Tools not content the next liberal media bias?

[DanXIII 8]

You're right about one thing, the internet is a vastly different animal from tv or radio. It's different in that just about anyone can gain access to it. Anyone with a few dollars for a server and/or a service and a minimum of knowhow can get their views on it and there is very little control over that, by anyone. You're going to have to make a lot stronger case than this to get people to take seriously the idea that views are being quashed on the internet.

 

I can tell you this: with the concept of net neutrality apparently going the way of the dodo it won't be this way forever. THAT is a something about which we all should be concerned.

 

 

On the radio there is Rush and Colter, but there is also Franken and Garafolo.

 

On the tv there is O'Reilly, but there is also Olbermann.

 

But what if the supporters of Rush and Colter owned all of the frequencies on the dial and didn't allow Franken and Garafolo access? What if the supporters of O'Reilly owned all of the cable and satellite providers and kepts the Olbermanns from getting on the air?

 

I missed this before, so let me respond here.

 

If your intention is to assert that the Frankens, Garafalos and Olbermanns of the airwaves balance out the O'Reillys, Rushs and Coulters of the world you are sorely mistaken. There is really no comparison between the two. There are far and away more conservative talking heads and media outlets (both on radio and TV) than there are liberal ones. It's not even close. Conservative infotainment (I call it this because it isn't "news" and it sure as hell isn't "journalism") has squashed liberal infotainment for at least the past 10 years, probably longer. If you're in a major metropolitan area, scan your radio dial over the course of the week (particularly the AM dial) and you'll see what I mean.

 

As for "not allowing access," this concerns me as well. George W. Bush and his FCC appointees have done more to further this than any previous administration. Bush is the one who allowed the rules governing how many radio and TV stations that may be owned by a single entity to be 'relaxed.' This does indeed have the chilling effect of funneling the message through fewer sources.

[davebg 0]

Then you do the same thing you say that you do when you see it on the telly: you change the channel.

 

Google is the most popular search engine, but it is by no means the only search engine out there. You and I are under no obligation to use it if we feel that it is mismanaged, exploits its workers, pollutes the atmosphere, dumps toxic waste into our rivers, makes small children cry, is 'liberally biased' or whatever else they may do with which we do not agree. While Google is a 'publicly traded company' it is still a private enterprise. You and I may not like it but they are free to do whatever they want within legal boundaries.

 

If you truly feel that Google has a liberal bias, then don't use it. Let your money do your talking for you, so to speak.

Yes, I can do that, but I don't think that's the answer.

 

I think that having TV channels that advance competing viewpoints is a good thing. It stimulates debate and ensures that the people have easy access to differing points of view.

 

I think it's different, however, when the tools that people use to find and gather such information is biased in one way or the other.

 

To continue along w/the TV analogy...imagine if the management of your cable operator were cons who decided that they wanted to help advance their views at the expense of competing viewpoints? So, they decide that the online guide that you access via your remote will now only display channels that go along w/their point of view. Foxnews is there...maybe CBS News isn't. Users can still find CBS News by scrolling through all of the channels, but the cable operators have just made it more difficult for the people to get that competing view of CBS News.

 

Now apply that to the internet, where instead of 100+ channels to scroll through you have millions of websites to navigate through...to say nothing of the fact that the internet doesn't come w/an up/down channel button.

 

If your intention is to assert that the Frankens, Garafalos and Olbermanns of the airwaves balance out the O'Reillys, Rushs and Coulters of the world you are sorely mistaken. There is really no comparison between the two. There are far and away more conservative talking heads and media outlets (both on radio and TV) than there are liberal ones. It's not even close. Conservative infotainment (I call it this because it isn't "news" and it sure as hell isn't "journalism") has squashed liberal infotainment for at least the past 10 years, probably longer. If you're in a major metropolitan area, scan your radio dial over the course of the week (particularly the AM dial) and you'll see what I mean.

 

As for "not allowing access," this concerns me as well. George W. Bush and his FCC appointees have done more to further this than any previous administration. Bush is the one who allowed the rules governing how many radio and TV stations that may be owned by a single entity to be 'relaxed.' This does indeed have the chilling effect of funneling the message through fewer sources.

It was not my intention to claim that there is equal representation between the cons and libs on the dial. There isn't. My point was that there is access and that the restriction is more a vehicle of capitalism than anything else.

 

I mean, what's stopping other libs from creating more destinations on tv and radio that represent their views? Money. The simple fact of the matter is that while con radio and tv is a finaincial success, lib versions of these same things (like Air America) are not. Why is that? It's not as if the number of cons in this country outnumber the libs in a ratio anywhere close to the discrepancy between con and lib radio/tv programs.

 

But again, this kind of strays from my main point...that there is a difference between slanted content and slanted tools to gather content.

[DanXIII 8]

To continue along w/the TV analogy...imagine if the management of your cable operator were cons who decided that they wanted to help advance their views at the expense of competing viewpoints? So, they decide that the online guide that you access via your remote will now only display channels that go along w/their point of view. Foxnews is there...maybe CBS News isn't. Users can still find CBS News by scrolling through all of the channels, but the cable operators have just made it more difficult for the people to get that competing view of CBS News.

 

This is where you lost me. Your entire take here is based on the failed premise that CBS News and Fox News are opposite sides of the same coin. CBS and other 'mainstream' outlets do their best to advance "competing viewpoints." You regularly see both sides of an argument on the evening news (when an argument is presented) as well as on shows like '60 Minutes' and 'Dateline.' If they go after one side or the other they do their best to include the counterargument of those after whom they are going, and if that side chooses not to respond they tell us so. Fox, on the other hand, feels no such journalistic obligation. They regularly (but not always, truthfully) present ONE side of the argument, and ONLY that side. There is a fundamental difference between the two that is not being addressed here.

[davebg 0]

This is where you lost me. Your entire take here is based on the failed premise that CBS News and Fox News are opposite sides of the same coin. CBS and other 'mainstream' outlets do their best to advance "competing viewpoints." You regularly see both sides of an argument on the evening news (when an argument is presented) as well as on shows like '60 Minutes' and 'Dateline.' If they go after one side or the other they do their best to include the counterargument of those after whom they are going, and if that side chooses not to respond they tell us so. Fox, on the other hand, feels no such journalistic obligation. They regularly (but not always, truthfully) present ONE side of the argument, and ONLY that side. There is a fundamental difference between the two that is not being addressed here.

I was merely using CBS News as an example. I think that there are a few cons who think that they have shown a lib bias in the past (see Dan Rather.) I also used Foxnews as an example, as there are many libs who think that they have shown a con bias (I don't watch, so I can't comment for myself.)

 

Please try not to get hung up on the examples of networks that I am using at the expense of the underlying point that I am trying to make.

[D_House 0]

I mean, what's stopping other libs from creating more destinations on tv and radio that represent their views? Money. The simple fact of the matter is that while con radio and tv is a finaincial success, lib versions of these same things (like Air America) are not. Why is that? It's not as if the number of cons in this country outnumber the libs in a ratio anywhere close to the discrepancy between con and lib radio/tv programs.

Likewise, if this is a serious problem, what is stopping cons from making their own versions of google and youtube? the simple fact of the matter is that cons lack the technical know-how, creativity, and entrepeneurship to create such sites. Why is that?

[davebg 0]

Likewise, if this is a serious problem, what is stopping cons from making their own versions of google and youtube? the simple fact of the matter is that cons lack the technical know-how, creativity, and entrepeneurship to create such sites. Why is that?

Frankly, I don't know. One would think that w/how cozy many of these people are w/big business that they'd be more adept at it by now.

[parrot 789]

But let's just go with your "nip it in the bud" approach. What exactly are your proposing should happen here? Should the government come in and tell these private entities what they should host, or how their results should display?

You gonna answer this dave?

[D_House 0]

Frankly, I don't know. One would think that w/how cozy many of these people are w/big business that they'd be more adept at it by now.

I was joking.

 

I tend to think that this is not a wide-spread problem. Controversy always increases viewership, and likewise, site hits. It wouldn't make sense for there to be a company-wide policy of conservative censorship for google and youtube, because they would be reducing their hits. Malkin's videos probably got removed sight unseen by youtube staff due to multiple flaggings by youtube users. There are so many focking videos on that site that I seriously doubt they screen through every video flagged for objectionable content, rather allowing their users to do the policing for them.

[davebg 0]

You gonna answer this dave?

I don't know what the answer is, frankly. I don't want to see regulation a la the FCC...that has been nothing but a clusterfock that allows a relative minority of whiners to set in motion investigations that are being used to stifle free speech and limit what the rest of us have access to.

 

However, I do think that some sort of legislation needs to be introduced to ensure that the idea of net neutrality will be our presnt and our future. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how you do that when you're talking about the internet, which is an international medium.

 

I never said that I had all the answers. Hence, why my original post ended w/the word "discuss..."

[Cdub100 3,899]

Meanwhile, I see companies like Google/YouTube restricting or outright banning content solely on the basis that it is a con and not a lib viewpoint...

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8

[davebg 0]

There are so many focking videos on that site that I seriously doubt they screen through every video flagged for objectionable content, rather allowing their users to do the policing for them.

I don't know...they claim that they do review everything that is flagged by users and that nothing is automatically flagged.

 

As unweildly as that system may be, I would think that it would be preferrable than handing over so much power to the masses. All it would take is a well organized campaign (by the left or the right) and they could pretty much take control of a significant part of the comapny's operations. I can' timagine any company being down w/that.

[parrot 789]

I never said that I had all the answers. Hence, why my original post ended w/the word "discuss..."

Yes, and I noticed that even while advocating nipping this problem in the bud you studiously avoided discussing what should actually be done about it, I would guess because you knew that was necessarily going to enter into "the government should step in and tell these private entities how to operate..." territory.

[davebg 0]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8

You might want to take the time to read through my responses before trying to take me to task on something.

 

As I said, I read some things that I found to be troublesome. I have not been able to verify all of these claims myself.

As I said, I've been reading about this for a few days. Apparently, there was a report that the political ad/spoof done by the Scary Movie guy was being flagged by Youtube as offensive too (which means users would have to log in and click a disclaimer to view it.) Although, I have not been able to confirm that myself, as I have (and currently can) view the clip w/out having to log in.

 

Yes, and I noticed that even while advocating nipping this problem in the bud you studiously avoided discussing what should be done, I would guess because you knew that was necessarily going to enter into "the government should step in and tell these private entities how to operate..." territory.

As I said before, I'm not sure what kind of regulation should be employed or who should implement it...both b/c we have seen similar stuff get screwed up by our government before and b/c (contrary to popular belief) the US doesn't own the entire internet.

 

Frankly, the thought of the UN being in charge of the internet scares the bejeebus out of me too.

 

That doesn't change the fact that some sort of regulation does need to be implemented to ensure net neutrality.

[FranksTanks 0]

I think it's different, however, when the tools that people use to find and gather such information is biased in one way or the other.

 

I have to address something that you've repeated a few times in this thread as YouTube being a tool for gathering information. Who is using YouTube to gather information? Has anyone reference YouTube in a legitimate piece of work? People go to YouTube to watch crappy videos, it’s not changing society as we speak. You still have to make a choice in what you watch, nothing is being forced down our collective throats (that stuff is found in the other 80% of the internet ) .

[D_House 0]

Yes, and I noticed that even while advocating nipping this problem in the bud you studiously avoided discussing what should be done, I would guess because you knew that was necessarily going to enter into "the government should step in and tell these private entities how to operate..." territory.

all libs and dems do is whine... they have no PLANS!

 

this is a silly topic. firstly because the evidence for a problem is so scant.

 

secondly, because even if there was bias in google and youtube, i'm not sure that that even is a problem. you can not be silenced on the internet. as others have mentioned here, it doesn't take much to get your voice heard. conservogoogle and republitube could easily spring up in response to a left-slanted google and youtube, although i'm sure all that would do is force the reigning info kings to drop their bias in order to respond to the competition.

 

and lastly, as far as governmental control of "net neutrality," do these private companies really have any responsibility to maintain a neutral stance? why can't they decide what info they display? if many people complain, why can't they decide not to show malkin's videos? clearchannel took all dixie chicks music (which is not all political) off the air as a result of public backlash. isn't this kind of the same thing?

 

I have to address something that you've repeated a few times in this thread as YouTube being a tool for gathering information. Who is using YouTube to gather information? Has anyone reference YouTube in a legitimate piece of work? People go to YouTube to watch crappy videos, it’s not changing society as we speak. You still have to make a choice in what you watch, nothing is being forced down our collective throats (that stuff is found in the other 80% of the internet ) .

i have used it extensively in my research of cam whoores...

[Cdub100 3,899]

You might want to take the time to read through my responses before trying to take me to task on something.

 

I was just pointing out you're either lying or misinformed.

[davebg 0]

I have to address something that you've repeated a few times in this thread as YouTube being a tool for gathering information. Who is using YouTube to gather information? Has anyone reference YouTube in a legitimate piece of work? People go to YouTube to watch crappy videos, it’s not changing society as we speak. You still have to make a choice in what you watch, nothing is being forced down our collective throats (that stuff is found in the other 80% of the internet ) .

I think you are underestimating the impact that YouTube is starting to have on our society.

 

Yes, it is cluttered w/crap, but it is also starting to host some pretty relevant stuff.

 

Did you know that recently the government began airing anti-drug PSAs on YouTube? People are just starting to realize the potential reach that site slike Youtube can have. This is just the start of things. That's why google agreed to pay so much for YouTube...they saw the possiblities of the site.

 

The holy grail of the internet is "viral" applications and YouTube is the tops in that regard.

 

YouTube will always be filled w/slutty coeds and goofballs w/Mentos and a crate of Coke, but it will not always be the only thing to watch on it.

 

and lastly, as far as governmental control of "net neutrality," do these private companies really have any responsibility to maintain a neutral stance?

No, they don't...that's why it is up to the people to ensure things like net neutrality.

 

The internet should belong to the people...not corporations.

[FranksTanks 0]

I think you are underestimating the impact that YouTube is starting to have on our society.

 

Yes, it is cluttered w/crap, but it is also starting to host some pretty relevant stuff.

 

Did you know that recently the government began airing anti-drug PSAs on YouTube? People are just starting to realize the potential reach that site slike Youtube can have. This is just the start of things. That's why google agreed to pay so much for YouTube...they saw the possiblities of the site.

 

The holy grail of the internet is "viral" applications and YouTube is the tops in that regard.

 

YouTube will always be filled w/slutty coeds and goofballs w/Mentos and a crate of Coke, but it will not always be the only thing to watch on it.

 

I see the potential, but I don't see at being any different than any other form of media in the country. If you think people can change the television channel or the radio station, why can't they not watch a video if they don't like it? I just watched the stupid "Bush Was Right" song and stoped it after ten seconds because it was garbage. It was pretty easy.

[davebg 0]

I see the potential, but I don't see at being any different than any other form of media in the country. If you think people can change the television channel or the radio station, why can't they not watch a video if they don't like it? I just watched the stupid "Bush Was Right" song and stoped it after ten seconds because it was garbage. It was pretty easy.

Yes, if you don't like the content, you can change the channel. I am merely saying that I want all of us to retain that option. If the content is restricted, then you can't view/hear it and make that choice for yourself.

[supermike80 1,898]

I'm not sure exacly how they determine the order or what displays when you enter certain search criteria. However, I'm pretty sure that the metatags (keywords behind every web page) on GWB's biography on the White House website are set up such that searching on the word "failure" doesn't link to the page in question. In fact, when I go to a competing search engine (like ask.com) and enter "failure" you know what the first entry is? Not GWB's bio, but a BBC.com article that discusses how entering "failure" in Google returns GWB's bio. So this is something unique to Google and clearly something that they have some control over.

 

Again, I am very non-partisan, but when I read statements like this, it immediately invalidates everything else that is said. EVEN if there is value to it.

Just because it is unique to Google, why would you think it is something they have control over? That's just a foolish statement to me.

 

I mena people who think about this stuff and really worry day in and day out about these kinds of things are the ones that REALLY worry me.

[davebg 0]

Again, I am very non-partisan, but when I read statements like this, it immediately invalidates everything else that is said. EVEN if there is value to it.

Just because it is unique to Google, why would you think it is something they have control over? That's just a foolish statement to me.

The reason why I thought this might be something that they have control over?

 

When I go to other search engines I don't get the same results. Also, the political leanings of management is pretty well documented, as is the fact that a LARGE majority (something like 95%+) of the political donations made by these Google millionaires went to lib/Dem groups. Finally, I had started reading about the possible censorship going on at YouTube, which was recently bought by Google.

 

When you put all those things together it strikes me as suspicious. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that there is something fishy going on, but it sure looks that way. So, I started a thread to discuss it. Simple as that.

[FranksTanks 0]

The reason why I thought this might be something that they have control over?

 

When I go to other search engines I don't get the same results. Also, the political leanings of management is pretty well documented, as is the fact that a LARGE majority (something like 95%+) of the political donations made by these Google millionaires went to lib/Dem groups. Finally, I had started reading about the possible censorship going on at YouTube, which was recently bought by Google.

When you put all those things together it strikes me as suspicious. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that there is something fishy going on, but it sure looks that way. So, I started a thread to discuss it. Simple as that.

 

Their political donations mean nothing. That's their money and they can do what they want with it.

 

All of these companies give 100% to the Right

Michaels Stores, Inc $416,503 0% 100% 0%

Lowe's Companies, Inc $5,975 0% 100% 0%

Guitar Center, Inc. $4,000 0% 100% 0%

CSS Industries, Inc $7,000 0% 100% 0%

Curves International Inc $111,690 0% 100% 0%

Best Buy Co., Inc $46,434 0% 100% 0%

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Inc, The $1,000 0% 100% 0%

Fresh Market Inc., The $500 0% 100% 0%

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. $6,125 0% 100% 0%

Brown Shoe Company, Inc. $20,250 0% 100% 0%

Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. $2,450 0% 100% 0%

Dollar General Corporation $44,300 0% 100% 0%

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. $29,000 0% 100% 0%

Casual Male Retail Group, Inc $1,000 0% 100% 0%

KB Toys, Inc. $4,550 0% 100% 0%

International Dairy Queen, Inc. $500 0% 100% 0%

RE/MAX International, Inc $85,000 0% 100% 0%

Waffle House, Inc. $73,675 0% 100% 0%

PETsMART, Inc $6,250 0% 100% 0%

California Pizza Kitchen, Inc $8,000 0% 100% 0%

Carter's, Inc. $5,500 0% 100% 0%

Citgo (Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.) $2,500 0% 100% 0%

Piggly Wiggly Carolina Company, Inc. $1,250 0% 100% 0%

Tiffany & Co. $4,000 0% 100% 0%

Fossil, Inc. $4,000 0% 100% 0%

Russell Stover Candies Inc $64,500 0% 100% 0%

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc $6,250 0% 100% 0%

Domino's Pizza, Inc $40,677 0% 100% 0%

Hooters of America, Inc. $38,000 0% 100% 0%

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. $1,000 0% 100% 0%

Fruit of the Loom $28,750 0% 100% 0%

Slumberland, Inc. $1,250 0% 100% 0%

Steak n Shake Company, The $11,500 0% 100% 0%

eHarmony.com, Inc. $1,300 0% 100% 0%

Ace Hardware Corporation $300 0% 100% 0%

Advance Auto Parts, Inc $16,500 0% 100% 0%

WinCo Foods, Inc $4,000 0% 100% 0%

Kohl's Corporation $2,000 0% 100% 0%

Cintas Corporation $175,934 0% 100% 0%

Yakira, L.L.C. $1,000 0% 100% 0%

Payless ShoeSource, Inc. $6,000 0% 100% 0%

Movie Gallery, Inc. $5,950 0% 100% 0%

Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. $148,010 0% 100% 0%

MovieTickets.com, Inc. $2,000 0% 100% 0%

Wolverine World Wide, Inc. $4,500 0% 100% 0%

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. $4,000 0% 100% 0%

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc $25,000 0% 100% 0%

In-N-Out Burgers, Inc $3,200 0% 100% 0%

Kohler Co. $94,012 0% 100%

http://www.buyblue.org/company/ranking/don...p;order=%25+Rep

 

What does it mean? Nothing. Large companies are successful because they don't let their political leanings decide how they run their companies. You are allowed to support campaigns and it's not unusual for some people to not support the other party.

[davebg 0]

Their political donations mean nothing. That's their money and they can do what they want with it.

 

What does it mean? Nothing. Large companies are successful because they don't let their political leanings decide how they run their companies. You are allowed to support campaigns and it's not unusual for some people to not support the other party.

As I said, all three of the factors that I cited made it look like something fishy was going on.

 

If you told me about the money that Movietickets.com doanted all their $ to the right and that they refused to show F911, for example, then I'd think something fishy was going on there too.

[D_House 0]

Their political donations mean nothing. That's their money and they can do what they want with it.

 

All of these companies give 100% to the Right

Citgo (Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.)

[wiffleball 4,790]

The silliest part about this thread is that Dave has yet to actually prove there is some actual deliberate effort to eliminate choice from the internet:

 

1) The Google thing was disproven.

 

2) His only other basis is one alleged video that no one has seen, the author of the editorial didn't even bother to publish a transcript. - Nor has anyone else. For all we know the chick could've been dropping F-bombs while recreating Tubgirl.

 

- But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good story, huh?

 

carry on...

[davebg 0]

Didn't see that one. Something tells me the head of their charitible donations department might want to start looking for new employment (and maybe a safe hiding place.)

[Cdub100 3,899]

Again, I am very non-partisan, but when I read statements like this, it immediately invalidates everything else that is said. EVEN if there is value to it.

Just because it is unique to Google, why would you think it is something they have control over? That's just a foolish statement to me.

 

I mena people who think about this stuff and really worry day in and day out about these kinds of things are the ones that REALLY worry me.

 

It's not unique to google. It also works in Yahoo

[FranksTanks 0]

Well it sucks, buts it's not proof they are up to no good.

[supermike80 1,898]

The reason why I thought this might be something that they have control over?

 

When I go to other search engines I don't get the same results. Also, the political leanings of management is pretty well documented, as is the fact that a LARGE majority (something like 95%+) of the political donations made by these Google millionaires went to lib/Dem groups. Finally, I had started reading about the possible censorship going on at YouTube, which was recently bought by Google.

 

When you put all those things together it strikes me as suspicious. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that there is something fishy going on, but it sure looks that way. So, I started a thread to discuss it. Simple as that.

 

But, simply, that is NOT what you said! You said you believe Google controls these things. Don't make it out to be you are curious and intrigued by evidence you see to support your feelings on this matter.. You stated, quite to the point, that you feel Google can control the results of searches conducted on their site.

Right or wrong, and either can be true, when I read that, I and essentially invalidate every single thing you say after that because you are spewing information without a shred of factual evidence to support it.

 

Give me facts, give me DATA, give me evidence..any or all three would be wonderful.

Opinions based on what you THINK? Nice and fuzzy and all that, but it has no value. I can counter with a similar argument, without any supporting information, anything I want to based on my opinion.

 

But it still is of no value at all and brings anything else you say under suspicion.

 

My only point---Please carry on and have a great day!

[Rude Rick 0]

So what?