Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4929)	7/2/2001 11:00:14 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 6089

I don't know how much influence Murdoch has on Fox, but he's been pernicious in the UK. Sky News is reasonably accurate (I don't watch the 'analysis', though). Sky Sports has bid up the prices of most sporting events, aided by the fact that News Corp avoids - sorry, evades - virtually all tax in every country, despite being highly profitable: and is seriously damaging proper competition by reinforcing the richest (most marketable) teams. The rest of Sky tends to be mindless wallpaper TV, at best. Meanwhile he's dragged the Times downhill, and the tabloids have become vile morasses of knee-jerk bigotry, sensationalism and 'celebrity' piffle. If he's allied with the right wing, it's purely because he sees it as more likely to make News Corp concessions and let him get away with tax dodging while he tries to ruin the competition and monopolise one media channel after another. Although there does seem an attraction to the more reactionary forms of primitivism, for example the implicit models for women of subservient housewife or slut, and the rampant xenophobia which the Sun and NotW in particular promote. Not that I regard Murdoch as the absolute dregs of humanity, a loathsome, corrupt, pandering, avaricious egomaniac who deserves to be publicly impaled, stoned nearly to death and then have his entrails burnt over a pile of the filth he mongers... absolutely not. <warning, one sentence in the above may not be strictly true> </rant>

To: Lane3 who wrote (4929)	7/2/2001 1:36:07 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

Thank you so much, Karen. Your conclusion here: It looks to me like they intentionally lean to the right to the extent that they perceive the other networks lean to the left so that the net result is balanced. is just what I was thinking they meant by "fair and balanced". For some reason, this seeming post hoc "balancing" is disturbing to me. I'd feel better about any bias if it were intrinsic to the production. I'm trying to figure out why this is. Perhaps because a reactionary bias can more easily be dismissed as soul-less. I'm interested in what you said here: the Republican bias is more conspicuous to me than the conservative bias, to the extent that those aren't the same thing. How do you tease out for yourself "conservatism" versus "Republicanism"? I find this enormously difficult, but you have a clearer eye than I on this.