Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Why was the media so excessive in their coverage on the Lewinsky scandal if they're so liberal?
I don't think there's a liberal bias in media...it's all about what will sell.
|
IMO, media = bottom-rung hanging, pond scum sucking, cum-bubble blowing filth. (sorry for the mental image)
not that i feel strongly about it or anything.
The most important thing to them is that "if it bleeds, it leads."
the problem is that the media no longer reports the news, they decide what IS news. there is no "fair and balanced" reporting in america. personally, my politics lean a little bit closer to Fox news side but they are no better than Peter Jennings at Al-Jazeera West - it pisses me off that there is no semblance of unbiased reporting out there.
I believe it has grown increasingly worse since watergate. Desert Storm kicked it up a couple of notches when "reporters" were given instant celebrity status because they were suddenly in our faces 24/7.
IMO the media had to cover the Clinton scandal because once one of them does they all have to jump on the bandwagon - but i think at the time they were just as critical of Ken Starr and his lackeys (as they should have been). it has been what, 8 years since that whole debacle and i think it has gotten increasingly worse as each successive talking head realizes if they throw enough of their own view on the news, they may be rewarded with their own show. (i.e. O'Reilly, Matthews, etc.) they each make a mountain out of a mole hill to pander to their audience while ignoring what doesn't comply with their view of the world.
sorry - i guess that turned into a real rant. but they really rank up their with lawyers on my scale.