I'm all for it, the reason I ever found this place is from someones blog, and honestly the major media need a serious shake up.. being spoonfed information from ' official sources' has always made me wince. there is a point to a free press, and near as I can tell it's for a disemination of information so that people can make their own decisions on the subject matter... then again I am an idealist ;)

That was my point, jag. That, and that "big media" always did push an agenda while pretending that they weren't.

Yes, and blogs aren't any different.

Every successful blog puts its agenda on its sleeve.

Which is what makes them such a good example of the biggest problem with this kind of 'new media', it makes it too easy to reinforce their own ignorance and prejudices and insulate themselves from anything that might challenge that. Little Green Footballs, Free Republic & Common Dreams being prime examples. The value of media that at least attempts to be objective cannot be overestimated, as more and more people turn to these 'sources' for their news the more partisan they get making common ground harder and harder to find as the misinformation and ignorance grows. It's one reason I've always felt so strongly about media-ownership laws.

And yet this country's experience with media ownership laws, which existed here for many decades and were strictly enforced, is that they produced a system in which 90% of journalists are self-described Democrats (there's your monoculture) and where CBS News could not admit to the truth when it leaped up and bit them straight on the ass.

Everyone has biases. The reason blogs are popular is that this is finally admitted flat-out, after which it's suddenly possible to have real conversations. Blogs convert news into conversations.

I've found that the different edges produce their share of truths, and if you read all sides you can determine what's really happening with a clearer narrative than before. LGF versus Daily Kos, both produce great information after you take their bias into account, followed by lousy monoculture conversations. (Our conversations here are better, because we have different agendas; this is the strength of the Cellar, because some of us think others of us are asses and that's what it is in real life!)

see, that is what the misunderstanding here is... Jag actually believes that mainstream media really does ATTEMPT to be objective. I think, and many agree, that the mainstream media merely pretends to be objective - and doesn't do a very good job at that.

i would much rather read some of the larger blogs where i know EXACTLY what their agenda is - read their stories, filter out the agenda and compare to some other sources of info. chances are that i will probably get a clearer understanding of the situation than if i'd listened to only the mainline media.

I also think that big media got away with it for so long because they had no challengers. And with no credible dissenting views to contend with, big media had no incentive to shoot straight.

The minute a challenger with the same distribution power as big media cropped up, big media began to implode. Dan Rather is the poster boy for this phenomenon. But for the bloggers, he'd still be shovelling the same old liberal manure onto America's plate. And CNN can't get enough of the runaway bride. Hell, even the National Enquirer has moved on.

Look, I can spot a liberal bias at 100 yards just as well as the next guy, but I think this might be a bit unfair. I think the intent of the mainstream is to be unbiased, and to give balanced perspective. The problem is, at UT stated, that 90% of the journalists, and I would guess the numbers are about the same for the editorial staff, are dems and liberal dems at that. That's the temperature of the water in which they swim. If that's your starting place, your centerline, then being balanced means getting a moderate democrat to your right and a communist to your left to give perspective.

A bit of an exageration, I know, but the principle holds. They don't merely intend to be balanced, they beleive that they ARE balanced, and they can't figure out where Fox News' 50 bajillion viewers are coming from.

What media ownership laws? Real conversations? On LFG? Kos? If you like infantile partisan slanging matches when one of the 'opposition' intrudes and a circle jerk the rest of the time counts as conversation we're all in trouble.

I think good media either has far more subtle or a greater tendancy to report both sides of the story. Of course the US media is probably the worst in the free world (along with Italy) for this so YYMV. Here we have both ends of the spectrum from News of The World that usually leads with a celeb scandal to The Independant that I've seen accused of being both left and right wing, usually a good sign that the paper is doing a good job. I should clarify that while I think good media tries to be unbiased, I don't think The Guardian or CNN or Fox really are in this category but there are still papers that (gosh!) when a major issues comes up publish one editorial for each side.

Then there's traditional papers that have a public bias but a very high quality of reporting such as The Economist which covers a lot of issues that otherwise don't get airtime, they have a strong bent but it's clear and easy to read though.

Ever wonder why most journos were left leaning? Food for thought.

Two theories from me on this. One: I would guess that its because all journalists are educated by journalism professors many of whom grew out the anti-war movement of the sixties. Two: liberals are generally more academically oriented than conservatives so while conservatives get their degree and move on, more liberals tend to stay in academia to develop and communicate their ideas and to form a bastion against the conservative agenda. Tenure is granted to like-minded liberals.

Before anybody decides to debate the point that colleges and universities are almost 90 liberal or democratic, the Washington Post removed all doubt about that with an intensive study of the higher education system across the country and proclaimed liberal domination of the system to be a verified fact. I don't have a link but I'm sure its googleable.

a friend of mine recently asked a similar question. he asked why i thought most professors were liberal leaning. he is a very good friend of mine so we give each other quite a bit of shit... my answer to him was that 90% of professors have spent their whole lives in academia talking about ideas and theories. "liberal" ideas are much more palatable and just feel right.

he asked me about the other 10%. i explained that those are the professors who did something in the real world before they entered academia. they understand the difference between "theory" and "reality".

That hardly applies to journos lookout. Beestie, I've got quite a few friends who studied or are studying journalism, that isn't the case. As for academics, yes and no, depends on the field as much as anything.

The divide is between fields where thinking and communicating are ends in themselves, and fields where thinking and communicating are a way to get money. So journalists and professors are Democrats, and media owners and executives are Republicans. A gross simplification, but so is everything else here.

Reading the blogs and filtering the agendas out is a great way to find the real story unless you have to work for a living and can't devote half the day to it.

OK, you put in the time and effort to find the nugget of truth....now what? What are you going to do about it besides sit smugly at your PC(or apple) and feel proud of yourself for finding the truth (that may not be)?

Does this make you better than the people that grab on to cause they feel strongly about (opinions may vary) and go out to change the world? :confused: