David Melson

The so-called 'liberal' media

Posted Monday, April 6, 2009, at 1:46 PM
View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I disagree . . .many of us just want unbiased reporting filled with actual facts and not skewered toward one side or the other.

    -- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 2:11 PM
  • People only want to read that which supports their own personal assumptions. With the Internet and cable television, we pick and choose. Once each side, supported by their meida icons, becomes resolute on an issue, it is difficult to build a concensus.

    -- Posted by Grit on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 2:42 PM
  • The Globe was in trouble before the economy hit the skids but I would tend to side with them about needing concessions. However, their management never should have conceded what they now want back.

    But more on the subject, if we could trust that the opinion or political leaning of a paper was reserved for the editorial section, we could trust what they put out as news. Maybe, if they did that, more people would buy the paper and more would advertise.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 4:19 PM
  • The news reporting was suppose to be the checks and balance in our country, that's why they are protected by the constitution. They were to report what was the truth whether it would about a republican or democrat. But more and more newspapers and news stations started leaning to the left and playing favorites.

    But I also think the internet has hurt the sales of newspapers, why would you buy it when you can read it for free on line.

    -- Posted by bellbuckletn on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 9:44 PM
  • National and international news is fine for internet sourcing, but when it comes to local or regional, we would be in a big hurt if we did not have newspapers.

    I also find it less satisfying to stare at a screen rather than sit back and relax while reading. I realize that the upcoming generations may not share that, but I believe they will as they mature.

    It does not seem as important when I post a picture and story about our daughter on 8.5 by 11" paper as it does when it is an actual clipping out of the local paper.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, at 7:23 AM
  • Ever since Hearst's "yellow journalism" brought the Spanish-American war the media has definitely had a bias.

    The media ignores certain stories, inflates others, and spins others still by profiling the types of people they interview for sources. Most of the time this is done because ratings (read money)take precedence over honesty. Sometimes there are other reasons.

    Also the government, to a certain degree, has a say in what a news agency can and can't report, and not many have enough backbone to risk their federal permits and licenses to defy them and report the truth.

    This is why internet and talk radio news are eating the lunch of newspapers, and to a lesser extent tv news. Not because it is a better medium, but because the "audience" can challenge the "reporter".

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 2:44 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: