Bias is in the eye of the beholder. It can be blatant, such as only presenting one side of an argument. It can be less blatant, such as having several liberals gang up on the single representative of the conservative viewpoint. It can be subtle, such as the relative time given to each side to present its point of view. It can be even more subtle, such as selecting the representatives in a way that the viewpoint you don't favor is representated by someone who is inarticulate.
In the end, with all of the media alternatives out there, I fail to see why we need government subsidizies for radio and TV stations. People choosing to donate through a pledge drive is fine, but taxpayer subsidizies aren't, IMO. If the outlet can't survive financially on its own in the marketplace of ideas, then that's not my problem any more than if a restaurant fails to stay in business.
Current Events » in reply to See Reply To ebnelson
Your local NPR station must be a lot different from mine
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Vast Right Wing Media Conspiracy blamed for liberal media failure
- Bill O'Reilly's ratings in the toilet
- Wow!
- Let them eat steak!
- Of course, they use 'fairness doctrine' to hide its blatant unfairness
- That's Not The Point Tom
- Yawn. Tom was up too late again last night. (NT) (n/t)
- Re: "It couldn't be that most audiences just aren't interested in what the Left has to say?"