The "Leftist Press" Line

I ended up writing this screed in response to some crap about the "leftist press" from a neocon loony on Askville:

---

The leftist press? What nonsense! Thanks to media conglomeration, more of the US press is in the hands of large corporations and the super-rich than at any time or in any place in history.

Or do you really want us to believe that arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch and right-wing cult leader (and close Bush family friend) the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon are secretly Communists?

Not to mention the mammoth corporations that own virtually all the rest of the mainstream media? You REALLY expect us to believe that these multi-billion-dollar companies are secretly plotting against the Republican Party? I would have said "free market system" instead of "Republican Party", but the fact is that media consolidation represents the opposite of a free market. It is, in fact, centralized, top-down control of the sort beloved by Bush soul-mate Putin, with the difference being that the controllers are the heads and boards of the few large corporations which own the media. But since those media-owner interests are closely allied with those of the most radical elements of the Republican party (and that currently occupy the White House), that's a distinction that makes no difference.

Unless, of course, your goal is to hide the truth. In which case you'll keep a straight face as you claim that rigid media control and a virtual monopoly on what the people may hear is somehow different if it's done by billionaires on behalf of the government, instead of by the government directly.

The fact is that this whole "left wing media" line is a classic "working the refs" tactic. By constantly screaming that the media is left-wing, neo-cons are trying to accomplish two things: 1) keep any progressive reporters, columnists, or pundits on defense, constantly feeling a need to lean rightwards to prove that they *aren't* leftists, and 2) cover up the fact that the overwhelming majority of the media industry IS, in fact, biased - to protect the interests of their owners, meaning government protection of monopolies and the maintenance of the status quo (i.e. the rich keep getting richer at everyone else's expense).

Claiming that the US media is "leftist" means that the speaker is either completely delusional or deliberately lying to promote the neo-con agenda. It also indicates absolute contempt for the intelligence of the readers. In any case, it's a waste of time to seriously attempt to debate that sort of "argument". Someone who can make such a blatantly false claim with a straight face is not amenable to reason, and their goal is to confuse the issue rather than addressing real-world facts.

The "Leftist Press" Line

I ended up writing this screed in response to some crap about the "leftist press" from a neocon loony on Askville:

---

The leftist press? What nonsense! Thanks to media conglomeration, more of the US press is in the hands of large corporations and the super-rich than at any time or in any place in history.

Or do you really want us to believe that arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch and right-wing cult leader (and close Bush family friend) the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon are secretly Communists?

Not to mention the mammoth corporations that own virtually all the rest of the mainstream media? You REALLY expect us to believe that these multi-billion-dollar companies are secretly plotting against the Republican Party? I would have said "free market system" instead of "Republican Party", but the fact is that media consolidation represents the opposite of a free market. It is, in fact, centralized, top-down control of the sort beloved by Bush soul-mate Putin, with the difference being that the controllers are the heads and boards of the few large corporations which own the media. But since those media-owner interests are closely allied with those of the most radical elements of the Republican party (and that currently occupy the White House), that's a distinction that makes no difference.

Unless, of course, your goal is to hide the truth. In which case you'll keep a straight face as you claim that rigid media control and a virtual monopoly on what the people may hear is somehow different if it's done by billionaires on behalf of the government, instead of by the government directly.

The fact is that this whole "left wing media" line is a classic "working the refs" tactic. By constantly screaming that the media is left-wing, neo-cons are trying to accomplish two things: 1) keep any progressive reporters, columnists, or pundits on defense, constantly feeling a need to lean rightwards to prove that they *aren't* leftists, and 2) cover up the fact that the overwhelming majority of the media industry IS, in fact, biased - to protect the interests of their owners, meaning government protection of monopolies and the maintenance of the status quo (i.e. the rich keep getting richer at everyone else's expense).

Claiming that the US media is "leftist" means that the speaker is either completely delusional or deliberately lying to promote the neo-con agenda. It also indicates absolute contempt for the intelligence of the readers. In any case, it's a waste of time to seriously attempt to debate that sort of "argument". Someone who can make such a blatantly false claim with a straight face is not amenable to reason, and their goal is to confuse the issue rather than addressing real-world facts.