Public broadcaster and liberal bias?

[danyboy27]

Its something i often hear from right-winger from both america and canada, that public broadcaster are naturally biaised toward a more leftist stance.

Personally, i just dont see any left leaning movement in public radio and tv stations.

[Revolution starts with U]

By "left wing" they mean democrats. Of course it's still false, and no empirical evidence supports it. But whatever.
The whole thing is based off this study that showed somewhere around 56% of broadcasters supported some leftist issues in the 90s. But seriously, that says nothing of editors, producers, and the big wigs up top.
It's not suprising that a large amount of reporters/broadcasters would be somewhat more liberal... I mean, they're educated.
Im sorry for right wingers that the truth has a leftist bias but.... get over it.

[danyboy27]

One verry strange phenomenon In Canada is the striking differences between the english and french version of the public broadcasting.

For some reason, the french speaking national radio seem to be dirrected at bourgeois intellectuals while the english national radio seem to be dirrected at a much broader audience.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, just ask for evidence ... Its far to the right of public opinion.

[gorillafuck]

The media as a whole favors democrats when it becomes obvious that republicans are fucking people over and it favors the republicans when it becomes obvious that democrats are fucking people over.

[Viet Minh]

It depends how far right or left you are I suppose. Remember these are the idiots that think that the democrats health reforms = communism :lol:

[eric922]

It depends how far right or left you are I suppose. Remember these are the idiots that think that the democrats health reforms = communism :lol: Oh God don't get me started on that health reform bill. I don't know what pisses me off more? The fact that Obama didn't even try for single-payer or the fact that teabagging idiots all it communism.

[RGacky3]

I don't really care what the teabagging idiots believe, they are a small part of the population and they truely are idiots, I disagree with Chomsky (I think the only time this has happened) about the tea-baggers, that they should somehow be a demographic for the left, they are not average Americans, they are racist, generally middle glass, bitter and unbareably stupid, I know people say "oh they are frusturated and the right gives them easy answers", yeah, but if you believe those answers you are stupid, it does'nt take half a brain to understand the right wing makes no sense.

I kind of knew from the Begining Obama would'nt do anything, but not even fighting for a public option? That was blatent, after that nothing shocked me, I mean the story that they gave the public option away when they absolutely could have had it, (the right COULD"NT have stopped them), is just depressing.

[T-Paine]

Government-run media always has the potential to reflect what the current government wants you to hear, which is why I am personally against it. As for the claims of liberal or leftist bias, I don't see that as unfounded even though they claim too much. Republicans are always the ones shouting that NPR should be de-funded. So why would republicans work in that organization? Especially when they probably make a lot more money working for FOX news? Those who care more about public programs and less about their paycheck would more likely work for NPR. So that's where the perception of bias comes from, even if it's not necessarily expressed through NPR or PBS.

[HEAD ICE]

In my opinion, there is a general liberal bias to the media in the US. However, the ideology of the media corresponds to the certain factional interests of the bourgeoisie who represent it. Anybody who denies that in 2007 and 2008 that the media was lockstep behind Barack Obama and everything about him to almost the point of worship is deluded. Liberalism does not equal leftism, so when the whole media apparatus was pushing going to war with Iraq I don't think it makes it "less liberal" or "more conservative."

[Agent Ducky]

To them, anything to the left of Fox News has a liberal bias. And Fox News is "fair and balanced." what a joke.

[Kiev Communard]

There is a widespread liberal bias in the U.S. media - a bias towards economic liberalism.

[GPDP]

There is a widespread liberal bias in the U.S. media - a bias towards economic liberalism.

Toward liberalism, period.

There are left and right wings to liberalism, but in the end, it's all still liberalism i.e. toward bourgeois capitalist ideology.

[Che a chara]

aye it's all fucking corporatist no matter what it is wrapped up in or what spin is put on it. the same interests are being served. all the investors in these outlets have similar aims--profit, power, influence and more profit.

Fox portrays certain media outlets as "left-wing extremist" or "marxist socialist" citing only one or two anti-capitalists as proof of the conspiracy to back up their claims.

But i have noticed as of late a lot more moderate socialist reporting in liberal broadcasting, partly due probably to combat the rising right-wing christian fundamentalism and the Tea Party.

[RGacky3]

Toward liberalism, period.

There are left and right wings to liberalism, but in the end, it's all still liberalism i.e. toward bourgeois capitalist ideology.

What the hell does liberalism mean?


Government-run media always has the potential to reflect what the current government wants you to hear, which is why I am personally against it.

Empirically not the case, look how critical BBC is of the government, public media is a public service, like police or a fire station, the fire station does'nt stop putting out republican fires when a democrat is mayor.

Those public services are protected against the politics of the government.

Not so with corporate media, there is no public accountability there.


Liberalism does not equal leftism, so when the whole media apparatus was pushing going to war with Iraq I don't think it makes it "less liberal" or "more conservative."

Liberalism means different things different places to different poeple, and is generally used by Leninist to try and smear actual socialists that believe in democracy and human rights.

[GPDP]

What the hell does liberalism mean?

Didn't I just say what it was? Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, just as socialism is the ideology of the working class. A liberal is someone who supports the capitalist system, little more.

I know it's kind of a broad definition compared with the more popular "progressive" definition, but I believe ideologies, if they are to make sense as sets of ideas and principles, should be a little more defined in their "boundaries" relative to and BETWEEN other competing ideologies, with room for variation WITHIN those ideologies. So in that sense, there are "wings" to liberalism, from the most progressive (social-dems) to the most reactionary (neocons), much like the many wings of socialism (MLs, trots, anarchists, left-coms, etc.)

The reason, then, why I say all media is liberal in nature is because in truth, they all seek to preserve the capitalist status quo in one way or another, whether through social-democratic reform or by demonization of immigrants. Though there is indeed a wide gulf between the "liberals" and the "conservatives," are they not commonly for the private ownership of capital, the free market, corporate supremacy, and the legitimacy of the bourgeois state, and opposed to those who seek to challenge and undermine those very concepts (i.e. socialists)?

[RGacky3]

Didn't I just say what it was? Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, just as socialism is the ideology of the working class. A liberal is someone who supports the capitalist system, little more.


Really? Thats what it means? So George Bush was a Liberal? So was Hitler? So was Ronald Regan?

Yout just making shit up.


I know it's kind of a broad definition compared with the more popular "progressive" definition, but I believe ideologies, if they are to make sense as sets of ideas and principles, should be a little more defined in their "boundaries" relative to and BETWEEN other competing ideologies, with room for variation WITHIN those ideologies. So in that sense, there are "wings" to liberalism, from the most progressive (social-dems) to the most reactionary (neocons), much like the many wings of socialism (MLs, trots, anarchists, left-coms, etc.)


Thats not liberalism, thats being Capitalist, also socialism was built out of what is called classicle liberalism. Liberalism means different things in the US and Europe, but no where does it simply mean "pro-Capitalist" thats just you making up definitions so you can call people "liberal."


The reason, then, why I say all media is liberal in nature is because in truth, they all seek to preserve the capitalist status quo in one way or another, whether through social-democratic reform or by demonization of immigrants. Though there is indeed a wide gulf between the "liberals" and the "conservatives," are they not commonly for the private ownership of capital, the free market, corporate supremacy, and the legitimacy of the bourgeois state, and opposed to those who seek to challenge and undermine those very concepts (i.e. socialists)?

yeah, but your just making up the definition of liberalism to fit your narrative.

[danyboy27]

CBC is state-run and is somehow critical of the canadian governement.

RIght now they are interviewving a general critical to the current action in libya right now.

earlier today the joke of the day was: Canada is sending 6 planes in libya, they will took part in an operation called: justify the purchase of more fighter jet.

[Baseball]

Liberalism means different things in the US and Europe, but no where does it simply mean "pro-Capitalist" thats just you making up definitions so you can call people "liberal."


Liberalism, in the European usage of the word, as always supported the expansion of freedom and liberty.

As a result, liberalism has tended to support capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Liberalism, in the European usage of the word, as always supported the expansion of freedom and liberty.

As a result, liberalism has tended to support capitalism.

So does libertarianism, although in europe they are all anti-captialist, your playing semantics.

[hatzel]

As a result, liberalism has tended to support capitalism.

But what's the name of that fallacy where we say 'all dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs' and then we end up looking like idiots, like GPDP, with a terribly lacklustre definition of liberalism? I would suggest he read a bit of Locke, Rousseau, Mill, whoever...perhaps even Carl Schmitt, for example, to get an anti-liberalist line which is actually based on liberalism, rather than vague generalisations...

[RadioRaheem84]

It's not a vague generalization, Rabbi. Classical Liberalism of the Locke, Mill, variety is still very pro-free market and elitist in scope but liberals of today still share those basic notions too.

Nothing much has changed except that modern liberalism since the progressive era has included some social measures which favor 'class harmony' type of rhetoric.

The media is liberal-ish in that it represents the interests of the bourgoise and capitalism. The right wing complain all the time because they want to see a lock step press that is unquestionable in it's loyalty to the country and free enterprise. They take it as a given that the press should be airing nothing but nationalist shit day in and day out, and anything slightly critical is perceived as "left wing" bias.

There is a great book out there by a Marxist that examines the left and right political spectrum from two really influential people; John Rawls and a Libertarian (forgot his name). Anyways, the analysis is pretty spot on in that both the liberal and the libertarian (or conservative) basically have the same agenda in mind when it comes to governance and their presupposed conclusions about society. They both stem from the classical liberal perspective.

Point is, no one in here is just vaguely mis-characterizing liberals and I wish people on revleft would stop coming to their defense as if they're unjustly maligned. Liberalism is not a radical left ideology and the US generally has a "right" and "left wing" base of the same ideology; liberalism.

[RGacky3]

The media is liberal-ish in that it represents the interests of the bourgoise and capitalism.

The defining quality of liberalism is not supporting Capitalism or the bourgeoise, so does conservatives, also not all liberals are pro-capitalist/

[Baseball]

The defining quality of liberalism is not supporting Capitalism or the bourgeoise, so does conservatives, also not all liberals are pro-capitalist/

The defining quality is support for freedom and liberty. Which is why liberals tend to support capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

The defining quality of liberalism is not supporting Capitalism or the bourgeoise, so does conservatives, also not all liberals are pro-capitalist/

Liberals of the American variety support capitalism with minor tweeks to fix the "externalities".

Conservatives are classical liberal types that believe in the power of unrestrained free markets to fix all "externalities".

Liberal /= left. Not by a long shot.

Liberals are capitalists, 'nuff said. At the establishment liberals are very much in favor of free enterprise.

If you're talking about base liberals and progressives, I can kind of see where you are going with your statements but it all basically comes down to in the amount of reform and regulation they want to place on the established order. Something they do not want to really change. Radically change, that is.

Seriously, do you feel that liberals are unjustly maligned on this forum or something? Why do so many rush to their defense?

[RGacky3]

Conservatives are classical liberal types that believe in the power of unrestrained free markets to fix all "externalities".


In normal language no they are not.


Seriously, do you feel that liberals are unjustly maligned on this forum or something? Why do so many rush to their defense?

My problem is when a socialist talks of human rights and democracy they get labled as a "liberal" (considering those are generally considered liberal ideals), which, according to you guys NECCESSARILY means they also support Capitalism, which is a bullshit claim, the term liberal when used by Leninists is generally just a smear for people who don't believe in secret police.

[RadioRaheem84]

Conservatives are generally, for the most part adherents of classical liberalism. I am not talking about the religious right, but followers of the CATO Institute, Thomas Sowell, right wing media pundits like Rush Limbaugh. They're usually lovers of all the old liberal thinkers.

They're "conservative" because they want to conserve the old classical liberal narrative that defined the US before FDR and the Progressive Era.

Sean Hannity talks about "modern" liberalism all the time on his show about how it's ruining America.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1806173/posts

The point is that the US is a fundamentally liberal country with two splits; classical liberal or conservative (if they're religiously or secularly traditionally inclined), and the modern variety (progressivism).

The rest of you claims are BS. The point is to not to maintain some evil Leninist dogma, but to challenge the liberal positions of some leftists and how they're fundamentally and hopelessly idealist, i.e. not based in any material reality. Just because an materialist sees the flaws in some idealist liberal positions doesn't mean they're for secret police.

That assertion is just a cop out for not going along with liberal morality, and the negation of it is seen as being heartless and brutal (akin to the right wing).

[Bud Struggle]

but to challenge the liberal positions of some leftists and how they're fundamentally and hopelessly idealist, i.e. not based in any material reality. Just because an materialist sees the flaws in some idealist liberal positions doesn't mean they're for secret police.

That assertion is just a cop out for not going along with liberal morality, and the negation of it is seen as being heartless and brutal (akin to the right wing).

By far and away what passes for Socialism and Communism on RevLeft is Liberal Idealism. It's the "morality" that believe is in Communism that drives a good number of posters here.

Nothing wrong with that--but that kind of thinking leads to flawed expectations of what Communism is and what it should do.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't see why we should cow our use of basic words from their firm philosophical roots and international consensus definitions because of the peculiarities of American perverse political culture, particularly the slurs against what is called "liberalism" by Jim Crow racist Democrats starting in the mid-century.

Incidentally, what is called "liberalism" in the U.S., to the extent is actually ever represented some discrete basket of policies, approaches, philosophies, and the like, is now dead. Richard Milhous Nixon in terms of his foreign and international policies is a much better "American liberal" in the sense of the Kennedys than any President since. This may stir people who are excessively dedicated to Democrat delusions of history, but it is simple facts. Nixon was the last "American liberal" president. Barack Obama, especially with 2 years of hindsight now available, is a Reaganite, objectively.

[RadioRaheem84]

Very true. As described by Milton Friedman himself, Nixon was the most "socialist" President of them all.

By all accounts, Obama is a center-right New Democrat ala Bill Clinton, which is to the right of Nixon, Eisenhower and Gerald Ford.

Liberalism (progressivism, left-liberal, bastard Keynesianism, whatever) as a political force died off with Carter and was buried with Clinton.

[Dimentio]

Its something i often hear from right-winger from both america and canada, that public broadcaster are naturally biaised toward a more leftist stance.

Personally, i just dont see any left leaning movement in public radio and tv stations.

Biased towards leftists = Allowing centrists and left-centrists to say what they need to say, not sprouting unverified slander about liberals, not trying to incite paranoia...

[Jose Gracchus]

I think Chomsky has hit it on the head. These assaults are about destroying the very concept of a public commons or public service, now that the need to entertain such things has weaned off with the end of the Cold War and the post-war capitalist boom. The way the far-right slash-and-burn wing of capital figures it, why leave even the precedent and concept of institutions which serve public needs and formally responsible to the public? Such ideas are dangerous anyway. Better to rise von Miseanism to the status of the Cult of State and leave everyone purely "free" to be completely reliant directly upon corporations.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"Reality has a liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert

Can you seriously watch the CBC and think it has a liberal bias? I wish it did, even Strombo, an NDP supporter, is unbiased in his interviewing.

The CBC is, however, right wing -- Israel filter, lack of necessary words in the name of balance, etc., when compared to a legitimately balanced network such as Al Jazeera or RT.

It suffers from much of the basic western media bias.

The Passionate Eye is one program that produced an anti-iraq war/anti-Bush feeling documentary by showing facts and refraining from ad hominem and commentary. Peter Mansbridge ftw.

The false claims of bias feom the right are mere distractions and the right wing signifying anything that disagrees is biased against them.

My apologies for the unorganized post, 3:30am and im on my iphone.

[RGacky3]

That assertion is just a cop out for not going along with liberal morality

SOcialism was build on "liberal" morality.