Movies: Hollywood sexual harassment ( Russell Brand facing multiple allegations)

[Mach85]

It's interesting how that author undermines his own central premise by acknowledging that, for decades, while the media conglomerates have been run by conservative-leaning owners, the actual reporters in the newsrooms have leaned liberal. It's the latter that people refer to when accusing the media of being liberal, since what matters is the bias in the reporting, not the bias of the silent owners. The author is actually supporting that accusation as the reality, rather than eroding it as a myth.

Well, you're assuming that the owners would be silent and the reporters are free to just impose their own ideology and spin on news. I doubt owners would sit by idly when that's taking place, especially if it's contrary to their own belief system.

 

[Osprey]

Well, you're assuming that the owners would be silent and the reporters are free to just impose their own ideology and spin on news. I doubt owners would sit by idly when that's taking place, especially if it's contrary to their own belief system.

That's not my assumption. That's what the expert that the author quoted four paragraphs from to open his article said and is, essentially, the premise of the article.

 

[Mach85]

That's not my assumption. That's what the expert that the author quoted four paragraphs from to open his article said and is, essentially, the premise of the article.

Not at all. That might be the conclusion you're deriving from it, or the premise you're inferring. The article states that the conservative owners and left-leaning reporters mitigated each other historically, so left-leaning reporters were essentially neutralized. And now we have organizations like Fox News that are even imposing more conservative takes on their reporters.

 

[Osprey]

Not at all. That might be the conclusion you're deriving from it, or the premise you're inferring. The article states that the conservative owners and left-leaning reporters mitigated each other historically, so left-leaning reporters were essentially neutralized. And now we have organizations like Fox News that are even imposing more conservative takes on their reporters.

The point is that it's the article that's making the assumptions. First, it jumps to the extraordinary conclusion that media corporations have historically been owned by conservatives because their owners have been business-minded (as if liberals don't like money and power just as much); then, it leapfrogs again to the assumption that, because of that, news outlets have historically been nicely balanced between conservative and liberal viewpoints. It's just a lot of spin that's no more substantiated than what it's trying to debunk.

 

[Mach85]

The point is that it's the article that's making the assumptions. First, it jumps to the extraordinary conclusion that media corporations have historically been owned by conservatives because their owners have been business-minded (as if liberals don't like money and power just as much); then, it leapfrogs again to the assumption that, because of that, news outlets have historically been nicely balanced between conservative and liberal viewpoints. It's just a lot of spin that's no more substantiated than what it's trying to debunk.

People's political orientations (public figures at least) are pretty well-known. They make donations, attend dinners, etc. As for the rest...it's just common sense and is a very reasonable conclusion. If the owners of news outlets are a certain political orientation, they're not going to sit idly by and let their employees spin lies to the public to further the employees' political interests. It points out that the political orientation of many owners of many outlets is not in fact liberal, as the conspiracy theories in question rely on. THAT'S the point. You seem to be going to great lengths to mischaracterize this column.

 

[Osprey]

People's political orientations (public figures at least) are pretty well-known. They make donations, attend dinners, etc. As for the rest...it's just common sense and is a very reasonable conclusion. If the owners of news outlets are a certain political orientation, they're not going to sit idly by and let their employees spin lies to the public to further the employees' political interests. It points out that the political orientation of many owners of many outlets is not in fact liberal, as the conspiracy theories in question rely on. THAT'S the point. You seem to be going to great lengths to mischaracterize this column.

I'm not mischaracterizing it any more than you are. We're just talking about different parts of the column. Yes, some clearly conservative owners are presently in ownership of media outlets and the growing consolidation is leading to more of that, but the column goes beyond simply suggesting that the "myth" is presently false to suggesting that it's never been true. That can be seen in the references to "most of modern American history" and the "post-Watergate era." That's the dubious part of the column, suggesting that the present situation is how it's always been and that the "myth" has always been that. If it had just been a column about growing conservative consolidation, that'd be fine, but it got carried away and tried to make a much larger point that it wasn't supporting, except with weak reasoning, and that's what I was taking issue with.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

The conspiracy theorist 's favorite boogeyman (besides the Clintons) appears to be George Soros.

 

[Mach85]

I'm not mischaracterizing it any more than you are. We're just talking about different parts of the column. Yes, some clearly conservative owners are presently in ownership of media outlets and the growing consolidation is leading to more of that, but the column goes beyond simply suggesting that the "myth" is presently false to suggesting that it's never been true. That can be seen in the references to "most of modern American history" and the "post-Watergate era." That's the dubious part of the column, suggesting that the present situation is how it's always been and that the "myth" has always been that. If it had just been a column about growing conservative consolidation, that'd be fine, but it got carried away and tried to make a much larger point that it wasn't supporting, except with weak reasoning, and that's what I was taking issue with.

I'm not sure how I'm mischaracterizing the article when I'm simply explaining what's literally written in it. And yes, we're generally talking about modern American history and the post-Watergate era when we're talking about the liberal media conspiracy and Soros and the Clintons and whatnot, which is what started this whole sidebar. So you've now turned this into a strawman. Pre-Watergate and how things were in eras other than the current era are not germane to the current conversation. Although if you're arguing that society was historically MORE liberal, you'd probably have a pretty hard time with that one as well.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

I'm just gonna leave this here: How mega-media deals further erode the myth of a 'liberal' media

There's a lot of research out there on the personality characteristics of people who believe in nebulous, far-reaching conspiracy theories, and slag those who don't as not being "woke" or "sheeple." But I guess it's easy to dismiss those things because they don't fit with one's view of how the world works...

The whole article is one of misdirection. Murdoch is associated with Fox. That's mostly it. We all know how everyone else vilifies Fox.

This is just a fluff, say as little as possible to validate the writers bias.. How about this one?

One of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors owns CNN. How’s that fair?

Now what you have to do is dig deeper in to who actually controls the media. Then you look at who controls the majority of wealth and corporations in the US.

You will eventually come up with a few families. One in particular. They bet big on the Clintons (plural). Bill did a great job so I'm not saying they are evil either...

And no I am not a Trump voter. I didn't like either candidate so it's a good thing I'm Canadian.

 

[Mach85]

The whole article is one of misdirection. Murdoch is associated with Fox. That's mostly it. We all know how everyone else vilifies Fox.

This is just a fluff, say as little as possible to validate the writers bias.. How about this one?

One of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors owns CNN. How’s that fair?

Now what you have to do is dig deeper in to who actually controls the media. Then you look at who controls the majority of wealth and corporations in the US.

You will eventually come up with a few families. One in particular. They bet big on the Clintons (plural). Bill did a great job so I'm not saying they are evil either...

And no I am not a Trump voter. I didn't like either candidate so it's a good thing I'm Canadian.

Pretty ironic that you call the article misdirection, then go on a loosely-related tangent and counter with an article (from the venerated "randomnerds.com") that mentions ONE news network. I don't think you and I are going to agree on anything here. I prefer facts and substantiation, you prefer smoke and mirrors and nebulous, loosely-tied, even looser-sourced pie-in-the-sky theories. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Pretty ironic that you call the article misdirection, then go on a loosely-related tangent and counter with an article (from the venerated "randomnerds.com") that mentions ONE news network. I don't think you and I are going to agree on anything here. I prefer facts and substantiation, you prefer smoke and mirrors and nebulous, loosely-tied, even looser-sourced pie-in-the-sky theories. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

lol. If that is what you got out of it, then cheers!

Enjoy your day!

 

[Pilky01]

I hate those default avatars. Just looks like the same person having a conversation with themselves.

 

[Osprey]

I'm not sure how I'm mischaracterizing the article when I'm simply explaining what's literally written in it. And yes, we're generally talking about modern American history and the post-Watergate era when we're talking about the liberal media conspiracy and Soros and the Clintons and whatnot, which is what started this whole sidebar. So you've now turned this into a strawman. Pre-Watergate and how things were in eras other than the current era are not germane to the current conversation. Although if you're arguing that society was historically MORE liberal, you'd probably have a pretty hard time with that one as well.

I didn't say anything about pre-Watergate eras. The "current era" is the one that we're in, the one since the rise of Fox News and the conservative media. Before that, CNN, the NY Times, the three major networks and such ruled news media. That was the era of the "liberal media." The column is trying to erode the notion that that era leaned left and pointing to evidence in the current era (ex. business dealings in 2017). It's a highly dubious argument. If it had simply argued that there is no general liberal bias in the media today, that would be a much better supported argument, but it got carried away.

This isn't that complicated. For a few decades, especially during the 90s, the mainstream media arguably leaned left, and conservatives saw how effective controlling the news could be and eventually countered by launching Fox News and buying up other media outlets. The media landscape is now completely different than it was 20 years ago, but, for some reason, stubborn folks on both sides insist on hanging onto their old beliefs. Many liberals continue to deny that there was ever any liberal media bias in the first place and many conservatives still complain as though it still exists as strongly as ever. It's all just attempts at spinning the narrative to fit an agenda.

I hate those default avatars. Just looks like the same person having a conversation with themselves.

Maybe ThePhoenixx, Mach85 and I are all the same person who is just that disagreeable as to argue with himself. Have you thought about that?

 

[ThePhoenixx]

I didn't say anything about pre-Watergate eras. The "current era" is the one that we're in, the one since the rise of Fox News and the conservative media. Before that, CNN, the NY Times, the three major networks and such ruled news media. That was the era of the "liberal media." The column is trying to erode the notion that that era leaned left and pointing to evidence in the current era (ex. business dealings in 2017). It's a highly dubious argument. If it had simply argued that there is no general liberal bias in the media today, that would be a much better supported argument, but it got carried away.

This isn't that complicated. For a few decades, especially during the 90s, the mainstream media arguably leaned left, and conservatives saw how effective controlling the news could be and eventually countered by launching Fox News and buying up other media outlets. The media landscape is now completely different than it was 20 years ago, but, for some reason, stubborn folks on both sides insist on hanging onto their old beliefs. Many liberals continue to deny that there was ever any liberal media bias in the first place and many conservatives still complain as though it still exists as strongly as ever. It's all just attempts at spinning the narrative to fit an agenda.



Maybe ThePhoenixx, Mach85 and I are all the same person who is just that disagreeable as to argue with himself. Have you thought about that?

Dammit other me, don't let them in on us!

 

[Mach85]

I didn't say anything about pre-Watergate eras. The "current era" is the one that we're in, the one since the rise of Fox News and the conservative media. Before that, CNN, the NY Times, the three major networks and such ruled news media. That was the era of the "liberal media." The column is trying to erode the notion that that era leaned left and pointing to evidence in the current era (ex. business dealings in 2017). It's a highly dubious argument. If it had simply argued that there is no general liberal bias in the media today, that would be a much better supported argument, but it got carried away.

This isn't that complicated. For a few decades, especially during the 90s, the mainstream media arguably leaned left, and conservatives saw how effective controlling the news could be and eventually countered by launching Fox News and buying up other media outlets. The media landscape is now completely different than it was 20 years ago, but, for some reason, stubborn folks on both sides insist on hanging onto their old beliefs. Many liberals continue to deny that there was ever any liberal media bias in the first place and many conservatives still complain as though it still exists as strongly as ever. It's all just attempts at spinning the narrative to fit an agenda.



Maybe ThePhoenixx, Mach85 and I are all the same person who is just that disagreeable as to argue with himself. Have you thought about that?

Ok, I'm not going to touch that because we'd be turning a sidebar into a complete thread derail. But we're not discussing pre-Watergate. I invoked the article to counter the point that TODAY'S media is biased toward the Clinton's (i.e., liberal). So the article is highly relevant to the current conversation. The historical background and how that may or may not differ from today's landscape...not so much.

 

[MMC]

Melanie Martinez now

 

[PensandCaps]

Melanie Martinez now

Not shocked anymore.

 

[Daisy Jane]

so i wonder if this keeps going if hollywood is just going to be all "well, we're just closing up shop, until we find people who don't sexually assault anyone, see you in 2020?"

 

[Jumptheshark]

Danny Masterson Fired From Netflix’s ‘The Ranch’ Amid Sexual Assault Claims


This was expected

 

[Jumptheshark]

Right now it is allegations. LAPD is investigation is on going. The fact the victims are trying to get multiple charged filed

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Danny Masterson Fired From Netflix’s ‘The Ranch’ Amid Sexual Assault Claims


This was expected

Yeah, no shock. Only question is how they planned for his departure. As far as the show goes, that's a pretty big loss.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Yeah, no shock. Only question is how they planned for his departure. As far as the show goes, that's a pretty big loss.

This one here has been bubbling for about 2 years

 

[Bjorn Le]

Danny Masterson Fired From Netflix’s ‘The Ranch’ Amid Sexual Assault Claims

This was expected

Show sucked anyway. Should just cancel it.

 

[Deficient Mode]

Sooner or later this scandal had to reach Bryan Singer

 

[HanSolo]

I'm surprised it took this long tbh