media bias

Do people on the left ignore the left wing bias or simply think it is not true?

Do the following two links bother anyone on the left?


I am also curious will anyone on the left pay attention to whatever the findings are in James O’Keefe’s new expose?

The media reflects societal norms. It’s centrist.

Do you think this statement is centrist? BRZEZINSKI: ‘OUR JOB’ IS TO CONTROL ‘EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE THINK’

In the 1960s, there were hundreds of locally owned, daily newspapers, TV and radio stations. Of course there was bias, but the many biases tended to even out. You had liberals and conservatives. There were regional variations, multiple ****different ****influences. Most newspapers or TV stations were owned by a family, and this family was different from that family. It was not perfect - obviously some people were underrepresented - but there was far more diversity of input, of views.

As a result of closings, mergers, etc, there now are a few giant corporations that control vast empires of media. They are generally concentrated in NY City and Los Angeles. For the most part, they seem to have identical views - pro liberal, pro secular. If you pick up a paper in California and compare it to a paper in New England, it will likely even have the same format, same priorities, with little variation besides traffic deaths and weather.

this should be good tv viewing!

His statement was actually: “Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he [Trump] is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”

Which was probably just poor phrasing and not any type of freudian slip indicating some higher agenda. Rather than letting the government run the news with fake propaganda stories and a demonization of free press like authoritarian states do (North Korea, China, Russia), the free press, all wings of it, should be reporting on the truth of the matter, what’s relevant, even if it’s not favorable to the politicians in charge.

But, as a concession, we’re screwed either way, between outright lies and alternative facts by the government and multinational corporations on the other.

Brezezinski is not the authority on what the media does. He is is just expressing his opinion on what he might** like** the media to do.

This makes a larger point - the media isn’t a monolith.

Are you curious why his “slip” was not reported on more?

Compare what he said to what the Utah county vice chairman said.

Which of the 2 have more voice?

My wife works for a major media corporation in DC and, no, it is not.

She’s the only conservative, “right leaning” and pro-life person she knows working there. Everyone around her automatically assumes she’s a left leaning person (like them) simply because she’s a young woman working there. It most certainly feeds into coverage and how things have been written.

Pretty much everything people on the right think about media bias and what front line media folks think about them is true.

ETA: She did say that the day after the election was the most hilarious day in her career. It was like there was a building wide all day funeral.

It is totally left wing. No question about it.

Agreed on fewer corporations owning more media, but those corporations have shareholders and as such are quite conservative - not liberal - including the Washington Times, which is owned by non-orthodox quasi-religion.

Most of America isn’t pro-life. Most of America isn’t right leaning. The news reflects this.

Most of the media is a monolith. Only six global corporations control most of the media. As a media analyst, it is part of my job to watch the media daily. And yes, in the past, there were a lot more independent media outlets, including magazines, where things tended to balance out. There used to be rules that any media company could only own a certain amount of print media, radio and TV stations. As the decades passed, those rules virtually disappeared.

Now, go to any news outlet. Any, and you will see a definite rerun using slightly different words and images, of the exact same messages. “This is important,” “this is not,” this is good," this is bad," “be afraid of this.” And so on. It’s pretty much cut and paste aside from local news and weather.

And yes, it’s true. The media has become the Ministry of Propaganda. Even local newspapers are increasingly being bought out and the employees replaced by outsiders. The minority of other outlets for good, useful media is a minority. And I find that to get a bigger picture of what’s going on in the world, I have to go to highly specialized sites. That has shown me that it’s crystal clear: the average person is not getting even a fraction of the whole picture.

The Left, for lack of a better term, has taken over most media. Those who take it in as is are led to believe a lot of propaganda and outright distortions of reality. There’s a term for it - Perception Management. The way you and I view the world.

In the early 2000s, veteran news anchor, Walter Cronkite, sat down with Larry King on TV. I watched him him decry what he called “the tabloidization of the media.” Mr. Cronkite was once rightly called “the most trusted man in America.” When I watched him on the news, I knew I was getting news. Not celebrity nonsense. News.

Now, at best, it’s “infotainment,” followed by sports and weather.


I suppose it is not safe to make assumptions about such things in today’s world but I was under the impression that Brzezinski is a woman…?

There is no evidence of that.


Mika Brzezinski is a female, but nobody watches her MSNBC show so, perhaps, people can be excused for not knowing that.

Only in its own mind. One of the chief victories of the liberal media is that it has succeeded in defining where the supposed “center” is.

“That Hideous Strength” is a 1945 novel by CS Lewis, projected as taking place in the near future. The hero is assigned to write news articles (not yet explicitly recognized as propaganda) with a certain slant to condition people to accept certain social changes. These would be written for different audiences. The hero at first anticipated that the educated classes, those with more schooling, professional positions, read the British equivalent of the NY Times, would be more difficult to persuade.

Actually he found the opposite. The educated, professional classes were the most easily persuaded, most ready to swallow his manipulation. The working classes, who only read the newspaper for the football scores and maybe some human interest stories, were most stubborn, resistant.

I found the same in my social services career. Those with Masters degrees were most ready to swallow ******any ******doctrines taught by the media. The most common sense, most resistant to nonsense, were secretaries, who got as far as high school. The Bachelor degree workers could go either way.

I encourage reading this book, along with his “The Abolition of Man”, a non fiction book from WW II era covering the same material. Essentially he describes what happens with the fading of “The Natural Law” and how this was facilitated through communication.

This fits exactly with what we saw in the election, doesn’t it? People who finished college, and/or had an advanced degree mostly were in favor of one candidate. Those who had not were in favor of the other. With the media definitely leftist it all makes sense.

You’d think that the more educated would see through it, but they didn’t.

It’s fascinating and scary.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit