Rating: 
Summary: The following proves we have a liberal controlled media
Review: The following facts that the liberal controlled media won't publish proves that we have a liberal controlled media.1) Clinton had the chance to take custody of Bin Laden during the 90's and didn't. If Clinton had done his job and took custody of Bin Laden, most likely the 9/11 WTC bombing, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War wouldn't have happened. 2) The economic downturn started during Clinton in March 2001 when the stock market started it's downward spiral. When Bush said in December 2001 that the economy was in trouble, he was telling the truth. Unlike the former occupant of the White House who said all is well, much like the guy on the Titantic as the ship was sinking. 3) The liberals, leftists, and Democrats are screaming about NAFTA eliminating jobs and blaming the problem on George W. Bush. The liberal controlled media forgets to tell us that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and submitted it Congress for approval. The liberal controlled media also forgets to tell us that NAFTA was approved by a Democratic controlled congress. It's hard for me to understand why the liberal controlled media, the liberals, leftists, and Democrats can tell us that NAFTA is a Bush and a Republican problem when NAFTA was signed, submitted, and approved by Clinton and a Democratic controlled Congress. 4) In scientifically conducted polls, seventy five percent of Iraqis are happy with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the temporary occupation of Iraq by United States troops. 5) A recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that the United States has a liberal controlled media. 6) The problems with Iraq were caused by the French veto in the United Nations security council. If France hadn't vetoed numerous resolutions in the Security Council, we would have had a joint military coalition with our Allies in Iraq, we have a joint occupation of Iraq with our Allies, and we have joint reconstruction of Iraq with our Allies. What amazes me is that if weren't for the United States in World War II liberating France, the ungrateful French would be a German province today. It amazes that the conquered French got a UN veto after they surrendered to the Germans instead of fighting. 7) The ungrateful French have a government that is so liberal and leftist, Hillary and Bill Clinton are considered moderates in comparison. And the list goes on.......
Rating: 
Summary: Not perfect but a necessary book
Review: If you believe, as I do, that our newspapers should primarily serve the citizens, not the special interests, of the areas they cover, it makes sense they would be seen by the right wing as being "liberal." Any medium that does not take up conservative causes like corporate handouts, tax breaks for the wealthy, impotent environmental laws, dismantling of our social safety nets, easy and unlimited handgun ownership, borrow-and-spend economics, unjustified wars, etc., etc., is negatively labelled "leftist" by the far right. It's all a smoke-screen to fool you into forgetting that all of the things they stand for are unpopular with the majority of Americans and are certainly not in our best interests. We need media that will serve the interests of ALL Americans, including the weakest and poorest among us and those with no other voice of their own. Are these liberal values? Yes! - and it's time we start reminding ourselves that they are also American values. Conservative extremists will not succeed in tearing that down, no matter how loudly they scream and lie. Despite right-wing media attempts to lower us to a country of warring tribes, this is still a benevolent nation and I'll be damned if I'll let black-hearted conservative screamers turn it into a place where we stop caring about each other, especially those we disagree with. If they want to try to convince people that that would somehow be good for us, they have that right but when it comes to mainstream media, they should uphold our best values and insticts, not our worst; and not the values of corporate America, corrupt politicians, the wealthiest Americans, or the far right (or the far left, for that matter). If that's "liberal," so be it. I want a newspaper that is on the side of the working class, not the wealthy elite who already have the deck stacked in their favor and who are stealing our country from us. THAT'S the true definition of "liberal media," not the distortion of the term by extremists. If these are things you oppose, I can only surmise that you'd like us to be a country of greedy, soulless, uncaring people who couldn't give a damn about anyone else but ourselves. Are these conservative values? More and more they seem to be and that should be an embarrassment to sensible conservatives. The louder and more hostile the far right wing media becomes and the more they become shills for big money interests, the more confident I feel that a backlash by real Americans will soon put them in their place. I can only hope that our "liberal" media will either lead the way or get out of the way.
Rating:
Summary: 1 star is too many.
Review: No liberal will ever see a liberal slant in the news. It is just as they would like it. If there is no liberal slant in the major news outlets, why do I have to search to find any news that points out what good is being done in Iraq. Many projects in that country are going well, better than expected in a lot of cases, but not ever reported by the Brokaw, Jennings, Rather bunch. I know there are problems in Iraq. Big problems. Our soldiers are getting killed every day. BUT, there are good things happening that are not getting reported.
Rating: 
Summary: Good job, conservative readers !
Review: I'm glad to see that so many conservatives went out and bought this book, read it from cover to cover and then even took the time out to comment on it on Amazon. Riiight...
Rating: 
Summary: To all the people who have read the LAT lately....
Review: ....how is there a 'conservative' slant? True, we have Rush, Hannity, and as some would say O'Reilly. Then again, we also have the LAT, who has reached out to, oh, everyone. It basically has a monopoly where it is.
Lately, the LA Times has been far from being controlled by conservative interests. In fact, one would almost swear that it is in bed with Davis.
It offers views that might be correct only if everyone in the nation watched Fox and listened to Rush and Hannity, which is far from the real picture: most people watching MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and a variety of other sources. Most of the mass media outlets have been very liberal, not mentioning the LA Times. If you don't believe me, pick up a copy, you'll see what I mean.
Regardless, there is a bias, just in the opposite direction of what this author suggests. And of course you're going to call FOX conservative, because it is, compared to ABC's, CNN's, and CBS's Liberal reporting.
Fact is, You cannot get the whole story by just watching the stories. This book would only make sense if everyone listened to rush and watched Fox, but clearly, everyone doesn't.
As for me, I just get my news on the internet from as many sources as I can. So the book holds no sway over my opinion: the 'conservative slant' doen't affect me, neither does the liberal slant from other stations.
When you do see the truth, it does not necessarily support either side, but it will, by mere existance, refute those who are not honest. In this case, the hammer of truth comes down hard... against the author.
Rating:
Summary: New title "Why the media is so biased to the liberal view"
Review: This book as with all Eric Alterman books, his Altercation on msnbc.com, and his column in "the Nation" are designed to show us that the country should be to the left so that it goes along with Eric Alterman's ideals. The purpose of this book and other Alterman books is to say since the media and society won't do things Eric's way, He'll create a book based on questionable documentation to show why He's right. I don't fault Eric Alterman for his leftist and radical beliefs which are to the left of most liberals, democrats, and even Bill and Hillary Clinton. What I don't like is when Eric Alterman tells the rest of us why were wrong when we don't agree with his leftist, liberal, and radical beliefs.
Rating: 
Summary: Claim of bias?
Review: Is this some sort of claim that the media is biased one way or another? It doesn't strike me as very likely that the author is going to be able to convince anyone either way, since people tend to have very strong opinions about these things - they'll either be reading it to support their own biases, or to "know the enemy", so to speak. Having said that, it could be an interesting read if you're interested in these kinds of things. I'm not myself, and can't really imagine reading this book under pretty much any circumstances whatsoever. I nonetheless give it 3 stars, since it would be unfair to harshly judge something I haven't read and have very little interest in.
Rating:
Summary: It has a bais, yes, but really...
Review: Alterman's screeds at the Altercation blog/collumn at MSNBC.com is a liberal muckraker's dream, and never pretends to be less than that. I love Alterman's calling attention to detail, and like the Nation which he also writes for, he doesn't pretend not to have a bais. I know that the Post, the NY Times, and such are slightly liberal on some issues, but more than not, they are for their advertisers and for the readers in their area. So, I worked in journalism, before I started working in insurance and real literature, and there is a bais in ALL media. Rarely is it clearly political, it is hardly ever liberal, and very rarely ideologically conversative. But it is pro-advertiser and sensationalism, which is something that neo-conversatives can play off of. So pointed out that both Alterman and (his funnier, less deft SNL/right-wing bias exposer compatriot) Franken are Jews. I admit that there are some issues raised by that, but Alterman, for example, does not have the blanket disregard for those who look wearily at Israel, who much of the Democratic left does, or the simple-minded answers to Southern politics that people like Franken have (although that shows up more in his collumn than in his books). Ultimately, Alterman blows the top out of the constant accusion of liberal bias made by the increasingly more visable conversative mouth-pieces that constantly seem to be in the eyes of the media. Hrmm... "The media is conversative and i can get on the television and accuse them of that.." but I haven't seen Alterman on Fox News recently.
Rating:
Summary: Conservative, liberal, does it matter?
Review: Full of stories of how the conservatives run the media (no kidding, how can anyone treat George W with respect?) Other books, full of stories of how the liberals run the media
(no kidding, why are labor unions called "labor" when they have
their own agenda, different from the laborers'?) Either way, the media is clearly "stateist"---sometimes liberals
know what's best for you, sometimes perhaps conservatives know
what's best for you. When is the media ever ready to say that
YOU know what's best for you? Why are Americans willing to give more and more of their freedoms
to sleazy (this much everyone agrees on) politicians called "Democrats" and "Republicans"? Don't bother with this book or its anti-books. Go read
the Bill of Rights or something instead.
Rating:
Summary: Desperation of Liberal Obfuscation of the Facts
Review: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify the agenda of Alterman, as that agenda parallels the same one that authors of other presently popular works composed by the likes of Franken and Krugman are looking to advance: Of COURSE the ABC network posesses a liberal bias, as does the Washington Post. Why isn't this clear to more so-called intellectuals? The facts certainly are clear to anyone with even the most remedial understanding of capitalism and economics: The television and print media simply serve as a vehicle to directly or indirectly express the opinions and advance the agenda of those who own or control them. And liberals, specifically liberal Jews, control the majority of these outlets. Michael Eisner controls Disney, which controls ABC. Sumner Redstone controls Viacom, which controls CBS. Until his recent ouster, Gerald Levin ran Time Warner for many years, which, incidentally, owns CNN--and that news organization is run by Walter Issacson. The nation's undisputed three most influential newspapers--The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal? Yep, you guessed it. Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report? Ditto. Granted, notable exceptions are News Corp's Fox and General Electric's NBC. But I'd call these exceptions, wouldn't you? I suppose that by pointing out these facts--which are irrefutable by the way--make me either a liberal-basher, anti-semitic, a liar, or all of the above. It is indeed unfortunate that large masses of otherwise seemingly intelligent people are willing to ignore the truth, even if it's staring them smack in the face!
|
