<
Yeah, well, I agree with you, but what I'm looking for is an answer that
will
satisfy a conservative of the free republic persuasion, especially on
the
question of why corporate owners of the media might benefit from
slanting the
news (esp. on social issues, which don't seem automatically connected
with
the profit motive).
>
Point out to your freepr the number of homosexuals who are influential conservatives; Marvin? Liebman? who was Buckley's intellectual at the National Review, for example. Ray Cohn who died of AIDS for another. J. Edgar Hoover for a third.
Curdle his synapses.
[snip]
< <<I'm not really answering your question, which is very complex, but I think
that a lot of the public might classify the 'media', broadly, as liberal
because they would call the tabloid news shows, stuff on the FOX channel,
and most fluffy TV talk shows 'liberal' because it shows corruption and lack
of morals and so forth, and some people associate that with the term
'liberal'. Speaking about television news, I really don't know how I would
classify my local newscasts as liberal or conservative because they don't
even show any news at all.
I think there's a lot to that; when I try to engage people that seem to
me
quite pleasant except for their quirks about our liberal media, liberal
government, etc., their concerns mostly comes down to social issues
(abortion, sex, gun control, etc.) - and taxes. But I have a hard time
engaging; I don't understand the logic, I can't find a common language.
The
image I get from my attempts at discussion is of some powerful liberal
conspiracy based on ideology alone (as v. being based on self-interest,
desire for power and profit, etc.). It's like the "liberals" have taken
the
place of the communists in the communist conspiracy paradigm. This
seems so
absurd on its face that I'm obsessed with trying to understand why this
way
of analyzing reality is so common (at least where I live).
>
I think you're right, it's simple minded demonization. I think there is another problem in that "liberal" isn't easily defined.
On occasion I have been able to pin the guy down. I got my cubicle mate to admit that he has never read the NY Times. The same guy is convinced the Dallas Morning News is "lib'rul" (as it is pronounced here). What he meant was, in the Arts section there was a sympathetic review of a play with homosexual themes.
On another occasion I challenged a different guy to add up all the taxes he paid, all the income he received, to compute the ratio. He was rabid about taxes. He saw what I meant, and has NEVER done the arithmetic. Never will, either.
IMO, on the whole, there is no way of arguing with willful ignorance, especially against a vaguely defined demon. "Liberal" means the guy's hemorrhoids are bothering him.
OTOH, I take part in local politics in a very conservative area. I assure you that they are just as ignorant of "conservatism." I am able to work with these people by sticking to the town issue at hand. A ham-fisted development project infuriates them regardless of their ideological identification. They are as troubled by Akin, Feld, Held? Gump, and Strauss sponsorship of a fete for a low-level county politician as I am, once this lobbying firm is pointed out to them.
-- John K. Taber