I think the distance between them has been diminishing for some time. There's Reagan, Sonny Bono, Gopher from The Love Boat, Jesse Ventura, Ahnold, Fred the Carpathian Thompson, who else am I forgetting…it's the new way to be taken seriously as an actor.

I don't want to hear actors' opinions about which politician they support any more than I want to hear politicians' opinions about which movie was 'totally awesome.' But it happens. Usually the effect is that I increasingly dislike the politicians and actors involved.

So, I wrote a paper about this in college. Basically it depends on what you define as media. Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative, not even just Republican. Also, it depends on if you are talking straight news or op-ed type things. Fox, versus say NBC, is more likely to blur the line between hard news programs and opinion programs. And (I am not 100% on this) there is some statistic that the owners of most media outlets are Conservative not Liberal. And your point about the major media markets, at least for papers, is correct. Most statistical data revolves around the major market newspapers - which reflect who lives there. Hometown papers in Iowa are rarely, if ever, considered in "liberal media" studies. I would submit that the trend has actually been toward conservative sensationalism in the past decade. There hasn't been a liberal media since the 70s.

I should have put IMO after the 70s comment. Also one more point, even if the liberals outnumber the conservatives in the media (including radio and t.v.) conservatives inject their political view into hard news reporting more often. Again that is in my opinion, but hell, watch Fox, they editorialize EVERYTHING.

I loved it, food for thought.

So-called liberal bias didn't develop in a vacuum. People choose what they consume. That goes for even their news sources. If the market didn't demand it, it would evolve and change. So the people that claim the media has a liberal bias are really blaming the people (voters) indirectly.

ditto to what lisa said. fox news is not actual news (imo). everything that comes out of the mouths of fox news anchors is rah rah rah iraq, rah rah rah bush, rah rah rah the economy is just swell, thankyouverymuch.

and fox news tickers are outright funny sometimes: "do democrats want to lose the iraq war?" they put forth these types of outrageous comments in the form of a question so they're not actually saying democrats want to lose the war. they're just throwing it out there.

do mollygood readers have sex with animals?

well, whether we do or not, the damage has been done. the facts are unimportant.

it's an old lawyer "when was the last time you beat your wife" type question. it's bullshit.

I also think that the idea that any media can be unbiased is a crock. Everything is biased, at some point in the production process. After all, it takes people to write stories, check facts, produce facts, do research… these people each inject a piece of themselves into the whole process, whether they like it or not.

And finally, is it possible that the media is just critical of government because it makes for better stories than being approving? Being critical, "exposing scandals," and providing "the real facts," probably is a lot better for ratings than supporting government statements and policies, whoever is in power. It's not very compelling to hear, "All is well," all the time. Sad, but true. News has, to a large extent, turned into newsertainment, because it's subjected to the same income generation exigencies as non-news media. It will be interesting to see how the media treats a more liberal government. I think a large faction of it will still remain critical.

I don't fuck animals, but I would fuck Simba if I could.

My, errr, friend, yeah that's it, my friend is wondering, STM, how are you defining "fuck" in relation to animals?

In all seriousness Janice I'm with you. The media jumps on whoever is in power/in charge; otherwise life would be boring, and all media bigwigs would be broke…Can you believe that a McCain supporter is agreeing with you? Does it scare you? Maybe we aren't all that bad, Cord.

Liberal vs. conservative is a false dichotomy used to placate Americans by giving us the illusion of choice.

Just like a popular vote in an electoral state, that doesn't mean shit in elections…But it doesn't mean you just give up (at least to me)

There are certain celebrities out there that simply hurt a campaign. Take Susan Sarrandon or Sean Penn for example. They are both so politically outspoken and either seen as annoying or offensive to your average citizen that people will tend to turn away from the candidate they most hope to help. If those people really want a Democrat to win, Tom Cruise and Sean Penn should should endorse McCain.

Hey Chomsky, remember when you said "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."? Yea, I do.

Oh for crying out loud, Cord. I want to urge you to not speak on politics again. Your call, but you sound like an idiot whenever you do. I LOVE how you always talk about how crazy and biased and nonsensical Republicans/conservatives are and then sputter out a bunch of crazy, biased, nonsensical bullshit yourself. You may or may not have a point, but your arguments suck. Your logic is faulty. And you don't back up ANY of your assertions. You don't even argue in a coherent manner - you're all over the place. Did you ever have to write an essay for a class? Do you outline this shit first? Do you understand how to transition from one topic to another? I love that you just count on the fact that most of your readers know nothing about politics, happen to stumble onto these sorts of posts because they want to hear the celebrity gossip, and read your bullshit, and believe it because they don't know any better. Yuk.

Anyway, I thought I'd poke some holes in your diatribe just for fun:

1. "And did you know that that very same “liberal, mainstream media” was partially responsible for the stolen election in Florida in 2000 and for misleading the American people into the ill-gotten war in Iraq?"
My response: What in shit's name does this have to do with your argument? What do you base this on (answer: nothing)? The media wasn’t responsible for the 2000 elections. The voters (and the Supreme Court) were. By the way, “stolen” is an absolutely loaded word, Mr. Fair and Balanced. That’s what I like to call a crazy conspiracy theory. Kinda like the “liberal media” idea, according to you. Also, "misleading the American people into…Iraq"? Last time I checked, the legislature was responsible for that. I'm pretty sure there was no nation-wide referendum, at least not that I participated in. So in what sense were the people "mislead[]…into…Iraq"? Doesn't make sense. If you meant mislead them into supporting the war for a time, I'm pretty sure there was pretty strong anti-war sentiment from the get-go. I don't think the media ever portrayed the war in an entirely positive light - maybe more positively than they do now, but not ever what I’d call positive. [*time out for web research*] I was just glancing through some NY Times articles from 2003 (at the start of the war), and yup, lots of negative stuff in there. Look for yourself if you'd like. Bottom line: this doesn't fit in with the rest of your "essay" and is just a rant…and isn't even truthful or accurate (if I am understanding what you were trying…unsuccessfully…to say).

2. Your first "point" (I think): "If we do accept the premise that the media has a liberal slant, I think we must also assume that conservatives and Republicans think that media is deliberately biased. Because to be biased would be going against foundational ethics of journalism and media; and for these organizations, which have literally hundreds of writers and editors on staff, to not have even one serious whistle blowing case would be a treachery of the highest order. It would be a massive group effort designed to help only Democrats, liberals, gays, women, blacks, yuppies, hipsters, musicians, actors and artists. It would be catastrophic."

My response: I gather this is your attempt at logic. Hate to break this to you, but it was unsuccessful. First, one of your premises is faulty. Media may strive to be unbiased, but a story can be molded into anything the teller of it would like, and it is impossible to have a totally bias-free news report. Even a 50-word little blurb on something can sway readers to believing one thing or another by choosing which facts to print, who to quote, etc. News ain't unbiased. Ever. Secondly, your conclusion that people think there is an intentional media bias (conspiracy?) doesn’t follow from your premises that 1) some people believe the media is biased and 2) there are ethical standards against bias. There is no logical connection there. Thirdly, I don't know what you mean to prove by your "whistle-blowing" statement - - I highly doubt anyone is ordering reporters, writers, whomever, to be biased, and I don't believe anyone could think that. If most of the people you hire think like you, you don't have to tell them to write on a slant. For crap's sake, everyone always assumes Fox's conservative bias - why isn't there a whistle blowing case there? Because they don't say - - "hey, Sean Hannity, you should approach this from a conservative point of view," they just hire Sean Hannity in the first place.

3. Second "point": "I would argue that the conservatives beloved free market has created the demand for so-called “liberal” media outlets."

My response: That's just not well thought out. First of all, you claim there is no bias. So this doesn't even make sense if you're trying to argue that. But that aside, if this were true, we'd see major news outlets going through leadership changes and constant shifts in viewpoint according to the political tides of the day. For example, I think Republicans first started bitching loudly about the "liberal media" in the mid-'90s, but they had an incredible year in 1994, taking over both houses of the legislature (in the so-called "Republican Revolution"). If your premise was true, that would've meant that leading up to the 1994 elections, the media would have been increasingly conservative. However, as I stated, Republicans had their panties in a bunch during this time because of the alleged liberal bias.. Also, the newspapers you cite to, and even more so, the television news shows you don't mention, are national media. Not local. Especially the New York Times - - it is read all over the nation. And isn't New York the same city that kept Giuliani in office from '94 to '01? Some NY natives are evidently not liberal enough to keep a Republican out of their mayoral office. Tell me the last time that happened in, say, Chicago? The last Republican mayor Chicago elected was in 1927. My point being that if NY were as hardcore liberal as you say, Giuliani would’ve never been elected – Republicans CAN be kept out (ask Chicago) – but Giuliani wasn’t. Anyway, I think this is a silly argument. Again, it would imply the media had massive turnover every time public opinion shifted. But that type of constant turnover doesn't exist.

4. "Young people, who often don’t vote and have the most buying power, are overwhelmingly socially liberal."
My response: First of all, "overwhelmingly" is such a precise word and I like how you have some source for this claim [note: I'm being sarcastic]. Eh, I’m pretty sure I’ve read something to this effect – it’s probably true, I'm just pointing out that you don’t support any of your arguments. Secondly, young people don't have the most buying power. What the hell? Young people (especially college aged people) are often poor as hell. I was poor as hell in college, that's for sure. What are you talking about here? This is just ignorant and lazy. Do some homework before you spit out these kids of statements on unsuspecting celeb gossip mongers. Thirdly, I highly doubt that these "young people" who "don't vote" are out there buying more newspapers and watching the evening news more often than the middle-aged and the geezers. Damn, my grandparents don't have anything to do BUT watch the news. A gazillion of the middle-aged folks with kids in my parents’ suburban neighborhood receive newspapers – literally – almost all of them. I'm in my mid/late-twenties and even at this age (not that young anymore), most of my friends don't subscribe to newspapers and don't watch the news regularly. In college? Like…no one. Me. Maybe some fellow poly sci geeks. But nobody else. Certainly nobody in the beer guzzling, partying fraternity/sorority crowds. Even now, I ride the bus every day with a ton of people my age, and guess what they read? The free paper that's located at all the bus stops that talks mostly about local issues, local bars, and celebrities. Not The NYT.

Give it up Cord. Or at least put some more effort into it. This is disgraceful.

And…if you didn't write this (if a "DC wonk" actually did), then you should find another wonk.

I smell a commie for kris. :-)

oh snap.

I got so tired reading this comment from kris. Bless kris' heart, that took a lot of thought and time.

As a "beer guzzling geeser" can I say, that even though the percieved dispendable income should come from the older folks, the advertising is so geared to the younger folks. Everyone, it seems gears the stuff to the younger folks. They are the future.

We older "beer guzzling geesers" (and by the way my dearest kris, that discription doesn't offend me in the least. Any of the hags here will vouch for me, that I am in fact just that) are seen by those in the know as set in our ways and maybe not mallible as perhaps the younger set is. That is why the focus is on the young and perhaps, unexperienced.

Us older folks, we have seen it all. Nothing really phases us.

As the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Please let's continue the discussion. Let's not discount someone trying something new because we may not agree. Food for thought is a good thing. I'll never stop learning, until I take that eternal dirt nap. Or unless I break a hip, whichever comes first.

Damn this refresh button.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ… oh, sorry, I couldn't get past "I love that you just count on the fact that most of your readers know nothing about politics," which is a LIE. I just know almost nothing about American politics.

Cord,

For someone who is literate, you sure weren't able to read my second post. I did see that, I just thought the essay sounded like your writing, and that you were trying to make it more credible by attributing it to some "DC wonk".

And as for taking my grievances to DC, I am assuming that you are trying to say your buddy is in a "slightly high place" in politics. I'm not impressed, boyfriend/girlfriend can't write.

My beef is not against the point of the essay, but against how it's written. For a piece against rhetoric, it sure contains a lot. I'd say that about a conservative piece if it were true. I know some intelligent, open-minded liberals, though I may myself be more independent, even conservative-leaning. I'd never say some of my liberal friends' arguments don't hold water. They do, and sometimes I'm swayed by them. But this…this is just mouthy b.s. Something can never contribute to a real debate or discussion. Any intelligent argumetn is worthy of respect, even if I absolutely disagree with it, but when people just spew rhetoric - - whether it's right-wing rhetoric spewed by Rush Limbaugh, or left-wing rhetoric spewed by you on your website (or by your buddy), it pisses the hell out of me. Especially in an incredibly hypocritical forum - such as this one, which is itself attacking the rhetoric of conservatives.

Others,

As for saying the readers don't know anything about politics, sorry, that was super shitty of me and I apologize - to EsquaredMom and everyone else. I don't know you guys so I shouldn't say that. But this is supposed to be a celebrity gossip sight (that's why I come here, anyway…its one of the only celeb gossip sites not blocked by my work computer…and I'm admittedly addicted to celebrity gossip), and so I guess I was assuming that people come here for that, not politics. II think it's underhanded to throw politics into a site that supposedly deals with something much more superficial. Start a political blog, Cord.

Sorry to keep ranting, I'm hormonal and bitchy right now. But dammit if this website doesn't piss me off sometimes.

By the by: my words were tempestuous. I don't consider that a bad thing. But idiotic? Pray tell, doest I see before me another unfounded assertion? Doest thee makest another sweeping statement without backing it up? I think you have. If idiotic my words be, then explain why and enlighten me.

OOkay…I'm fucking tired and talking crazy talk now. Point made, however oddly.

And the geezers I refer to - my grandparents - are like 85 years old. I don't think they'd be offended by that term. It's what they are. I'm no spring chick anymore, so I don't mean to be picking on the old folks, just to be clear. I respect the older folks…they read the shit out of those newspapers and watch a ton of news. It's truuuueee….

G'night all. Sleep tight.

I am glad my hyperbolic answer to an inflammatory question got such a great response! Personal insults aside, Mollygood readers now have a couple points and counterpoints as they contemplate the election season. I look forward to assisting in this exercise with a couple more installments.

And buddy, if you don't think politics is superficial, take a closer look.

Apology notwithstanding, I am still annoyed at Kris' comment that Cord counts on us not knowing anything. We(regular readers/commenters) like having political debates (as well as going off topic). We like disagreeing with Cord. We like disagreeing with eachother. We like that this isn't a standard gossip site. It sucks that other sites are blocked for you (except Perez, becuase, well, work is doing you a favor there), but realize that your feelings may not be the majority's feelings. So maybe take the time to get to know the site a bit better before you basically call everyone idiotic sheep.

That being said, Brit's gone crazy y'all!

Kris, I went back and reread your first comment.
After reading your susequent comments, I read the first comment but took out the tone that I percieved went with your words. You do have interesting things to say. I am glad you came back with your other comments.

Kris: fair enough but why didn't you ask again who wrote the article instead of going into the very deep and accusing end? Your point is healthy but you come across so defensive towards Cord-esp since their was a disclaimer, that it sounded personal….??

Politics makes us do the craziest stuff but damn, thats just rude. And not nice. :(

Plus, am I right boo hoo, we can listen a lot better, even if the next comment is the opposite of what we just put out there, if it is done with humor? Or at least tolerance for all opinions?

But sometimes we get heated, good Lord, I am so guilty of that. And in all fairness, Kris did explain that in the other two comments.