Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[Elizabeth502]

Well probably lots of people don’t think they can “help you,” either.

Most of the large metro newspapers are unquestionably liberal: L.A. Times, NY Times, SFChron, WaPo, for starters.

Ditto for most mainstream newsmagazines: Time (which used to be conservative, by the way), Newsweek. *US N&WR *used to be conservative; that has changed now, too.

And one’s perception of the reach of media (and its slant/biases) may partly depend on geography. In my neck of the woods, MSNBC is worshipped like a media “god.” That station has more True Believers than Vatican City. Liberal? Let me paraphrase Rachel Maddow, whom I nevertheless very much like and respect as a person & professional: *‘I know that MSNBC represents without apology the liberal viewpoint. That is specifically why I chose to work here. I want to belong to a company that is unabashedly liberal.’ * (That’s almost a quote, by the way.)

In fact, I no longer classify MSNBC as a “news station.” It is a straight-up advocacy group.

I don’t where you hang out, or what your own definition of liberal is, but it does not seem to correspond with what apparently the rest of the country’s definition is.

If you’re including in “the media” popular talk-show hosts, that’s another matter entirely. Those people are chosen for their ability to entertain and be provocative, whether that is liberal or conservative.

Representing a more conservative viewpoint: WSJ. Their reading audience is also not as broad an economic & cultural cross-section of the American public that the above are.

 

[ManOnFire]

I don’t define “(my) idea of God” because God, whatever the referent is of that word, which has been used into near meaninglessness by argumentation, is indefinable, indescribable, ineffable, etc, and only can be refered to with any meaning by what “God” is not. Andy positive attributes are meaning less because they are fantasy in that for the human mind, something like, say “infinite goodness” is semantically null. it has no referetial meaning in experience and only a speculative one as guesswork. All of the “infinite,” which is a negative itself, descriptors of God boil down to, in understandable terms, “bigger than I can imagine.” )

The hazard of individuals who choose to distill their own gnostic version of what god is and is not is that many will choose what feels good. Probably some altered form of consciousness trip coupled with physical pleasure. If the end game is selfish pleasure, and it becomes more popular, there won’t be enough revenue generators to pay for the growing dependency. This bubble must eventually burst. There’s no denying it. It’s guaranteed to be very ugly.

As to what Jesus intended, have you ever given much thought to how we know about what He said and did and how we “know” what little we do today? We could write a book(s) about how we arrive at what we think we know. It would include such things as how we get from THDTHTRMCNDHBRWWRWRTTNWTHTSPCSCPTLZTNRPNCTTN (THeiDeaTHaTaRaMaiCaNDHeBReWWeReWRiTTeNWiTHouTSPaCesCaPiTaLiZaTioNoRPuNCTuaTion) to cultural differences and worldviews including deep patriarchism and poverty influenced by a nomadic heritage, the meaning of meaning, translations, collections, witnessing, interpretation, and a host of other disciplines that even make the simple word “I” have two radically different meanings, to what the Church, or anyone, tells us today about what happened four to two thousand years ago when most p[eople can’t accurately describe what happened five minutes ago. I know; ridiculously long sentence.

I understand what you are saying, but we can’t travel back in time. I just think it’s somewhat hypocritical for “liberals” to be so rigid and unforgiving when they disagree with issues which cannot be helped. It sounds like selective liberalism.

Point is we are in fact guessing, because even with “Divine guidance” even the purest message has to go through the capacity of the mind receiving it. Like the fellow who argued, when the Bible was being standardized, for four Gospel;s because there were four elements and four directions. What is a “Catholic lesson?” How is it different from a non Catholic lesson? I don’t like calling people anything. I can describe a condition that even someone very well educated might have. I’m an aeronautics buff. But I don’t know how to fly a plane or design or build one. I’m ignorant of those things. It isn’t a value judgement about a person. It describes a condition relative, in our instance to a particular level and kind of seeing and understanding. Having of not having that doesn’t effect, imo, the intrinsic value of an individual one way or another. And the “ends of blind faith and all this analytical gnosticism,” me not being an analytical gnostic, are indeed ultimately the same. It is all contents in awareness, awareness being the common factor.

The laws of the nation can and are broken regularly when no one is looking, but fear of God causes many people to act “better” even when no one is looking. If we humans were strong enough to follow God’s rules, the world would be a better place. You can certainly run a govt with atheists, but there better be a strong vetting process. We don’t want to repeat the uglier events of history by leaders who led with impugnity.

As for Jesus’ message of sacraficial love for others, how do you see the meaning of that, and what is it derived from? Is there a very specific answer to that that is the subtext of that message?I personally don’t recall a “liberal” running on a platform of anti religion, lust, violence, chemical addiction, or selfish individualism. It would be interesting to see an ad for such a platform. )

Jesus knew he was destined to suffer and die at a young age for us, yet he accepted it. We are called to sacrifice in the same way in order to do what is right and just for the next generation. Here’s your platform: lyrics.com/imagine-lyrics-john-lennon.html, circa 1971. John is proposing that god does not exist, one-world govt so there can be no wars, and “living for the day,” which means if there is no heaven nor hell, then there is no punishment for feeling as much pleasure every day, hence the media messages listed above. So, the delineating factor seems to be based on whether one believes that God exists or not, because if he doesn’t…

Except that most people in congress, given the stats, seem to be high on selfish individualism for their own pockets by passing laws that line the pockets of the people who pay them to do so. And please show me the life of anyone who does not rely on “collective support.” Have you ever made a pencil, built a road, forged a faucet, designed a working tractor or psychological technique, or paved a road? What around you that you use did you personally build or grow on your own, and if you did, where did what you use to do it come from? Even if you made it from dirt, like a clay pot, that was already there by the agency of Nature. You didn’t make it out of nothing by your own means. You were not, at least up to a point, even responsible for your own education and you sure didn’t invent English. Correct?

(continued)

I’m fine with abolishing campaign contributions. Collectivist capitalism works well in a clean environment where the able-bodied poor and the downtrodden are not stuck in their situations because of an addiction to liberal behaviors, promoted by the media a la tabula rasa. When the results of these free will liberal behaviors require aid from innocent people, one must stop and see the prejudicial nature of it. There needs to be discernment between those who need aid through not fault of their own (or their parents) vs those who free willingly choose risky behaviors. Don’t say it too judgmental. Liberals have judged the problems to be severe enough to require aid, and they have judged that innocent people should pay for it, and they have levied financial judgments as a result, so to claim that liberals are non-judgmental is a sign of blindness.
[/quote]

 

[ManOnFire]

OK, I blew the cut and paste on that last part and erased it… I just don’t have the heart to go through all that again. But the media run by liberals? Uhhh… hoboy. Don’t think I can help you.

I’m old enough to have witnessed the transition by the media. Maybe you are young and simply have not lived long enough to see it, so maybe you don’t know otherwise.

 

[Gaber]

I’m old enough to have witnessed the transition by the media. Maybe you are young and simply have not lived long enough to see it, so maybe you don’t know otherwise.

I’m a war baby, born in a DP camp. Been around a bit. I’m really sorry that I dunced that last bit. Maybe I will buck up and re-do it. My apologies.

 

[ManOnFire]

I’m a war baby, born in a DP camp. Been around a bit. I’m really sorry that I dunced that last bit. Maybe I will buck up and re-do it. My apologies.

Do you really believe there’s no difference in the media content over the last 40 years? Remember, tabula rasa.

 

[Gaber]

Do you really believe there’s no difference in the media content over the last 40 years? Remember, tabula rasa.

I’m sorry, I don’t get how you might think that I don’t see a difference in media over time when I pointed out that there is???

 

[LisaA]

OK, I blew the cut and paste on that last part and erased it… I just don’t have the heart to go through all that again. But the media run by liberals? Uhhh… hoboy. Don’t think I can help you.

Gaber I think Elizabeth502 has responded to your question to ManOnFire with regard to your beliefs about the liberal media. I don’t know how old you are but when I was younger the media was “the voice of truth” ferreting out corruption, government excess and providing far less biased news coverage. Or at least there wasn’t the blur between news and what I call “Advertorials” which seem to have a distinct slant one way or the other.

The 24 hour news cycle, the instantaneous information via the internet and the variety of media have really been a sea change since the days of three alphabet soup stations that all broadcast for an hour a day. Things have changed a lot and with it the public’s respect for the media has decreased dramatically as a result.

Lisa

 

[Gaber]

Well probably lots of people don’t think they can “help you,” either.

Yes, and I’m sure that many on here believe I need it, lol!

Most of the large metro newspapers are unquestionably liberal: L.A. Times, NY Times, SFChron, WaPo, for starters.

Ditto for most mainstream newsmagazines: Time (which used to be conservative, by the way), Newsweek. *US N&WR *used to be conservative; that has changed now, too.

OK, I think I see where you might be coming from. You are kind of saying that from your standpoint as a devout Catholic the content and manner of reportage in today’s media is liberal? OK., but that’s not quite what I’m referring to. So in some respects I agree with you, but I’m looking at a different part of the picture, for the most part. in claiming that the media is increasingly conservative. More on that in a bit.

And one’s perception of the reach of media (and its slant/biases) may partly depend on geography. In my neck of the woods, MSNBC is worshipped like a media “god.” That station has more True Believers than Vatican City. Liberal? Let me paraphrase Rachel Maddow, whom I nevertheless very much like and respect as a person & professional: *‘I know that MSNBC represents without apology the liberal viewpoint. That is specifically why I chose to work here. I want to belong to a company that is unabashedly liberal.’ * (That’s almost a quote, by the way.)

In fact, I no longer classify MSNBC as a “news station.” It is a straight-up advocacy group.

Ah, yes, like FOX “news.”

I don’t where you hang out, or what your own definition of liberal is, but it does not seem to correspond with what apparently the rest of the country’s definition is.

I;m in kind of a red neck haven in CA and my wife is a confessed Oakie with dust-bowl, motorcycle racing, and real estate roots. Kinda that. And we are sort of rural. the nearest town is about 1K strong.

If you’re including in “the media” popular talk-show hosts, that’s another matter entirely. Those people are chosen for their ability to entertain and be provocative, whether that is liberal or conservative.

No kidding!

Representing a more conservative viewpoint: WSJ. Their reading audience is also not as broad an economic & cultural cross-section of the American public that the above are.

Really? Isn’t that the one whose chief editor just polled as to whether their newspaper ought to investigate the accuracy of “facts?” Sorry, it was a story on NPR, and can’t find the reference now. But generally I agree with that one.

Back to the c/l idea: When I say that the media is more conservative now than ever, I mean that it has succumbed to the freefall our Country is experiencing into plutocracy and the machinery that sustains that. Whereas in 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … *n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … *n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … *n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

–Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. And the CEO’s of those corps are very, very rich. Therefore most likely conservative republicans, yes? And when I say "very very rich, I mean this**. And this. So by “conservative,” I mean that what we are given as “news” by nearly anyone is along the company lines of a few mega giants whose reach is astounding, if you look at it. And what we are not told, as well as what we are, is equally critically important, and that’s where the conservatism kicks in. The “liberalism” you point to might just be a distraction?*

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, I think I see where you might be coming from. You are kind of saying that from your standpoint as a devout Catholic the content and manner of reportage in today’s media is liberal?

It has nothing to do with my “devout Catholicism,” and everything to do with secular political viewpoints. You really don’t get this. You see the world, and this forum’s posters, and the media, through a lens of enormous stereotypes and labels. You have no idea how broad my views are. They hardly reflect “Fox News.” In fact, if you really had any understanding of my post which you quote, you would see how my supposed “devout Catholicism” contradicts this statement:

Rachel Maddow, whom I nevertheless very much like and respect as a person & professional

I’m not using “Catholic” determinants, Gaber. I’m using intellectual and political determinants. It’s obvious you never spend any time in the CAF News forums, where I have made my views clear on the uselessness of the extremes in the media. This is just one more way in which you “shrink” people into your narrow categories, while all the time declaring to the readers of this thread just what a free thinker you are. (Yeah. ) You may be a free thinker privately, but publicly you are not, i.m.o., communicating that at all.

Back to the c/l idea: When I say that the media is more conservative now than ever, I mean that it has succumbed to the freefall our Country is experiencing into plutocracy and the machinery that sustains that.

I don’t define that as “conservatism.” I define that as raw greed and the triumph of venality over ethics. Plenty of politically classifiable “liberal” media outlets are also drowning in the “conservatism” of financial self-interest, which also often corresponds to politically liberal interests.

How about both a semantics course and a series of philosophy courses for you, Gaber? Maybe economics wouldn’t hurt, too.

True conservatism resists extremes. Anyone who doesn’t perceive how extremes now drive the mainstream media is not paying attention.

 

[ReapReason]

How about both a semantics course and a series of philosophy courses for you, Gaber? Maybe economics wouldn’t hurt, too.

How about learning the epistemological difference between political ethics and Catholic morality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

How about learning the epistemological difference between political ethics and Catholic morality.

You’re out of your league. I’m not the one needing a “lesson” from you, being more advanced in that area. But, ya’ know, Nice Try.

 

[ReapReason]

You’re out of your league.

I really wish that were the case.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I really wish that were the case.

It is. I have a fantastic education, especially in philosophy. Keep trying, though Reap. It’s a lost cause, however.

 

[ReapReason]

It is. I have a fantastic education, especially in philosophy. Keep trying, though Reap. It’s a lost cause, however.

Having a good education does not necessitate that you have rational-excellence. The fact that you chose to use your education as some kind of proof that I am in over my head is evidence only of the ridiculous lengths you will go to asserting your power.

The analytical part of me wants to study your mind, but I can see that it has no content.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Having a good education does not necessitate that you have rational-excellence.

Except that I do demonstrate that in my posts.

The analytical part of me wants to study your assertions, but I can see that it has no content.

The analytical part of me wants to study your assertions, but I can see that they are merely doctrinaire assertions.

Unlike me, you provide no content.

But try to have a nice day, Reap, instead of providing empty criticisms and assuming that the rest of the forum trusts that there’s some substance there.

 

[ReapReason]

Except that I do demonstrate that in my posts.

The analytical part of me wants to study your assertions, but I can see that they are merely doctrinaire assertions.

Unlike me, you provide no content.

But try to have a nice day, Reap, instead of providing empty criticisms and assuming that the rest of the forum trusts that there’s some substance there.

If you had confidence in your supposed “rational-excellence” you would have ignored me instead of stating - or should I say asserting - how intelligent you are.

 

[atheistgirl]

If you had confidence in your supposed “rational-excellence” you would have ignored me instead of stating - or should I say asserting - how intelligent you are.

I’ve just been tickled by another poster on another thread who felt compelled to tell me they had two, count them, two PhDs

Sarah x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

 

[Contarini]

And one’s perception of the reach of media (and its slant/biases) may partly depend on geography. In my neck of the woods, MSNBC is worshipped like a media “god.” That station has more True Believers than Vatican City.

We’ve been around this before. I don’t think your “neck of the woods” is typical at all, though I admit that mine (northern Indiana) is probably at the other end of the spectrum. Around here one almost always sees FOX in public places; sometimes CNN and never MSNBC. In airports, in my experience, it’s more often CNN and sometimes FOX–again never MSNBC.

You’re the only person I’ve ever encountered who reports seeing MSNBC broadcast in public places.

That MSNBC is stridently liberal is certainly beyond dispute–I would say that they are what FOX’s fans say FOX is, namely a news source that is honest about its bias. (Though I agree that they indulge in their bias to such a degree that they aren’t really a traditional news source at all.)

FOX, on the other hand, seems to me to be much more cynical and smarmy.

NPR is definitely liberal, but not to an unreasonable degree–I think they make serious efforts to be fair.

CNN is sort of liberal, but it really depends on how you define it and what issues we’re talking about. Generally news outlets tend to be more conservative on national security issues than on social issues. Since that’s exactly the reverse of my own views, I find this endlessly frustrating!

In what way is USNWR no longer conservative? Less substantive than it used to be, definitely. . . .

If you’re including in “the media” popular talk-show hosts, that’s another matter entirely. Those people are chosen for their ability to entertain and be provocative, whether that is liberal or conservative.

Right, but they’re predominantly conservative (Maddow has admitted that the attempt to create a liberal alternative, in which she was involved, was an abject failure), and they are in fact where a lot of people in this country get their understanding of current events. Hence I think you have to count them.

The fact that conservative outlets, whether FOX or talk radio, tend to be more sensationalistic and populist than liberal ones should not surely be taken to show some kind of unfair liberal dominance, but rather says something about what “conservatives” in this country want and who they are, as opposed to “liberals.” (That’s not entirely a slam at conservatives, though perhaps it mostly is–being populist isn’t necessarily bad, but the form of populism I find in FOX and talk radio is pretty despicable and fake in my opinion.)

Representing a more conservative viewpoint: WSJ. Their reading audience is also not as broad an economic & cultural cross-section of the American public that the above are.

I’m scratching my head at the suggestion that WSJ represents a narrower spectrum than MSNBC (or NPR, which you didn’t mention). I’d say that all three speak to a relatively narrow, elite spectrum of American society.

Edwin

 

[ProLepanto]

NPR is definitely liberal, but not to an unreasonable degree–

Edwin

Much like saying: “My car is in need of repair, but it isn’t totaled”

Or are you implying that liberalism itself isn’t incompatible with reason? Because, if so, what you are actually saying is more akin to: “The room is indeed dark, just not terribly dim”

The simple fact is that there can be no bases for critique without the principle of believing in an objective truth, and there can be no definitive goal without an equally definitive purpose. Given that combating concepts of social good are evaluate-able through more than their popularity or forced practice, one must concede that there is a non subjective “there” and that if we know what it is, it is because at one time it was understood/practiced. If it was never held then there is no basis for complaint (political or otherwise) just undefendable arbitrary assertions of worth.

Id Est only a conservative (that is someone of the belief of our purpose filled intent as described to us) has any grounds for his assertions (social or otherwise) because even if a progressive/liberal (that is someone who does not trust in a tradition of which to conserve) believes in definitive truth but that we have yet to obtain it, then he also has to concede that he may never be able to know it when or if he does manage to find it. So one can trust in an unveiled truth, attack existing precepts of morality, fight for a compensatory state of individually professed ignorance and pray for enlightenment, or comply to the best of our ability to the ethics we’ve inherited.