NBC Warmongering

[LovePrevails]

 

I don't understand when conservatives and libertarians say "liberal bias" in the media.  I think it is pretty right-wing.

[Kevin Beal]

I don't understand when conservatives and libertarians say "liberal bias" in the media.  I think it is pretty right-wing.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc are considered left wing typically because of their consistent demonization of the right. Ironically for just the kinds of things they too are guilty of, ... oh! and racism.

 

Like how FOX was accused of becoming lap dogs when George Bush took office, the same thing happened with these broadcasters when Obama took office.

 

The people I know from the left almost all support these stations and Obama (but look tortured doing it). This is people doing anything they can not to consider themselves right-wing, even though they are by the standards of a decade ago.

 

As far as the mainstream goes, there hasn't been any substantive difference between right and left since I started paying attention in 2000.

[Jorell]

I wonder how much media bias (regardless of alignment) is deliberate in that it serves the machine to have people be emotionally vested in their team colors; and how best to deepen that emotionally vested loyalty than to incite hostility.

That idea aside though, the media seems to be persuading audiences with less argument and more with the utter fear of unpopularity. Events like the *Trayvon Martin case are fantastic demonstrations how that fear was paraded in a variety of very sloppy attempts, but sloppy or not - it seems to be working. You can hardly talk to someone online that has not watched the court proceedings but is still manages to have a firm conviction of how the judgement should have been resolved.

*(emphasis on the media method, not the specific outcome of the incident)

[LovePrevails]

Kevin thanks for the clarification

 

it's difficult for us in Europe to see it that way as most people who consider themselves on the left here also see Obama as a corporate candidate

therefore, not a socialist

 

the left here is much different from what is considered left in the mainstream in america

what are considered left in the states would just be considered "liberal" not socialist at all because they are not "radicals" - just part of the mainstream

 

 

I always find it ironic when leftists call themselves radicals though because most people agree with their moral outrage at "the system" and "capitalism"

what could be more radical than being pro free-market in Scotland? nothing really.

[dsayers]

There's only one meaningful way to divide human beings: Those who initiate the use of force and those who do not. Left and right are just different ways people initiate the use of force. The distinction isn't worth focusing on IMO.

[mick_towe]

The divide between the left and the right in the US are all based on issues that do not effect the power of the state. I believe it is engineered to be this way.

 

A few examples would be racial and sexual discrimination, religion, abortion, and tax policies. Although important, none of these issues effect the agenda enough to change it's course in any significant manner. I think dividing people on these issues also serves to use up their "moral energy", thus giving a diffusing outlet to those who are actually concerned with justice, and giving those who need to feel like they are "moral" some "non state threating" issues to fill that gap with.

 

I want to be clear, the above issues ARE important, but they have been selected and put forward because they don't pose any danger to the powers that be. The romans were aware of this tactic as a political means. Especially pitting cultural groups within the empire against each other, and I would assume the bringing together of the groups could also be taken advantage of as well. It would be naive to assume that it does not happen now.