the most from economic stability, national defense, etc.; we all benefit from this, but I would argue that the poor benefit the most, the middle class next and the wealthy the least. Why would I argue this? Because the very wealthy in this nation can afford more economic instability than the rest of us. If the economy crashes tomorrow and I lose my job, I have enough money saved to stay in my home for a fixed period of time, someone with millions to burn can stay in their home likely forever, riding out any period of instability.
If the economy collapses, then services for the poor and my ability to donate to those services is impaired, and the poor suffer even more than I. Which is why it worries me that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay over 96% of all taxes. If there ever were a true Depression-like economic collapse and many of the wealthy lost part or all of their wealth, the federal government would collapse too under the weight of its own debt because their primary tax base would dry up like grass in the desert.
So, really, your argument is not at all based in fact, and your callous attitude towards what I like to call, the "working wealthy," that is, the people who have EARNED their money, is worse than dangerous, its suicidal. And suicidal might sound like a harsh word to any number of people, but if you lean totally on the wealthy for your tax base, then its only a matter of time before something bad happens and that tax base collapses and, with it, the government with all its services.
By the way, everyone knows that Dean plans to raise taxes on everyone, not just the wealthy. To quote Stephen Moore from his article on OpinionJournal.com: "The Dean plan, our ad notes, would raise taxes by $2,472 a year on a typical middle-income family of four... This comes out to a Dean tax of about $15,440 for every family of four in the U.S. over the next decade."
Here's another interesting statistic:
"Let's look at real-life examples of what the Dean tax might mean for you. Under current law, a married couple with one child and a $40,000-a-year income pays income taxes of $1,503. Under the Dean tax, that family would pay $2,935--or just about double. For a family with two kids and an income of $80,000 a year, the extra Dean tax costs $1,780 a year. What Mr. Dean has never had to answer to in the Democratic primary, perhaps because the other candidates are too embarrassed to ask, is how a presidential contender whose campaign is dedicated to relieving the economic squeeze on working class families, believes that socking these folks with a $1,400- to $1,800-a-year tax hike will make their financial situation less stressful."
All of this, by the way, can be found at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004500.
Nuff said.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
10 - JR
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of this thing called "the American Dream," but its this concept which has existed as part of the American philosophy for a very long time.
A "very long time"? Like, maybe even as far back as three years ago, before the Bush tax cuts that Dean wants to so recklessly roll back?...
But it sounds to me as if you would treat the hard-working innovaters in this country -- who create wealth and, by so doing, create jobs for others as well -- as donkeys. You want to put an unfair yoke on the wealthy so that you don't have to work quite so hard, and that is what I find objectionable.
Hold on here, I'm the one whose working, and occasionally even innovating, not Paris Hilton. If you can't get that much straight, then I'm not particularly concerned what you find objectionable.
By the way, the system you propose has already been tried in places like the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Cuba, and you can see the results for yourself.
Uh-huh. And nowhere else, right? No other country has ever had any higher taxes than the U.S. has today.
Which country would you rather live in JR?
Those are the only choices, eh? Bush's America, or failed totalitarian states. It's all so simple the way you describe it.
11 - Mark Saleski
Those are the only choices, eh? Bush's America, or failed totalitarian states. It's all so simple the way you describe it.
exactly! you're either with us...or you're against us.
;-)
12 - David Flanagan
Hold on here, I'm the one whose working, and occasionally even innovating, not Paris Hilton. If you can't get that much straight, then I'm not particularly concerned what you find objectionable.
So, Paris Hilton is the only one you want to talk about? What about those I mentioned, the working wealthy who work just as hard as anyone in this country and earned their wealth by the sweat of their brow?
I think what is so funny about your insistence on discussing the Paris Hilton's of the world is the fact that, after someone does inherit a great amount of wealth, they are very likely going to pay less in taxes than those who are actively working and accumulating wealth. But should we yoke these hard-working people like donkeys just so that some in this country can work less? No way!
What you propose is socialism, what I propose is freedom. I'm all for fair and responsible taxation, but is there anyone here who has yet posted, or perhaps not yet posted, that would like to claim that our federal, state, and local governments spend our tax dollars responsibly?
Anyone? I think I hear crickets chirping.
So, as I said before, when the federal government learns to spend what is has now responsibly, then perhaps I'll be okay with them asking for more. Even that is a big maybe. After all, the money I'm saving now from tax relief efforts make more of a difference for me than any amount of increased taxation followed by increased wasteful government spending.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
13 - Mark Saleski
...increased wasteful government spending...
this is a big part of the problem. what you consider wasteful, others may not.
i, for instance, think that a large portion of the 'defense' budget does not make us any safer at all, and does nothing but make reps and senators look good by creating jobs in their districts.
is this likely to change? nope.
is there waste in the budget? certainly.
the question remains though, how do we go about fixing the problem.
sitting around calling each other names doesn't do much good.
14 - JR
I think what is so funny about your insistence on discussing the Paris Hilton's of the world is the fact that, after someone does inherit a great amount of wealth, they are very likely going to pay less in taxes than those who are actively working and accumulating wealth.
Wasn't that my point?
But should we yoke these hard-working people like donkeys just so that some in this country can work less? No way!
I agree. Let's keep the inheritance tax.
15 - JR
An example of wasteful government spending?
The Army Corps of Engineers.
16 - David Flanagan
i, for instance, think that a large portion of the 'defense' budget does not make us any safer at all, and does nothing but make reps and senators look good by creating jobs in their districts.
I agree, the defense budget has TONS of pork built-in; it also has TONS of useful expenditures that are made each year. We need to weed out the pork and keep the rest. I think we could look at nearly every part of the federal budget and do the same and save tens of billions every year.
the question remains though, how do we go about fixing the problem.
I can tell you one solution that will never work... raising taxes! ;-)
And in regards to what I'm saying about all the new taxes that Dean is proposing, most of the taxes that he wants to bring back and increase are those that would punish the working wealthy, not those who inherit. Even then, I still support Paris Hilton's right to inherit that which her family has willed to her. Curtailing the ability of families to pass on what they've worked so hard to gain curtails the American dream.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
17 - jadester
don't forget, the media are (by their nature) a fickle group of companies. They give people whatever is currently selling the best, at least in their view, and change as they see fit - maybe the newspapers here in britain are worse for it than in the us, but for example, up until about the middle of Major's government most papers had a right-leaning (although i hasten to point out not entirely one-sided) flavour
when Blair got into power they had a left-leaning flavour. Currently, it's pretty much one-then-the-other as various stuff happens that shows the current government as being "evil" one day and "doing a fine job" the next.
OK, i've exaggerated and of course simplified it, but just to make my point. The various media outlets rarely hold onto one fixed side of politics for very long; when they do, they become low-circulation specialist media publications (whether on paper or TV) with low audiences.