• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media is biased toward money

J

JensB

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
8
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Have you guys noticed that media doesn't seem to be biased to the left or right specifically, but almost exclusively toward whoever is rich, within that spectrum?

You don't see Fox News focus news to bring attention to the horrible living conditions of Appalachian hill folk or Idaho potato farmers. They advocate for Wall Street, for big oil, for weapons manufacturers, and for megachurches and prosperity gospel scams.

CNN and MSNBC are the same way, they don't advocate for Latinos or Blacks or even New England whites. They promote the fiction of the horrible plight of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, and how we need to elect pro big money, pro corporate, pro wall street, and anti-labor pseudo-liberals because of their supposed "electability"

Thoughts?
 
JensB said:
Have you guys noticed that media doesn't seem to be biased to the left or right specifically, but almost exclusively toward whoever is rich, within that spectrum?

You don't see Fox News focus news to bring attention to the horrible living conditions of Appalachian hill folk or Idaho potato farmers. They advocate for Wall Street, for big oil, for weapons manufacturers, and for megachurches and prosperity gospel scams.

CNN and MSNBC are the same way, they don't advocate for Latinos or Blacks or even New England whites. They promote the fiction of the horrible plight of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, and how we need to elect pro big money, pro corporate, pro wall street, and anti-labor pseudo-liberals because of their supposed "electability"

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you might be onto something there. It just amazes me so many Fox ites believe it's the gospel and they actually get upset when you point out it isn't really fair and balanced. None of them are. MSNBC is just like Fox.
 
Disagree completely.

If somehow Bernie Sanders looks like he could win, the lw media will get behind him 100 % , money aside.

the RW media, which is to say Fox, on the other hand ,has no tgotten behind Trump.

For Democrats, those office mean everything. It goes with their whole philosphy of believing in th eefiicacy of BIG GOVERNMENT.
The GOp--not so much.
As a rule.

There are exceptions.
 
JensB said:
Have you guys noticed that media doesn't seem to be biased to the left or right specifically, but almost exclusively toward whoever is rich, within that spectrum?

You don't see Fox News focus news to bring attention to the horrible living conditions of Appalachian hill folk or Idaho potato farmers. They advocate for Wall Street, for big oil, for weapons manufacturers, and for megachurches and prosperity gospel scams.

CNN and MSNBC are the same way, they don't advocate for Latinos or Blacks or even New England whites. They promote the fiction of the horrible plight of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, and how we need to elect pro big money, pro corporate, pro wall street, and anti-labor pseudo-liberals because of their supposed "electability"

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In the days of newspapers and especially today with the news channels, it has always been about money. Take the money out of it and you don't even have the local pennysaver. What you're left with are high school newspapers and issue pamphlets.
 
Why is Wall Street big? Because that's where the banks are.

Why are banks so big? Because that's where people put their money.

What is so wrong with Wall Street? Outside of the typical jealousies that rule people's lives.
 
Erod said:
Why is Wall Street big? Because that's where the banks are.

Why are banks so big? Because that's where people put their money.

What is so wrong with Wall Street? Outside of the typical jealousies that rule people's lives.
Click to expand...

Well, there is the part where they take all of your money, buy up ridiculous numbess of utterly doomed stocks in super risky gambles, lose most of the money and cash out big on a bit of it, pocket all of that money, and then leave the fed the print the difference.

Then when their banks collapse because of their horribly unsound practices, they steal peoples homes (some of which were homes that were fully paid off), give themselves multi million dollar bonuses, and then let the government (tax payers) pay hundreds of billions of dollars to dig the institutions that they robbed back out of the hole.

They are the ultimate welfare queens. They take other people's money, gamble with it, pass 100% of the losses back to the person who financed it, and keep 100% of the money they win (the wall st. banker personally, not the institution) when it pays off, and then bribe the **** out of politicians to prevent them from prosecuting for fraud, which this is.

The tax payers then have to bail out the ruined institution with taxpayer money to avoid having all the regular people losing their life savings. Life savings that wall st. bankers have pocketed. It's really direct theft, just more complicated.
 
JensB said:
Have you guys noticed that media doesn't seem to be biased to the left or right specifically, but almost exclusively toward whoever is rich, within that spectrum?

You don't see Fox News focus news to bring attention to the horrible living conditions of Appalachian hill folk or Idaho potato farmers. They advocate for Wall Street, for big oil, for weapons manufacturers, and for megachurches and prosperity gospel scams.

CNN and MSNBC are the same way, they don't advocate for Latinos or Blacks or even New England whites. They promote the fiction of the horrible plight of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, and how we need to elect pro big money, pro corporate, pro wall street, and anti-labor pseudo-liberals because of their supposed "electability"

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you're stating the well known and obvious. Not just money, but corporate interests including those of the owners of the various media. Just as Sheldon Adelson recently bought the Las Vegas newspaper of record, and Murdoch owns so much, today's mainstream media is very much an Axis Of Propaganda, as Sharyl Attkisson puts it. They protect their own, and advance a corporate and government agenda. It's been this way for quite a few years now.
 
JensB said:
Well, there is the part where they take all of your money, buy up ridiculous numbess of utterly doomed stocks in super risky gambles, lose most of the money and cash out big on a bit of it, pocket all of that money, and then leave the fed the print the difference.

Then when their banks collapse because of their horribly unsound practices, they steal peoples homes (some of which were homes that were fully paid off), give themselves multi million dollar bonuses, and then let the government (tax payers) pay hundreds of billions of dollars to dig the institutions that they robbed back out of the hole.

They are the ultimate welfare queens. They take other people's money, gamble with it, pass 100% of the losses back to the person who financed it, and keep 100% of the money they win (the wall st. banker personally, not the institution) when it pays off, and then bribe the **** out of politicians to prevent them from prosecuting for fraud, which this is.

The tax payers then have to bail out the ruined institution with taxpayer money to avoid having all the regular people losing their life savings. Life savings that wall st. bankers have pocketed. It's really direct theft, just more complicated.
Click to expand...

I hate the way they use your money also. [although, your money won't grow if you don't] IMO you should be able to not have your 401s and such involved with gambling. Just be able to set the money aside for retirement...untaxed.
 
JensB said:
Well, there is the part where they take all of your money, buy up ridiculous numbess of utterly doomed stocks in super risky gambles, lose most of the money and cash out big on a bit of it, pocket all of that money, and then leave the fed the print the difference.

Then when their banks collapse because of their horribly unsound practices, they steal peoples homes (some of which were homes that were fully paid off), give themselves multi million dollar bonuses, and then let the government (tax payers) pay hundreds of billions of dollars to dig the institutions that they robbed back out of the hole.

They are the ultimate welfare queens. They take other people's money, gamble with it, pass 100% of the losses back to the person who financed it, and keep 100% of the money they win (the wall st. banker personally, not the institution) when it pays off, and then bribe the **** out of politicians to prevent them from prosecuting for fraud, which this is.

The tax payers then have to bail out the ruined institution with taxpayer money to avoid having all the regular people losing their life savings. Life savings that wall st. bankers have pocketed. It's really direct theft, just more complicated.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of Hamilton then? Did you know Wall Street was the site of our first presidential inauguration?
 
JensB said:
Well, there is the part where they take all of your money, buy up ridiculous numbess of utterly doomed stocks in super risky gambles, lose most of the money and cash out big on a bit of it, pocket all of that money, and then leave the fed the print the difference.

Then when their banks collapse because of their horribly unsound practices, they steal peoples homes (some of which were homes that were fully paid off), give themselves multi million dollar bonuses, and then let the government (tax payers) pay hundreds of billions of dollars to dig the institutions that they robbed back out of the hole.

They are the ultimate welfare queens. They take other people's money, gamble with it, pass 100% of the losses back to the person who financed it, and keep 100% of the money they win (the wall st. banker personally, not the institution) when it pays off, and then bribe the **** out of politicians to prevent them from prosecuting for fraud, which this is.

The tax payers then have to bail out the ruined institution with taxpayer money to avoid having all the regular people losing their life savings. Life savings that wall st. bankers have pocketed. It's really direct theft, just more complicated.
Click to expand...

I must be lucky. I've never had a dollar disappear from my bank account not of my doing, and my 401K is vastly more valuable than the money I've put into it.
 
JensB said:
Well, there is the part where they take all of your money, buy up ridiculous numbess of utterly doomed stocks in super risky gambles, lose most of the money and cash out big on a bit of it, pocket all of that money, and then leave the fed the print the difference.

Then when their banks collapse because of their horribly unsound practices, they steal peoples homes (some of which were homes that were fully paid off), give themselves multi million dollar bonuses, and then let the government (tax payers) pay hundreds of billions of dollars to dig the institutions that they robbed back out of the hole.

They are the ultimate welfare queens. They take other people's money, gamble with it, pass 100% of the losses back to the person who financed it, and keep 100% of the money they win (the wall st. banker personally, not the institution) when it pays off, and then bribe the **** out of politicians to prevent them from prosecuting for fraud, which this is.

The tax payers then have to bail out the ruined institution with taxpayer money to avoid having all the regular people losing their life savings. Life savings that wall st. bankers have pocketed. It's really direct theft, just more complicated.
Click to expand...

They don't take your money. You make the choice to deposit it there. You could always put it under the mattress.
 
Erod said:
I must be lucky. I've never had a dollar disappear from my bank account not of my doing, and my 401K is vastly more valuable than the money I've put into it.
Click to expand...

You did get lucky. Most people's 401ks became mostly worthless in 2008 because bankers essentially transferred those funds into their own pockets. (All the 401ks that were invested into real estate).

They made bad loans for houses being sold vastly beyond their actual value. Loans financed with older people's 401k and Roth IRA's. They lent that money to poor people who couldn't pay it back, to buy houses for much more than they were worth. Essentially throwing away the money people were putting into retirement funds. Then they paid themselves interest on the huge loans made with other people's money, inflated prices even more, sold the loan packages for profit (which they pocketed in the way of bonuses), until eventually the whole mess was exposed for the fraud that it is.

The loan packages were reduced to their actual worth (almost nothing), and people's retirement savings disappeared. Except the bankers got rich as hell from it, and they're going to do it again.
 
JensB said:
You did get lucky. Most people's 401ks became mostly worthless in 2008 because bankers essentially transferred those funds into their own pockets. (All the 401ks that were invested into real estate).

They made bad loans for houses being sold vastly beyond their actual value. Loans financed with older people's 401k and Roth IRA's. They lent that money to poor people who couldn't pay it back, to buy houses for much more than they were worth. Essentially throwing away the money people were putting into retirement funds. Then they paid themselves interest on the huge loans made with other people's money, inflated prices even more, sold the loan packages for profit (which they pocketed in the way of bonuses), until eventually the whole mess was exposed for the fraud that it is.

The loan packages were reduced to their actual worth (almost nothing), and people's retirement savings disappeared. Except the bankers got rich as hell from it, and they're going to do it again.
Click to expand...

But if you're not in a single fund hinging on Enron, you went through that period just fine. In fact, I bought a ton of cheap shares during that period, that quadrupled since.

And now we're about to go through another downturn, which will make for even more cheap prices on shares that I look forward to taking advantage of.

The point is, corruption is everywhere. In fact, the VAST majority of it is in government, not Wall Street.
 
Ehh I'm not sold, it is about money but more getting eyeballs watching ads so advertisers pay more. If anything it would make logical sense to ignore Wall St. etc (especially negative news) and focus on the small timers. The rich can pay ad prices, rarely is the small potato farmer buying ads on Fox or MSNBC.

Granted the reverse is that rich audience is more coveted (more disposable income) thus reporting on things they care about like company performance, banks, and stocks (as an example) means they might tune in more, delighting advertisers.

Basically, it's about what will make the network money.
 
KLATTU said:
Disagree completely.

If somehow Bernie Sanders looks like he could win, the lw media will get behind him 100 % , money aside.

the RW media, which is to say Fox, on the other hand ,has no tgotten behind Trump.

For Democrats, those office mean everything. It goes with their whole philosphy of believing in th eefiicacy of BIG GOVERNMENT.
The GOp--not so much.
As a rule.

There are exceptions.
Click to expand...


The OP is based on generalizations about what has happened.

Your disagreement is based on counter-factual assumptions about things that have not yet happened. Those assumptions are exclusively negative towards "the left" and exclusively positive towards "the right."

That tells me that your disagreement is no more than bias.
 
Mr Person said:
The OP is based on generalizations about what has happened.

Your disagreement is based on counter-factual assumptions about things that have not yet happened. Those assumptions are exclusively negative towards "the left" and exclusively positive towards "the right."

That tells me that your disagreement is no more than bias.
Click to expand...
You're liberal. He's a liberal. Liberals stick together. You're automatically taking his side just because he's a liberal.

Your turn........
 
Erod said:
Why is Wall Street big? Because that's where the banks are.

Why are banks so big? Because that's where people put their money.

What is so wrong with Wall Street? Outside of the typical jealousies that rule people's lives.
Click to expand...

You really need to ask what the problem with Wall Street is, seven-plus years after Wall Street shenanigans blew a trillion-dollar hole in the economy?

KLATTU said:
You're liberal. He's a liberal. Liberals stick together. You're automatically taking his side just because he's a liberal.

Your turn........
Click to expand...

Wow, there's a real solid counterargument. :roll:
 
Thoreau72 said:
I think you're stating the well known and obvious. Not just money, but corporate interests including those of the owners of the various media. Just as Sheldon Adelson recently bought the Las Vegas newspaper of record, and Murdoch owns so much, today's mainstream media is very much an Axis Of Propaganda, as Sharyl Attkisson puts it. They protect their own, and advance a corporate and government agenda. It's been this way for quite a few years now.
Click to expand...

Right, I always get a kick out of complaints that the media is "liberal." It's the corporate media. It's always struck me as insane, and the evidence bears this out, that the "media" owned by huge multi-national corporations would push any agenda other than what is in the best interests of the owners, and/or the advertisers, who are also almost exclusively huge, multi-national corporations. So on balance the "media" push a corporate agenda, more specifically the agenda of very large, mostly multi-national and publicly traded corporations.
 
Erod said:
Why is Wall Street big? Because that's where the banks are. Why are banks so big? Because that's where people put their money. What is so wrong with Wall Street? Outside of the typical jealousies that rule people's lives.
Click to expand...
Why is there welfare, food stamps and political haranguing against against 'the rich'?

Because that's where the votes are. Barnie and Hillary both understand that.
 
JensB said:
You did get lucky. Most people's 401ks became mostly worthless in 2008 because bankers essentially transferred those funds into their own pockets. (All the 401ks that were invested into real estate).

They made bad loans for houses being sold vastly beyond their actual value. Loans financed with older people's 401k and Roth IRA's. They lent that money to poor people who couldn't pay it back, to buy houses for much more than they were worth. Essentially throwing away the money people were putting into retirement funds. Then they paid themselves interest on the huge loans made with other people's money, inflated prices even more, sold the loan packages for profit (which they pocketed in the way of bonuses), until eventually the whole mess was exposed for the fraud that it is.

The loan packages were reduced to their actual worth (almost nothing), and people's retirement savings disappeared. Except the bankers got rich as hell from it, and they're going to do it again.
Click to expand...
The loans you mentioned were forced upon banks by government, and people refused to adhere to common sense. When you pay too much for something you might get hurt. They should teach that in schools.
 
JasperL said:
Right, I always get a kick out of complaints that the media is "liberal." It's the corporate media. It's always struck me as insane, and the evidence bears this out, that the "media" owned by huge multi-national corporations would push any agenda other than what is in the best interests of the owners, and/or the advertisers, who are also almost exclusively huge, multi-national corporations. So on balance the "media" push a corporate agenda, more specifically the agenda of very large, mostly multi-national and publicly traded corporations.
Click to expand...
Being corporate doesn't mean the media isn't liberal. Their are plenty of liberals in corporations and also a marketplace for liberal ideas. Their employees tend to be liberals also.
 
Grant said:
Why is there welfare, food stamps and political haranguing against against 'the rich'?
Click to expand...

Welfare and food stamps are against 'the rich'?

I'm as conservative economically as the next guy, and I don't see it like that.
 
To understand media bias, you have to see who controls the media.
 
Grant said:
That's not what was meant. You missed a word.
Click to expand...

No, you missed a comma (after food stamps) and the word 'and' (instead of a comma) before that (between welfare and food stamps). Let's not blame others for our grammatical errors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom