To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Myth of the Liberal Media

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Myth of the Liberal Media

By Noam Chomsky at Oct 28, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The media delight in being portrayed as "adversarial," sometimes even going overboard in their efforts to subvert power. There are some remarkable examples, e.g., the Freedom House study of how the liberal crusading press lost the Vietnam war by lying about the Tet offensive in its adversarial enthusiasm. It was a collection of the most extraordinary lies, quickly exposed by investigation even of their own documents. The press was furious about being exposed as telling the truth -- that is, being professionally competent but keeping within the confines of the doctrinal system -- and loved being condemned as liars and traitors. It's obvious why. Gives great material for commencement addresses by media leaders on how, yes, we do sometimes go too far in our crusading zeal, but that is the price the country has to pay for freedom, etc., etc. I've suffered through them now and then. The truth is far more unpleasant to face. All quite well documented. And by conventional standards the national press IS liberal. The attitudes of journalists and editors are probably not very different from CEOs on "social issues." Or, for that matter, on business-related matters or support for state power. But only "social issues" are used in measuring whether the press is "liberal."

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (45)

Person

"liberal" press & material implications

By Info, Ramabala at Jul 07, 2007 08:48 AM
what about the standards of liberation, as for postcolonial, postapartheid states? Specifically, cf. The Sunday Times editor and the African National Congress president

Reply this comment

Person

Why are there so many idiots

By Codswallower, Codswallower at Feb 22, 2007 22:34 PM
Why are there so many idiots lurking in the Chomsky comments section? 

It's clear that you understand very little of what you're reading here. 

Are there no christian sites where incurious dogmatists can pound their chests and cough up their sound bite homilies?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By K, Mr at Jan 03, 2005 21:51 PM
evolutionary theory aside lets talk about the merger of corporate media and state power. the 'nexus' is entrenched. bunker style and the spew which noam talks about in numerous papers is all true. mass media is controlled and regulated. state virtues are preached. it's never going to change. when the revolution comes i'm sure these centers of information control will be targeted for 'suppression' just like the yankees did to that cleric. enough lies. every news station in every free nation on earth prints dribble according to their own neo-con gatekeeper. what i like is how the spin is spewed and how stupid they look when the truth does spin outta control. independent media will never get coverage like the superbowl. where's those liberal billionares for social change?? o wait i call em 'wolf in sheeps clothes' neo-cons in disguise. independent media will never make it. not enough capital.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 13, 2004 05:29 AM
From the magazine [i]Science[/i] [url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523#ref3]Is Evolution a secular religion ? [/url]

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 13, 2004 04:47 AM
[url=http://www.fondationlejeune.org/eng/Content/Fondation/professeurlj.asp]From Professor Jerome Lejeune[/url] "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain: I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation." [url=http://www.informationblast.com/Kenneth_J._Hsu.html]From Kenneth J Hsu[/url] "George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 13, 2004 03:44 AM
"Anyone who actually bothers to check what "real" scientists think.." Typical propaganda. The con job is perpuated with standard lies like the above. The most oft repeated lie is "all credible scientists support evolution". Which is a total lie. I have already provided links to numerous leading scientists [nobel winners included] who totally disregard evolution as a charade perputuated by people with no integrity and for a specific purpose. Here is another list of leading scientists. [url=http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php?PHPSESSID=44c382fde37ea7c023dc2ecf001050de]Go to bottom of page[/url]. You can always tell who the propagandists are, they always lie. They have no integrity, agenda, yes, integrity, no.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 23, 2004 01:37 AM
[url=http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_LeakedPBSMemo.php]LEAKED INTERNAL MEMO[/url] showing the conspiracy at work.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 22, 2004 03:40 AM
I can understand that many people view evolution as rational and sacrosant. But the truth is that it is not. To see the tactics used by the establishment to try and enforce the evolution paradigm by fraud and deceit I direct you [url=http://www.reviewevolution.com/viewersGuide/Evolution_01.php]HERE[/url]. This is a devastating expose of the PBS series you may have seen on evolution. It analyses the entire series and shows how the fraud is commited and why. The above link analyses episode one, and the remaining episodes are at the upper right hand of the page.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 20, 2004 13:07 PM
"In the article entitled "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" (found at www.biped.info), we examined the transmogrification of the elite's religious power structure into a technocratic oligarchy legitimized predominantly by science. The history and background of this "scientific dictatorship" is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry. In this article, we shall examine the "scientific dictatorship" as an enormous project in the re-sculpting of reality itself."[url=http://www.biped.info/articles/matter.html]The Scientific Dictatorship as a Project in the Reconfiguration of Reality[/url]

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 20, 2004 12:25 PM
"When NBC featured Forbidden Archeology in its 1996 program The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, establishment scientists lobbied the FCC to fine NBC for airing this opposing view! In this exclusive interview, Cremo discusses what he calls a "knowledge filter" upon which materialist science has based its dominant paradigm of human origins." From: http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

Reply this comment

Person

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 20, 2004 06:56 AM
People who champion evolution are either 1)uneducated on the subject 2)they have an agenda. The most common case is that people are uneducated. The second case is where people have some agenda, either it is to discredit the idea of a creator, or it is to promote themselves, usually having to do with their livliehood. Any honest educated person will speak the truth. Here is a little something from a triple PHD from M.I.T on so called macro evolution http://www.geraldschroeder.com/evolution.html and then for an overview of the fraud http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/dardoc1.htm

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Junk, Miketheatheist at Nov 20, 2004 05:03 AM
I want to respond to the repeated posts on here saying that evolutionary science has been discredited. I don't know why nobody else responded to this nonsense, but I will be glad to. First, take a look at Project Steve. Not only is evolution mainstream science, but there are so many scientists supporting evolution that even if you only look at the ones named Steve you still have a formidable group. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp Second, those of you who are convinced by creationist quotes might want to take a look at the talkorigins.org Quote Mining Project in order to find out just how honest Creationists are when they quote evolutionists. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Third, check out the Macro-Evolution FAQ. This has 29+ bits of strong evidence to support the idea of macro-evolution. It is an outstanding document and should be required reading for any creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ There isn't a conspiracy to put evolution into schools. Evolution belongs there because it makes sense out of biology.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 15, 2004 01:12 AM
So in conclusion, Iraq is nothing like Viet Nam. Iraq will not be abandoned. However it turns out you can take it to the bank, America will be calling the shots. There is too much at stake to pull out and let the chips lay where they may. The reason the "liberal" media was and is pro war, is because they are not politically or economically liberal. They are corporate owned and CIA integrated vehicles for propaganda. They are for the takeover of Iraq, they know what is at stake, the value of and hegemony for american currency. Some people claim it is all about Israeli security concerns, but they needed no help in toppling Saddam or messing up Iraqi weapons and military. They could have easily doen either. The goal was to take complete and total control over Iraq and also to make an example out of them. This goal transcends both Republican and Democrat ideology, it is the goal of their handlers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 15, 2004 00:57 AM
Your idea that BushCo is more reactionary then the previous administrations is really not true. Everything BushCo has done was started and or carried on by ClintonCorp. Did ClintonCorp make "progressive" changes in policy ? No. They created NAFTA, GATT, gutted the environment, expanded the prison industrial complex, expanded the war on drugs, made criminal wars, and introduced the beginnings of the Patriot act etc. BushCo simply adds Biblical trappings to the mix. The real power is not in the hands of the president or in the hands of any political party. They are servants, not the masters. External ruling style may change, from Carter to Reagan/Bush to Clinton to Duhbya, but the people calling the shots remain the same. The money people. External ruling styles can change to suit the moment, but the fact is that any politician is allowed only so much slack on his leash, otherwise he is forced out. Duhbya has no personal agenda or ambitions to be seen as a great man, like Clinton did, or Kerry does. Therefore he is more trusted to do things for the oligarchs which will make most people hate him.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 15, 2004 00:36 AM
As already stated on this thread, the corporate media is socially liberal, not politically liberal. FoxNews is the mouthpiece for the Republicans, but FoxNetwork thrives on socially liberal programming in non news. The word liberal when used politically is a loaded term used by Republicans as a codeword for anti Biblical dominionism, that is how your average Bible thumper understands the word i.e Anti Christian. It has for all practical purposes lost any political or economic meaning to them, to them it means "the people who are for, all the things they are against, Biblically speaking". Politics and economics take a back seat to religious fanatacism, which has been stoked by Republican operatives from the pulpit and elsewhere. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Chadrock314, Chadrock at Nov 15, 2004 00:05 AM
part 2 of 2: Perhaps the liberal opinion on this war will form similiarly to liberal opinion on the Vietnam war. When this war appears to be unwinnable (i.e. we aren't able to repress the Iraqi people into submission), then the liberals will turn against the war on pragmatic grounds and urge that we pull out. After we do, the hawks and doves will argue over the tactics we used. The hawks will say "We could have won!" The Doves: "Victory was always beyong our grasp." Both sides will assume the U.S. had a right to "defend" Iraq from "terrorist subversion." I'm afraid to say, history will repeat itself.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Chadrock314, Chadrock at Nov 15, 2004 00:04 AM
I've argued this point over and over with people who claim there's some dominant liberal bias in the media. If the media is so liberal, why did it (like the New York Times) allow itself to be used as a mouthpiece of the Bush administration and mindlessly repeat the lies of Ahmed Chalabi? If, say, the New York Times were liberal, they would have said "No Mr. President, those aluminum tubes are for rockets, you'd have to mill off the anodized coating and extensively modify them to enrich uranium!" They would have ripped Colin Powell for his tirade at the U.N. and made a point-by-point analysis showing how Powell was lying through his teeth. No, they didn't do that. (Remember "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts"?) They shilled for the most extreme, reactionary right-wing administration in American history. (part 1 of 2)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 10, 2004 04:40 AM
I meant to say "As far as getting in each others way, they CANNOT attain superpowerfull positions and remain there if they can't get along with the status quo." Two posts ago

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 10, 2004 04:36 AM
So the commisions in real life are the Bilderbergers, Trilateral commision etc. They are all the same commision, just split into various groups to avoid the appearance of a single world elite ruling entity. How much rancor there is between the members is difficult to measure. They hire very intelligent people to do their planning. So often times what appears to be real in public policy, may be just a smokescreen for some hidden purpose. Which means it is difficult to tell if there is rancor amongst the elites, or if contentious behavior between countries or leaders is just a drama to conceal hidden agendas. So to conclude, whomever the leaders are, they try and work together for their own good. After all, they just want to spend money without any worries of trouble for them and their families. Obviously, Karma, is a concept they are not as of yet, aware of.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 10, 2004 04:28 AM
As far as getting in each others way, they attain superpowerfull positions and remain there if they can't get alomg with the status quo. Troublemakers will not be tolerated. These are dynastic families of vast wealth and influence who have arranged the status quo, they have very well educated and intelligent people as the brains of their outfits. It is really just like the Mafia. You have your familes who each have their territory. The Godfathers are not overly bright, but they hire wily and experienced consiglieres to do the actual planning etc. There is a commision made up of the heads of the families. The commision is created so they can work together in their own interests. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 10, 2004 04:17 AM
The people who control the Banking industry through interconnected directorships and through stock are clearly string pullers. Your Rockefellers et al. They can affect the stock market and securities markekt in any country in the world through manipulation on large scale buying and selling, George Soros is known for this, but most of this is done secretely. What are all of these mega rich peoples goals ? Well since they control intelligence agencies, and they control governments, and they control or at least work with organized crime, we can conclude that whatever is going on in society, is what they want to go on. Unfortunately, obviously, these are not the nicest people around, otherwise you would see policies like those propounded by Nader in effect, instead of the current status quo. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 10, 2004 03:35 AM
How Freemasonry operated was that you could only join by invitation. The invitation into a secret society of the nobility, the wealthy, and the influential was an offer that you couldn't resist. What they did was invite all of the leaders of society to join. From politicians to judges, generals, police leadership, bankers, lawyers, etc. Who would turn down an invitation to become a brother of the leaders of society ? Which included Kings and Princes and Dukes etc? So Freemasonry was THE power during the 19th century. Even today in England they are string pullers. The power of Freemasonry is their allegiance to each other, and their positions in society. How much influence they have is hard to say. Then we have the money creators. cont

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 10, 2004 03:23 AM
You asked:"The question is, how unified are the people pulling the strings, and to what extent do they get in each others way?" Well thats the big mystery innit? If your cabal ruled over a populace secretly, doin what the powers that be are doin, you sure as hell wouldn't want your identity known. This is why Freemasonry is set up the way it is, no one knows the people above them until they are brought into that clique. It's no accident that once firearms became commonplace that the feudal system changed from everyone knowing who the rulers were, into rule by governments with unknown string pullers behind the scenes. In fact Freemasonry was the secret government for a long time. The nobility who were "replaced" by governments were the leaders of Freemasonry. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Jack, Velesquious1 at Nov 08, 2004 14:17 PM
Whether or not the motive of those running the media is purely profit would then be contingent on how we define "profit". If we define profit as wealth then what you say is correct. However if we define profit as a gain of any kind, including political power or social status, then the mechanics remain the same. An entity desires to distribute or supress an idea. This entity then offers the media outlet an incentive to disibute or surpress the information. This incentive doesn't need to be financal, though that might be the most common example. The media outlet agrees, and "profits". The entity then achieves its gain when the desired result of the distribution or supression is realized which we generally assume to be maintaining or increasing influence and control. The question is, how unified are the people pulling the strings, and to what extent do they get in each others way? To return to my shoe example, Nike would be glad to have their ad next to an article about a rebok sweatshop. I'd contend there's little, if any, difference between financial and political gain. ... not debating btw, just bouncing ideas around.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 07, 2004 00:17 AM
What you say would be true if the corporate media was solely run by people solely concerned with using that media to make a profit. The reality is that in order to have an effective oligarchy you need an official state propaganda effort, which includes silencing oppostion as much as possible. This is common sense if you are a fascist or other kind of totalitarian.[url=http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Operation_Mockingbird]OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD[/url] was invented just for that purpose. It was the co-opting of major media by the oligarchy through the CIA. While financial decisions no doubt play a part in corporate media decision making, above and beyond that is their allegiance to "the hidden masters" :)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Jack, Velesquious1 at Nov 06, 2004 21:00 PM
I think in reminding everyone that major media outlets are, first and foremost, business endevors is important to the discussion of what information they're willing to propigate and to what end they engage in 'slanting'. While the NYT, for example, is beholden to it's advertisers those advertisers are likewise beholden to their buyers. We wouldn't expect the NYT to run a nike ad opposite an article about sweatshop conditions because it would create reduced effectiveness for the ad and thus a reluctance on the part of nike to purchace adspace in the future. To that end, media outlets are willing to freely distribute unbiased news inversely to their ability to distribute it. That is to say, there are more constraints on "big-name" papers in major markets to only report news that will support their advertisers and maintain a status-quo within it's readership. In my estimation this trends not to a media bias per say, but rather to an under-effective media that panders to psychological bias towards news that reinforces cognitive dissonance.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Cfraserh, Haps33 at Nov 01, 2004 19:48 PM
I think the main problem is that most of us on Znet I'm sure would consider "leftist" to be in contradiction to much of what any business, including media, has to engage in simply in order to stay in business. In other words, when you're talking about 24 hours news networks, or the networks in general, it's not exactly in their best interest to explain to the American public that they're "wage-slaves", that we're probably past the peak of world oil production, etc etc. It doesn't make people want to go out and buy whatever they're advertising. And all this is fairly obvious and understandable. The people who work in mainstream media however are, after all, still just people. So it makes sense that they would care about a lot of social issues that most of us do. But in terms of any kind of "leftist" alternative to the status quo, it's bad for business to even suggest. That's why Znet and so many other websites are so GREAT - I think a news network that expressed a similar viewpoint would be very popular, I guess it takes a will in the business community to take a rather significant risk, and apparently not many are willing to do that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 06:51 AM
As for the complaints that the media is not liberal [for the most part] in it's ideology, you are not seeing liberalism from the point of view that the religious right sees it. To them "liberal" has been changed into a word that means non biblical. So any social value that is shown in the media as being acceptable or normal, that goes against biblical ideology, to them that is liberalism. To a person like myself the media may border on conservative on social issues, while the religious right would see my social views as extreme liberalism and anti god. I am for a totally free society, no laws against anything, unless it directly hurts another. This puts me on the extreme left according to the media, and puts me as an antichrist according to the religious right. It's semantics. One persons conservative is another persons liberal on social issues. The percieved conservative bias in corporate media, comes from their pandering to the religious right, they have to pay some lip service to keep them brainwashed. But really the education system gives us the overall strategy i.e consistent attack on religious belief through the priesthood of science/academia.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 06:35 AM
There are numerous books and articles detailing the history of the co-opting of the Christian right by the Republican establishment. [url=http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html]This article[/url] gives a concise history of this strategy. One thing to understand is that the people who co-opted the religious right also control pubic education and the universities as well through foundations. They still have the plan of eroding faith in God in america, and elsewhere, but they have brilliantly co-opted the very people they try to subvert. The goal is patriotism overiding any other loyalty. What they have done is to make patriotism equivalent with religiosity, they have given the religious right faith in the Republican party as their representative. The religious right in america now identifies patriotism with their religious identity and affiliation. They are now loyal to the state equally as they are to their religious ideology. cont.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply
3201001492787170

According to what I read about the Genovese story, at least of the witnesses did ...

By Field, Sam at Feb 03, 2010 22:22 PM
According to what I read about the Genovese story, at least of the witnesses did call the police, none of them saw the actual rape and murder and the murderer abandoned his initial attack because one of the witnesses shouted at him. In the end they only found half a dozen witnesses who had seen anything pertaining to the crime. One has to ask oneself why, despite these facts, 'respectable' newspapers like the New York Times ran headlines like "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police." That trust between people exists at all is nothing short of a miracle, or a testament to really existing human nature, when important institutions are designed to put people up against eachother at the cutthroat game of corporate capitalism while the mass media bombards people of stories of violent crimes, devious fraud, immigrant crime, horrible stories of domestic abuse and so on. But I agree with what has been said about the worst-case scenario where human beings are actually inclined to be terrible to eachother. Why tolerate forms of organization that exasperate those proclivities?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 06:17 AM
What we see today with the rise of the religious right's involement with politics in america, is a new phenomena. It didn't begin until the 1980's, although it's origins go back to the 1960's. This was a concerted effort by Republican planners to make use of the failed attempt to successfully secularize Christian america, which had been successfull in europe. Before the rise of Scientism as the new official ontological paradigm, the mass of Catholics were more loyal to the Pope, and the mass of Protestants were more loyal to their ideology, then they were to patriotism. The goal was to change that through undermining belief in God, through science. The new education systems were created to pursue this goal, as was the public opinion making media machine, utilizing academics as the new priesthood. This worked quite well in europe, for a number of reasons, but not in america. So the Republican establishment decided to co-opt the mass of hard core Christians. And what we have today is a result of this effective strategy. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 06:05 AM
Why do you think Darwinism is taught in public schools and any other belief is ridiculed ? If the elites, who created and control public education, believed in controlling the masses through religion, then this would be an incredibly stupid move. The use of religion to control the masses was used by RELIGIOUS/MONARCHICAL ELITES until the 18th-19th centuries. Non church elites i.e business/government entities were a new power base that came into it's own at that time. They saw religion as a problem for their control, not as a solution. The religious leaders had their own agendas. Protestants were not capable of being led in mass by elites, that is why they became protestants, their beliefs were anti authoritarian. Catholics were controlled by the Vatican establishment, which was in a power struggle with everyone else. The answer was to install science as the new "God". This new thought control was controllable through the education system and through "scientific experts" who they could easily control e.g either through direct working relationships or through control of the education system which academics relied on for their income. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 05:49 AM
Religion [catholicism mainly] was used to control the masses in europe, until the mid 19th century. At that time there was a mass Christian revival movement[protestant] in america and europe. This led to activism for human rights, which was openly being abused by the elites in their expanding empires, which included a huge increase in slavery. So the non catholic elites were being attacked on two fronts i.e Their traditional catholic enemies, and now their own people who were undergoing a mass soul searching and wanted to change the obviously inhumane government and business policies. At this exact moment in time we find Darwinism and Marxism come onto the scene.[url=http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html] Darwinism was installed[/url] along with Empirical Scientism as the "official" new paradigm of what was to be considered "authoritative" in the realm of ontological truth, by the official establishment. This coincided with the creation of an [url=http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm]education/propaganda[/url] system. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By S3344945, Mick at Nov 01, 2004 04:49 AM
Neither is our media. I would be interested to know which section of the religious community in America is really trying to challenge the status quo. It seems to me all they are doing is reinforcing it and making the dominant discourse or political current even more reactionary. This does not undermine anything but instead serces to divide the ordinary people in society who could otherwise challenge, as a plurality which respects and acknowledges difference but recognises there common aim of fundamental change, the ruling class/elite.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By S3344945, Mick at Nov 01, 2004 04:44 AM
Faith in religion has been one of the bastions of continuing the ruling ideas in society for a millenia. This is why Marx called it the opiate of the masses. In a very few cases such as with the progressive church movement in Latin America it actaually challenges the status quo. But on the whole organised religion does nothing but reinforce the ideas of the ruling class. As for the idea that the media is Liberal on social issues that is ridiculous. Although I amin Australia we get plenty of U.S. media and at no stage is it liberal.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 01:40 AM
This is what the whole debate is about in the political theatre of the absurd in america. Painting "liberalism" as the enemy by the Republican leadership, is sophistry and brainwashing. They are alluding to the supposedly "anti religious" social agenda of the Media and "secular" society, which they in fact are a part of, and major promoters and controllers of as well. This coincides with the religious propaganda the religious right gets brainwashed with at church. They are propagandized into seeing themselves as under attack, the forces of "darkness/liberalism" want to destroy their God and their rights to teach their religion, and their right to try and enforce "God's" true and good purpose on society. In this paradigm "liberal" becomes equivalent to evil. And then anything the Republican media calls liberal, is then seen as inherently, biblically, evil. So then the political sphere is turned into a fight between forces of light and dark, in their conditioned thinking. It is all brainwashing, psy-ops, and it has worked perfectly.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 01:26 AM
This is why there is a so called "liberal bias" in corporate media. There is a long held plan to secularize society as much as possible. This is why we don't see corporate media pushing religious social values. It goes against their overall plan for eroding religious belief. They will only give the religious right as little as possible, in terms of media support, to placate them and make them think they have an ally in the Republican party. But it is all a con job. The same people who control the Republican party, also control the fact that a religious social view is not given any respectability or equality in their media propaganda machines, in general. Look at how most mass media reports religious social views. It portrays them as antiquated, anti humanistic, and wackos, subliminally or overtly. Corporate right wing media outlets do not pursue the religious social agenda wholesale, aside from lip service to placate the biblethumper voting bloc. News Corp.[Fox] is the perfect example of this fakery. They vow political& social allegiance to the Christian worldview, but in reality, besides their lip service, their actual programming is hardly promoting Christian ideology.cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 01:07 AM
Did you know that the consensus among honest experts today, is that evolutionary theory is totally discredited ? Most people don't know this, they are fed a steady stream of propaganda telling them the opposite. Why ? "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain: I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation." Professor Jerome Lejeune, Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris. [url=http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol2.htm]More quotes from experts exposing evolution as a scam[/url]. The goal is still to erode faith in God. Faith in God by the masses, and by the people working directly under them, is inherently disadvantageous to the elites who plan on enagaging in brutally exploiting humanity. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 00:34 AM
This is why the Republican strategy has been changed. The efforts to make america more like europe, in terms of religious belief, failed miserably. So they changed their strategy to co-opt that which they failed at undermining. This may sound conspiratorial, but the truth is, we can examine history and see the truth. Why did communism reject and outlaw religion ? It is the enemy of the state. A believer will side with God, over the state if they seem to be in conflict. Slavery was abolished because of religious minded activists. There was a religious revival sweeping europe and america when the colonial empires were just starting to grow. Religious activists were campaigning for human rights at the exact time the empires were enslaving the weaker nations. At that exact time we find the beginning of Darwinism and Marxism as the guiding lights of the elites. This is no accident. The idea was to undermine faith in God completely, or at least as a person who controls your destiny. Scientism was promoted as the the paradigm of absolute truth, with Darwinism as the cornerstone of propaganda. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Nov 01, 2004 00:13 AM
The corporate media is overwhelmingly liberal in THE SOCIAL ARENA. This is glaringly obvious to the religious right. To them, media that promotes a social vision of normality, or acceptability, of ideology or behavior that is verboten in their dogma, is what they are complaining about when they whine about the "Liberal media". They have a faith based dogmatic vision of social "normalcy". Modern social mores are seen as the enemy, the corporate media is clearly the purveyor of the anti religious social paradigm, in their view. And they are correct. There is and has been, until recently, an effort to undermine faith in God by the elites. And even now it continues, although they also try and exploit the Xtians and Jews for political purposes. The idea [concocted in the 19th century] is that fear of sin and "wanting to do the right thing", is not in the interest of the state. Fear of God can affect loyalty to the state. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Oct 31, 2004 23:57 PM
I think there is some confusion here. There is a liberal slant in the corporate media. ONLY when we are speaking of SOCIAL issues i.e abortion, gays, sex etc. When we speak on non social issues, liberal and conservative are useless as designative terms for media whoredom. On political and economic issues, the media whores are servants of their paymasters. They will do what they are paid to do, they can affect liberal or progressive, conservative or reactionary stances, depending on the specific situation. They have NO ideology. They simply serve the needs of their controllers, whatever it may be at the moment. When the Xtian right complains about the liberal bias, they mean the social values they see coming from the media. Foxnews may be the mouthpiece of the white house on political matters, but the Fox network does not program socially right wing t.v shows, just the opposite. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Tchrist7, Tedc at Oct 31, 2004 11:53 AM
No I don't agree with much of any of the comments. A realistic look at human life begins with sober assessments of human inclinations. Miserable treatment of outsiders, women, and nature. Someone like Kristof of the NYT takes a good honest and productive (call it liberal if you want) cut at these. Z and Chomsky can't touch these. Their rigid directives are to find acceptable powerful elites behind it all. In Chomsky's "Hegemony and Survival" there is not a single sentence commenting on default indigineous violence levels, the impact of population growth, or the dominant survival technology/dynamic of our time - the staying alive techniques which were developed in the West and essentially given to the world resulting in a lowering of infant mortality by a factor of 3.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Frankamendola, Franka at Oct 30, 2004 18:55 PM
Both of you are correct. What I wrote may be a bit misleading, let me clarify. When I say that the print media is liberal, I mean to say, MORE LIBERAL than mainstream broadcast journalism, not really LIBERAL. What is considered centrist nowadays is right, what is considered liberal is probably still slightly right of center. As to "education leads to more liberal ideas". I mean that those who are more apt to READ news tend to be more liberal, whereas those who get their news from Fox, tend to be less informed and less liberal. Just an observation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By S3344945, Mick at Oct 29, 2004 07:54 AM
Although the broadcast media might be more obvious in their bias to say that this makes the print media less so is dangerous. For people who are supposedly politicall active and aware to be so easily taken in by the prevailing ideas shows how easy it is for the media to propogate the ruling ideas of society. As for the idea that education leads to more liberal ideas how does one explain the neo-cons etc who are hardly short of a university degree or two

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Boog, Rlb at Oct 29, 2004 05:57 AM
I'm not sure what Noam means by "conventional standards" but I hardly ever see a page of newsprint in the corporate media containing material that in either substance or form could on balance be considered left of center. For a simple demonstration, compare the headlines on the front page of the NYT or the Washington Post (and the following articles) on any given day with the headlines and articles for the same day posted on this web site or Counterpunch. Or Buzzflash. The corporate media relentlessy supports the delusional framework and the suggested comparison makes it easy to see. I don't know of an American newspaper that comes close to making the choices about what is newsworthy and how to report it that any number of liberal/left web sites do routinely. Wouldn't it be great to have at least one newsbox on the corner making the daily choices and expressing the point of view found on Znet? Further, framing the issue as a liberal/ conservative distinction seems to me to be a bit of a distraction. Isn't it really supporting or questioning power, as Noam first suggests?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Myth of the Liberal Media

By Frankamendola, Franka at Oct 28, 2004 21:23 PM
I agree. It seems to me that the print media tends to be more liberal because the people who actuall take the time to read newspapers, who are politically active, and who care about what is going on, tend to be more liberal (more intelligent as well). On the flip end, the broadcast media is certainly more right wing, these broadcasts pander to the lazy, football watching toughguys who THINK they know what is going on. It is more infotainment than journalism, and it assumes that it's listeners (or Watchers) are uninformed boobs who are willing to accept the official line from the white house, and the opinions of the Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world. In general, to call it a "Liberal Media" is Orwellian to say the least.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (45)

Loading_border