Talk:Mainstream media

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media?

I don't see that. What I do see is most liberals denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--TerryHTalk 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. BrianRobertson 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, et cetera.--TerryHTalk 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [1], [2], [3]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--TerryHTalk 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

According to Nielsen:
  • Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
  • Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
  • "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[4]
That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? BrianRobertson 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... Kazumaru 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while CNN stood in danger of losing that status--along with The New York Times, which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that Senator Diane Feinstein wants to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the alternative media and leave only the mainstream media as I have defined and listed it in this article.--TerryHTalk 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
How's this? Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... Kazumaru 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an etymology of the phrase mainstream media and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
Do you deny that The New York Times is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining mainstream media according to present circulation?
And as to US policies affecting the entire Earth--well, don't they? Does not the United States have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!" Acts 22:22 (NIV)
--TerryHTalk 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM except Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --Crocoite 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. BrianRobertson 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. Kazumaru 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. Kazumaru 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --Crocoite 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! Kazumaru 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Alleged bias of Fox News

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the Fairness Doctrine and its repeal in 1987.

Second, if Fox News has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that Katherine Graham's A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: Fox News is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that Fox News is permitted to continue to exist.--TerryHTalk 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

"who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. BrianRobertson 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the MSM article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? BrianRobertson 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --Crocoite 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. BrianRobertson 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? BrianRobertson 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • On your talk page, there is a HUGE yellow box with information. On the right side of it, are links to our Style Manual, etc. Niandra clearly was warning you about re-directing, and not encouraging you. No more twisting and deceit, as this will be your final warning. And stop moving things! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia References

What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. PortlyMort 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. PortlyMort 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Alternative Press

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. BrianRobertson 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

Moved from BrianRobertson's Talk Page

Please remove re-directs and merges. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? BrianRobertson 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! BrianRobertson 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of deceit. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. BrianRobertson 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Brian, speedy posting, asking questions and then making even more massive changes, without allow 24 hours for others to respond, is deceitful. You cannot say you are inviting a "dialog" and then not give others a chance to see your ideas. Dialog is not getting one agreement, with one idea, and then doing many things, predicated on that one agreement. You not only re-directed, but you also made large content changes as well, all without getting feedback. That, as I have said elsewhere, isn't allowed here. Or on WP for that matter. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:44, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Merging of MSM and Mainstream Media Articles

One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? BrianRobertson 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Speaking to this, we now have duplicate info on both MSM and Mainstream Media. For example, the removal of the blog info on CBS that TK did on this page has not been done on the other page. Yet another reason for a merge is that spelling and grammatical mistakes fixed on one page now exist on another. BrianRobertson 16:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes. The world will not end if this situation continues for another 24 hours, Brian. I have messaged TerryH, and am more than content to await his feed-back. My agreement with something so obvious as the need for a merger is not in play here. What is in play is a new editor making massive and liberal-biased edits to those articles, all without discussion, or allowing time for any to take place. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:52, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I stand by my firm belief that I greatly improved the article, and I do not agree that I added liberally biased information - on the contrary, I added clear proof that Fox News is the utterly dominant force in the media today!

You seem to suspect me of trying to push this article liberal, but I'd love you to understand that the very isolation conservatives feel from what is widely aired in the MSM is VERY MUCH shared by liberals. Both strong conservatives AND strong liberals complain loudly about the MSM, and both percieve it to have opposite bias. That is uncontestable, and is the ONLY theme that i wish to introduce to this article. What they would both DO about the percieved bias is a different matter, but those with strong views on BOTH sides of the political debate strongly disapprove of the MSM. And I think it unfair and low to accuse me of something so vile as deceit. I believe I have been the most open of any of you in this debate.

I have an answer to all this. I will stand back and make no edits until next week, and we'll see how we all get along. BrianRobertson 17:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

  • The growth of Fox News Channel is not within Conservative circles, but the great middle ground. And even though they are a force in Cable viewers, compared to the MSM nightly news shows, they are still small. So therefore they cannot be MSM as yet. CNCB and MSNBC, are merely house organs of the larger NBC. What makes Fox News seem "Conservative" is the huge ratings of some of its pundits, and the fact that Fox, in stories, actually seeks out sources, so as to be fair and balanced, includes the POV's of religious and right wing people. That is what reporting used to be about, before being hijacked by liberal ideologues. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:19, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
Note: MSM is used by the CDC to denote male sex with menDaniel1212 13:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

The following sec could be added when more examples are collected, as has been done, and are daily seen, but i am pretty busy or out of that right now.

Notable Examples

On June 30, 2000, the Boston Globe carried an AP selection which labeled as "Best Quote", a statement by "Survivor" contestant "Rudy," which equated the Bible with toilet paper.[1][2] (The hard evidence for the first is in my physical file cabinet, a photocopy.)

On Jan. 1, 2002, an short AP article in the news section of the The Boston Globe, reported that a Pentecostal church in Alamogordo, N.M. had burned Harry Potter books. The article then "reported" that Hitler's socialist part also burned offending literature, in an obvious attempt to equate them.[3] The paper would not print or respond to a letter objecting to the above. (two links to the story are not from the Globe, one notes the source as the AP.Daniel1212 13:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)

In an email exchange between Brian Camenker now leader of MassResistance and long-time Globe editor, Peter Accardi, the latter explained that one reason they refused to print Camenker's letter opposing gay marriage, was "We don't print letters that promote bigotry." Another reason was that the Globe needed to reflect its readership, which was liberal. He also denied that homosexuals could change their sexual orientation.[4]

MSM has multiple meanings.

MSM is often used to denote "men who have sex with men", to differentiate homosexual males from men who have sex with men but may personally identify as heterosexual (but with a desire for sex with other men) and bisexuals, often used for epidemiological reasons, etc. Poonj


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools