[lubbockjoe]

^Why do you believe Rupert Murdoch and his kind are lovers of objective truth over self-interest?

If one of Murdoch’s editors was going to report something that is true, that was going to cost Murdoch 10 billion dollars in losses, I have no reason to believe Murdoch would not put a stop to it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Of course I don't think Murdoch 'loves the objective truth'. You seem to be debating a straw man.

Here is the statement you replied to:

Why do you think the political leanings of the owner(s) are the primary influence? It does not make sense to me to be honest. Most media is not owned and controlled by a single person or even by a group of people with the same political leanings.

If one of Murdoch’s editors was going to report something that is true, that was going to cost Murdoch 10 billion dollars in losses, I have no reason to believe Murdoch would not put a stop to it.

What does that have to do with Murdoch's political views?

[lubbockjoe]

Politics and money are bedfellows.

I’m referring to his economic political leaning as it relates to his self-interest. Social political leanings are of no financial consequence to owners of media outlets so a variety of views are tolerated by owners to give the appearance of objectivity. How many anti-capitalist writers write for the WSJ?

My default position is that of the skeptic with respect to people in power positions. They're generally self-centered control freaks. A few altruistic power people might exist, but I doubt it.

I’m assuming that the primary influence on the political leanings of a media outlet are controlled by the owners. The degree of influence of owners over their media outlets would be very difficult to prove since the owners would be reluctant to give that information. Anyway, that's my hunch. Feel free to change my mind.

Why is Rupert Murdoch in the media business?
Is he a reporter of truth or a reaper of profits?
If he is a reporter of truth, objectivity is most important, his economic political leaning would not be a factor. If he is a reaper of profits, his own bank account is most important, his economic political leaning would most likely be a factor.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I’m referring to his economic political leaning as it relates to his self-interest. Social political leanings are of no financial consequence to owners of media outlets so a variety of views are tolerated by owners to give the appearance of objectivity. How many anti-capitalist writers write for the WSJ?

Fair enough, but that restriction was not clear when we started this discussion. SomeRandom has already pointed out that anti-capitalists are rare in the current media landscape. You and he are certainly correct on that and I don't dispute it.

On the other hand, anti-capitalists are generally rare nowadays and that's why I replied to SomeRandom:

I'm basically referring to mainstream political positions or what your average European or American calls left-wing, right-wing, and liberal. And yes, in this case liberal would mainly refer to social issues.

For instance, I would not consider an anti-capitalist stance to be a mainstream position, rather it's almost a fringe position nowadays. As far as I know, all European labour parties have accepted capitalism by now, although they want to 'soften' it to some degree.

If you exclude social issues and equate political leanings with being anti-capitalist or capitalist then I obviously agree with you. But I don't share your view that political leanings can be reduced to views on capitalism. For the rest of my post I will use a broader definition that includes social issues and is based on mainstream political views. So, feel free to ignore most of the remainder.

My default position is that of the skeptic with respect to people in power positions. They're generally self-centered control freaks. A few altruistic power people might exist, but I doubt it.

Skepticism is ok and needed in my opinion. Your description of people in power sounds more like a caricature, though.

I’m assuming that the primary influence on the political leanings of a media outlet are controlled by the owners. The degree of influence of owners over their media outlets would be very difficult to prove since the owners would be reluctant to give that information. Anyway, that's my hunch. Feel free to change my mind.

Owner(s) do of course influence all aspects of their business, although I'm really not sure how concerned they are with the political bias of it. And even if, how much do owner(s) micro-manage and why should we assume that groups of owners are politically homogenous?

Anyway, I'm not really here to change your mind, but to question peoples' beliefs that media owners political views are reflected in media reporting to such a great extent. (Our disagreement seems to mostly have stemmed from a misunderstanding on terminology.)

Why is Rupert Murdoch in the media business?
Is he a reporter of truth or a reaper of profits?
If he is a reporter of truth, objectivity is most important, his economic political leaning would not be a factor. If he is a reaper of profits, his own bank account is most important, his economic political leaning would most likely be a factor.

Profit sometimes trumps truth, especially if truth leads to financial loss, but in real life truth is often profitable.

[lubbockjoe]

I don't share your view that political leanings can be reduced to views on capitalism.

You seem to be debating a straw man.

Fair enough, but that restriction was not clear when we started this discussion.

My first post in this thread:

eugenekop,
How much influence does corporate advertising revenue have on the media?

For me, it was always about the money. Social political leanings are insignificant. Economic political leanings are the driver of politics.

SomeRandom has already pointed out that anti-capitalists are rare in the current media landscape.

And so are non-capitalist views. Both the media and current political economic system are in agreement. It didn't just happen by chance. It is by top-down design.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ In the context of our debate, only viewpoints on capitalism seem to be relevant to you (or - as you also put it in your posts - economic political leanings). So, I don't see how my statement is a straw man, but I happily retract it since it's irrelevant for my point.

However, I maintain that in my opinion the broader definition I have described in my last post is more useful and I disagree with you that only economic political leanings are significant.

For me, it was always about the money. Social political leanings are insignificant. Economic political leanings are the driver of politics.

It's really not so obvious even after reading your first post, but it might be just me.

I was discussing whether owner(s) push their political views on the media when you replied to one of my posts by presenting me with a link. But I should somehow infer from your 'advertisement comment' that you were only talking about economical political views of the owner(s)?

And so are non-capitalist views. Both the media and current political economic system are in agreement. It didn't just happen by chance. It is by top-down design.

I think that's what you actually wanted to debate all along. Anyway, as you said earlier, you cannot prove this claim. Since I personally find it very unlikely and far fetched, I leave it at that.

[lubbockjoe]

Since I personally find it very unlikely and far fetched...

Do you believe the homogeneous capitalist political leaning of the media and its owners is very unlikely and far fetched?
What are the odds of such homogeneous leaning just being by mere coincidence?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ The media and most people (including media owners) being pro-capitalist is most likely a reflection of the real (developed) world which is currently exclusively capitalist. I can't think of a single non-capitalist Western country and, as I said before, (almost?) all former socialist parties in Europe support capitalism in some form by now.

We've seen and are still seeing a trend towards capitalism and the media is basically going with the flow.

[lubbockjoe]

The media and most people (including media owners) being pro-capitalist is most likely a reflection of the real (developed) world which is currently exclusively capitalist. I can't think of a single non-capitalist Western country and, as I said before, (almost?) all former socialist parties in Europe support capitalism in some form by now.

We've seen and are still seeing a trend towards capitalism and the media is basically going with the flow.

Agreed.

So- we have a for-profit, pro-capitalist media "going with the flow" of capitalism…
Do you see any potential problem(s) in that?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I see where you are coming from. But I don't find it any more problematic than the absence of any 'fringe' position in the mainstream media.

[QatzelOk]

In findings likely to fuel the raging debate over the issue of media bias, a new book concludes that the nation’s journalists have moved a bit to the right since the 1990s, but are still considerably more liberal than the general public.

Part of the reason that journalists are slightly to the left of the general public is because journalists are aware of how the news is edited to fit the wordviews of the rich who pay for it. They feel safer with some liberal things because of this, while the general public has been moved to the right by pro-corporate representation.

I just thought I'd provide another interpretation of this "fact" that was provided in an article.

[lubbockjoe]

I see where you are coming from. But I don't find it any more problematic than the absence of any 'fringe' position in the mainstream media.

Imo, the absence of any 'fringe' [non-capitalist] position in the mainstream media is also the silent [for now] 900 pound gorilla in the room.

What if the weakness of laissez-faire capitalism is that it is prone to corruption? Will for-profit, pro-capitalist media "going with the flow" of capitalism expose or participate in that corruption?

It's the difference between lapdog and watchdog media. The 'leaning' of the media should be obvious to anyone who is looking.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sorry for my late reply, but uni work caught up with me...

Imo, the absence of any 'fringe' [non-capitalist] position in the mainstream media is also the silent [for now] 900 pound gorilla in the room.

What if the weakness of laissez-faire capitalism is that it is prone to corruption? Will for-profit, pro-capitalist media "going with the flow" of capitalism expose or participate in that corruption?

It's the difference between lapdog and watchdog media. The 'leaning' of the media should be obvious to anyone who is looking.

I agree, that those who profit from the system will try to protect it, but in this particular case I also have a few caveats:

1) It's not so black and white: criticism != abolition
I believe criticism including corruption would be and is reported, but we won't hear many corporate media outlets calling for replacement of the capitalist system with, say, socialism. However, there are plenty of other news and media outlets that can do that.

2) You don't have to be pro-capitalist to own a newspaper (or any other media outlet) and make a profit. For instance, any socialist can use the capitalist system to 'spread the message'.

3) I think the main reason for the strong support for capitalism is not so much profit protection by the rich but human nature. If you have grown up with a certain economic system and it has treated you (reasonably) well, it will be difficult to convince you of the benefits of an alternative system.

4) In case the alternative system is socialism, there are additional problems: It has a pretty negative image in the West and many socialist states have fairly recently collapsed and are capitalist now. Capitalism is the winner at the moment and it shapes people's perceptions.

Part of the reason that journalists are slightly to the left of the general public is because journalists are aware of how the news is edited to fit the wordviews of the rich who pay for it. They feel safer with some liberal things because of this, while the general public has been moved to the right by pro-corporate representation.

I just thought I'd provide another interpretation of this "fact" that was provided in an article.

I'm skeptical of this interpretation. For one, I think journalists are already more left-wing or liberal than the general public when they leave university. Maybe there is even some self-selection going on and people who choose to study journalism are already left-leaning when they enter university (The studies on political leanings of academia seem to support this at least).

[lubbockjoe]

I agree, that those who profit from the system will try to protect it...

Is the capitalist system they are trying to protect left or right leaning?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I think we have already talked about this unless I'm misunderstanding your question.

But anyway, I would consider support for capitalism to be mainstream and therefore at the centre of the political spectrum nowadays.

As I've said before

I'm basically referring to mainstream political positions or what your average European or American calls left-wing, right-wing, and liberal. And yes, in this case liberal would mainly refer to social issues.

For instance, I would not consider an anti-capitalist stance to be a mainstream position, rather it's almost a fringe position nowadays. As far as I know, all European labour parties have accepted capitalism by now, although they want to 'soften' it to some degree.

If that's not what you are asking, please clarify.

[lubbockjoe]

I would consider support for capitalism to be mainstream and therefore at the centre of the political spectrum nowadays.

Where on this scale would you put capitalism as it exists nowadays?

[QatzelOk]

I think journalists are already more left-wing or liberal than the general public when they leave university.

Everyone is more liberal than the general public at the moment that they graduate from university.

How many of our current crop of journalists have just recently graduated?

Answer: virtually none of them. They have all been in the world of career-climbing for the last few decades. And social-climbers are NOT any more left-wing than the asses they kiss.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Everyone is more liberal than the general public at the moment that they graduate from university.

That's also my impression and studies seem to support it.

How many of our current crop of journalists have just recently graduated?

Answer: virtually none of them. They have all been in the world of career-climbing for the last few decades. And social-climbers are NOT any more left-wing than the asses they kiss.

Now you've lost me. Didn't you say earlier that journalists were more left-wing because they had seen the real world ?

@lubbockjoe
Around the centre of the economic axis.

[lubbockjoe]

@lubbockjoe
Around the centre of the economic axis.

The left on the economic scale is collectivism or unionism, the right is neo-liberalism or extreme individualism.

So you believe Rupert Murdoch and his gang at the Wall Street Journal are anywhere near center with respect to trade unionism?
How do you support your position?

[QatzelOk]

Now you've lost me. Didn't you say earlier that journalists were more left-wing because they had seen the real world ?

Not exactly.

I said they express opinions that are more leftwing than the general public because journalists are more aware of how much of our elites' fearmongering is actually lies.