Conservative Media

[bluefrog]

In response to several conservative posters’ assertion that media has a liberal bias I will consume nothing but right wing media for the next ten days. I will leave behind the world of National Geographic, NPR and The New York Times and immerse myself in conservative news and opinions. I hope to gain a different perspective on the election and attempt to balance the scales of bias in news reporting. Below is a catalog of media I will consume:

Book
Atlas Shrugged

Internet
The Drudge Report
TownHall
National Review
Redstate
PJ Media

TV
Fox News

Radio
Rush Radio

Film
2016: Obama's America

I will chronicle my experiences here in the coming days. If you know of a good conservative news source, please post it and I will add it to my list.

 

[Denny Crane]

reason.com

It's Libertarian, not conservative.

 

[Denny Crane]

Plus, I don't think you can find much actual conservative media.

When I hear the term "conservative," I think of guys like Reagan, Goldwater, George Will, William F. Buckley...

The people who claim to be conservatives now are something else entirely. Those old school conservatives were a libertarian (small "l") breed of republican with religion being only a relationship between them and their god (not to be evangelized). Fiercely anti-communist.

I haven't listened to Limbaugh very much, but I think he was considered an old school conservative when he first started out. I can't vouch for what he talks about these days.

 

[Eastoff]

NeoCon is the term he means.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, I think neocons were in between (timeline) the reagan type conservatives and the religious ones that we have now

 

[BrianFromWA]

Personally, I think you're skewing to the extreme. I don't know that I would say listening to Rush would equate to reading a NYT article or that watching a news show on Fox (vice O'reilly or Hannity or something) would equate to Huffington Post Op-eds. I imagine that if I spent a week listening to Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann before watching Religulous and Fahrenheit 9/11 it wouldn't give me a better sense of what Obama supporters are thinking and would probably do them injustice.

But I like your premise and am interested in the results.

 

[Ed O]

RealClearPolitics aggregates news from a variety of sources, but tends to have more conservative links than liberal. You get some nutjobs from both sides, but you also get some mainstream stuff that more accurately reflects the two camps. It's one of the sites that I visit regularly.

Ed O.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

www.breitbart.com

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

[video=youtube;SdA9GDmfyd4]

[video=youtube;ytMwSuAP3XM]

 

[Denny Crane]

RealClearPolitics aggregates news from a variety of sources, but tends to have more conservative links than liberal. You get some nutjobs from both sides, but you also get some mainstream stuff that more accurately reflects the two camps. It's one of the sites that I visit regularly.

Ed O.

I have 3 politics WWW sites in my browser bookmarks. Just 3.

RealClearPolitics
Drudge
HuffPost

 

[speeds]

^ And Denny just goes to HuffPo to see what hand-painted wallpaper Gwyneth Paltrow can't live without.

 

[Denny Crane]

^ And Denny just goes to HuffPo to see what hand-painted wallpaper Gwyneth Paltrow can't live without.

Actually, I go to HuffPo so I can see what really unhappy people post about to each other. Seriously. They weren't happy when Bush was president, and they're not happy with Obama, either. About 90% of the posts are whining and complaining about something. The articles posted by staff are nothing but hit pieces on one republican or another.

This is good, too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pollster/

 

[speeds]

Actually, I go to HuffPo so I can see what really unhappy people post about to each other. Seriously.

Well that's an equally weird reason, IMO.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.theblaze.com/

 

[bluefrog]

Personally, I think you're skewing to the extreme. I don't know that I would say listening to Rush would equate to reading a NYT article or that watching a news show on Fox (vice O'reilly or Hannity or something) would equate to Huffington Post Op-eds. I imagine that if I spent a week listening to Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann before watching Religulous and Fahrenheit 9/11 it wouldn't give me a better sense of what Obama supporters are thinking and would probably do them injustice.

But I like your premise and am interested in the results.

These are the recomendations I got from conservative people I asked.

We live in an interesting age where the media is increasingly fragmented and viewers can surround themselves with programming that falls right in line with their own views, be they on the right or the left. My experiment’s purpose isn’t to understand the mindset of the average Romney supporter; it’s to gain insight into the narrative created by the right (far right?).

 

[bluefrog]

reason.com

It's Libertarian, not conservative.

Thanks, I'll add it.

 

[Denny Crane]

These are the recomendations I got from conservative people I asked.

We live in an interesting age where the media is increasingly fragmented and viewers can surround themselves with programming that falls right in line with their own views, be they on the right or the left. My experiment’s purpose isn’t to understand the mindset of the average Romney supporter; it’s to gain insight into the narrative created by the right (far right?).

I think this is misguided or not well explained.

Romney only got 25% of the vote in the primaries. The far right (right?) aren't the average Romney supporter. It's more like there are a lot of republicans willing to hold their nose and pull the lever for him.

I'm not even sure you'll get a good view of the republican party's elements from that reading list. Very little of it is religious conservative. Not much tea party in it either - and I think the tea party is a really big force in all of politics.

Atlas Shrugged isn't a (modern republican) republican kind of book. The old school conservatives might have been in tune with her philosophy. Republicans drifted pretty far away from the old school conservatism, to the point I don't recognize it anymore.

That said, I highly recommend Atlas Shrugged. If you read it with an open mind, you might get why it is called the 2nd most influential book in history, behind only the bible.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Great take there , Denny.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Actually, I go to HuffPo so I can see what really unhappy people post about to each other.

Exactly why I come here, actually. What a coinky-dink.

 

[bluefrog]

I think this is misguided or not well explained.

Romney only got 25% of the vote in the primaries. The far right (right?) aren't the average Romney supporter. It's more like there are a lot of republicans willing to hold their nose and pull the lever for him.

I'm not even sure you'll get a good view of the republican party's elements from that reading list. Very little of it is religious conservative. Not much tea party in it either - and I think the tea party is a really big force in all of politics.

Atlas Shrugged isn't a (modern republican) republican kind of book. The old school conservatives might have been in tune with her philosophy. Republicans drifted pretty far away from the old school conservatism, to the point I don't recognize it anymore.

That said, I highly recommend Atlas Shrugged. If you read it with an open mind, you might get why it is called the 2nd most influential book in history, behind only the bible.

My objective is not to see what Republicans or Romney supporters think. Some posters here stressed that the media has a liberal slant and I want to hear the message I’m missing.

There may be some religious or tea party elements in the media I’ll consume. I don’t know, we’ll see. It’s only a 10 day exercise. I’m not going to cover the full conservative spectrum in that time frame.

 

[Denny Crane]

You may not finish Atlas Shrugged in 10 days. I compared my paperback to more standard novels by counting the number of words on a line and number of lines on a page. It's the equivalent of a 2500 page novel. The font in my copy is really small and it's still almost 1100 pages.

 

[Denny Crane]

Parliament of Whores by PJ O'Rourke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Whores

Parliament of Whores is an international best-selling political humor book by P. J. O'Rourke published by Atlantic Monthly Press in 1991. Subtitled "A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire US Government", Parliament is a scathing critique of the American system of governance from a right wing conservative perspective. The hard cover version was a #1 New York Times bestseller, sold over 150,000 copies in its first two months of release, and earned over $1 million in revenue in the same time period.[1] Parliament reached the top 5 on Canadian best seller lists.[2] The paperback release in 1992 was a similar commercial success.

The book received an overwhelmingly positive critical reception. Time Magazine called it "a riotously funny and perceptive indictment of America's political system."[3] The New York Times called it "a funnily savage attack on the political authorities of the United States."[4] In a piece about its 1992 paperback release, USA Today described it as "the anthem of this political year."[5]
[edit]

 

[Denny Crane]

If it's all about media bias, there are fairly reasoned and scientific measures. Like watching every news cast and counting the positive/negative stories about Obama and Romney. If you find NBC does 90% positive about Obama and 10% positive about Romney, you might come to the conclusion there's some bias there.

Or you can look at campaign donations. http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...utions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/ (and why is this information not reported on CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, and all the left-leaning media?).

How about the treatment of Alberto Gonzales vs. the treatment of Eric Holder? Both caught outright lying to congress under oath. Gonzalez rode out of town on a rail, while Holder was found in contempt of congress (a first) and I rarely see anything about it in the press. Anecdotal? I think back on all the AGs in recent memory and they all did some pretty bad things (Janet Reno bombed the cult compound Waco, for example).

How about during the impeachment of Clinton, TBS showed "The American President" back to back to back to back. Don't know the movie? It's about a democratic party president, a widower, who dates a woman and becomes part of a scandal drummed up by republicans for no good reason. What's the message behind showing the movie over and over? (That republicans have drummed up this impeachment for no good reason).

 

[Denny Crane]

Or you might look at coverage of Romney's 47% remarks (from a months old fund raising event) vs. coverage of the coordinated terrorist attack on our embassies in several middle eastern nations in September, around the anniversary of 9/11. One of those was actual news that was effectively buried because the Obama campaign was spiking Bin Laden's head like a football player in the end zone after a touchdown (Bin Laden's dead, GM is alive). That's anecdotal, of course.

What's even worse, to me, is that administration officials, such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all the Sunday morning talk shows, went out and lied about it, claiming that some months old youtube video was the cause of a populist protest type gathering that ended up in violence. Seems like this is a very big story that a Woodward/Bernstein type investigating team would find trivial to make a career from.

Google search "Romney 47%" and I get 49 million hits. Google search "Susan Rice lied Libya" and I get 420,000 hits. Administration lied gets 22M hits.

Romney 47% in news only gets 52,000 hits. Administration lied about Libya gets 6,000 hits, Susan Rice lied gets 1000 hits.

 

[Stevenson]

Plus, I don't think you can find much actual conservative media.

When I hear the term "conservative," I think of guys like Reagan, Goldwater, George Will, William F. Buckley...

The people who claim to be conservatives now are something else entirely. Those old school conservatives were a libertarian (small "l") breed of republican with religion being only a relationship between them and their god (not to be evangelized). Fiercely anti-communist.

I haven't listened to Limbaugh very much, but I think he was considered an old school conservative when he first started out. I can't vouch for what he talks about these days.

That's my favorite post of yours, ever.

 

[Stevenson]

In response to several conservative posters’ assertion that media has a liberal bias I will consume nothing but right wing media for the next ten days. I will leave behind the world of National Geographic, NPR and The New York Times and immerse myself in conservative news and opinions. I hope to gain a different perspective on the election and attempt to balance the scales of bias in news reporting. Below is a catalog of media I will consume:

Book
Atlas Shrugged

Internet
The Drudge Report
TownHall
National Review
Redstate
PJ Media

TV
Fox News

Radio
Rush Radio

Film
2016: Obama's America

I will chronicle my experiences here in the coming days. If you know of a good conservative news source, please post it and I will add it to my list.

Frank Rich recently did this experiment for New York Magazine

 

[barfo]

If it's all about media bias, there are fairly reasoned and scientific measures. Like watching every news cast and counting the positive/negative stories about Obama and Romney. If you find NBC does 90% positive about Obama and 10% positive about Romney, you might come to the conclusion there's some bias there.

Reality does have a liberal bias. If stories are 90% positive about Jesus and only 10% positive about Hitler, that doesn't mean the media has it in for Hitler. Sometimes bad is bad.

barfo

Or you can look at campaign donations. http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...utions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/ (and why is this information not reported on CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, and all the left-leaning media?).

How about the treatment of Alberto Gonzales vs. the treatment of Eric Holder? Both caught outright lying to congress under oath. Gonzalez rode out of town on a rail, while Holder was found in contempt of congress (a first) and I rarely see anything about it in the press. Anecdotal? I think back on all the AGs in recent memory and they all did some pretty bad things (Janet Reno bombed the cult compound Waco, for example).

How about during the impeachment of Clinton, TBS showed "The American President" back to back to back to back. Don't know the movie? It's about a democratic party president, a widower, who dates a woman and becomes part of a scandal drummed up by republicans for no good reason. What's the message behind showing the movie over and over? (That republicans have drummed up this impeachment for no good reason).[/QUOTE]

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting you bring up Hitler. He was pretty good at using propaganda and the media to drive public opinion.

Reality does have a liberal bias. If stories are 90% positive about Jesus and only 10% positive about Hitler, that doesn't mean the media has it in for Hitler. Sometimes bad is bad.

barfo

Or you can look at campaign donations. http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...utions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/ (and why is this information not reported on CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, and all the left-leaning media?).

How about the treatment of Alberto Gonzales vs. the treatment of Eric Holder? Both caught outright lying to congress under oath. Gonzalez rode out of town on a rail, while Holder was found in contempt of congress (a first) and I rarely see anything about it in the press. Anecdotal? I think back on all the AGs in recent memory and they all did some pretty bad things (Janet Reno bombed the cult compound Waco, for example).

How about during the impeachment of Clinton, TBS showed "The American President" back to back to back to back. Don't know the movie? It's about a democratic party president, a widower, who dates a woman and becomes part of a scandal drummed up by republicans for no good reason. What's the message behind showing the movie over and over? (That republicans have drummed up this impeachment for no good reason).

[/QUOTE]

 

[bluefrog]

Frank Rich recently did this experiment for New York Magazine

Thanks for posting. I'll give it a read.

 

[bluefrog]

Radio
There is a morning show called “The Morning Rush”. It is basically unlistenable. They talked about some conspiracy with Homeland Security buying all these hollow tip bullets and sending them to the social security offices around the nation. Apparently this is for the citizen repression after Obama when the election

Sean Hannity has a show in the afternoons. He actually had some people on that disagreed with him which is rare for the echo chamber that this station is for the right. He basically talked about how Romney kicked Obama’s ass in the debate. Hannity focused more on the contrasting styles rather than the issues that were discussed.

WSJ has a radio show called “The Daily Wrap” which is pretty balanced. Market news is scant though which is strange for a business publication. They do a good job of covering domestic and international news as well.

Internet
Some of the major headlines taken from the internet sites over the past 3 days:

Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign Money
Obama Succeeds. Salafists Move To Gain Power in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.
GALLUP: 5-POINT ROMNEY BOUNCE
Parsing the Plethora of Polls: Are the seesawing numbers reliable?
Gingrich: Obama's Campaign Would Have Been Over if Not for Friday's Jobs Report

Film
2016: Obama’s America

This movie is terrible. It’s not entertaining and it’s not good propaganda. D'Souza, the filmmaker is basically preaching to choir on in this one.

His premise is that the president has adopted this anti-colonialism mindset in an attempt to impress his dead, absentee father. He has this single theme to explain all of the complex actions of the President. His arguments are not convincing and complex. His evidence is essentially Obama’s autobiography and opinions of acquaintances of the President.

Worst of all, the movie is boring. There are long interview scenes where interviewees speak into cell phones when D'Souza was not himself present, and then to cut on occasion to D'Souza, on a grassy lawn, asking his questions. There are also these awful dramatizations of events in Obama’s life like his father’s funeral. They are just badly acted and poorly filmed.