Can I ask you U.S. citizens a question, is not the U.S. media primarily liberal? Everytime I come across a U.S. television show aside from perhaps King of the Hill, everything I see is liberal. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the majority of the U.S. population overweight and without post secondary education? Like, a vast majority? So wouldn't that mean that you have all those people watching liberal media, maybe go out and vote Democrat? Then again wasn't there only like a 60% voter turnout? Anyway, explain this to me, how is it that the U.S. has been run primarily by the Republican Party, Nixon/Ford, Reagan and two Bushes in the past 40 years??
Why does it matter? Both parties are the same and controlled by the same corporate interests and central bankers. They simply give the public two sides, then play both sides off against one another, hoping that people join one side or the other, thinking they're against the other side. Politics have ALWAYS existed soley for the public, as a means to keep them divided and in the dark. It's the hegelian dialectic at work. You cannot understand the SYSTEM until you understand dialectics. Anyone who falls for the Left/Right paradigm is in the dark and doesn't have a clue about the system they're living under. Whether the media is mostly Left or Right is irrelevant because what the media gives you is lies and distortions, mixed in with bits and pieces of the truth... that is when they actually cover something with the least bit of substance and not the latest scandal involving Paris Hilton. I would say the media is mostly socialist as it is owned and controlled by people who have a socialist-collectivist-fascist agenda for the people it's trying to brainwash. All those other labels are irrelevant and serve only to mislead the public.
The US is not run by the president alone. The president is the head of only one branch of the US government. Congress is the other elected branch containing many people. They actually have a lot of power, though the president has been going for a power grab over the years, especially Bush, and for some reason Congress does not seem to mind. But still if people took more of an interest in the other elected officials besides the president things might be a bit better. But even fewer people vote in elections that aren't for the president. I think a reason for such low voter turn out is because people are disgusted with their perceived choices because all the media will show are Republicans and Democrats, and select ones at that. The internet is a great place to find information and other parties and ignored candidates, but maybe the masses don't know how to find this information or feel that they can do nothing to change things. But if that 40% actually voted for "lesser" candidates or third parties they would make a big difference. 40% is a lot when the other 60% is divided. But I guess they just have other things more important to worry about.
just because the media is liberal doesn't mean the populace is, and do not forget there are significant parts of the media that are definitly not liberal such as talk radio and a good portion of the blogosphere, plenty of right-leaning newspapers as well. Also a lot of the people who show up to vote, are more conservative than the ones who stay home, senior citizens on the right and student on the left being, i think, good examples. Also it depends on what you mean by "liberal", the european sense of the word is vastly different than the North american, the populace leans "liberal" in a classical liberal sense, but the political parties are mostly made up of socialist types in the democratic party and theocrats/traditionalists in the republican party, there are parties like the Libertarian party that appeal directly to classical liberalism but are usually too narrow in idealogy and too different from modern politics to effectively attract most mainstream(centrist-statist) voters.
They didn't run anything. The CFR, the think tanks, and the foundations (all of which are under the auspices of the central bankers) run this country. The people they put in office are merely the willing frontmen who do as they're told.
Yeah, but the theocratic/traditionalist image is just a front most of these people operate under. They are just as socialistic and big government as their Democratic counterparts. They simply operate under the facade of religion and traditionalism so the public will buy into their game. Both parties operate via fabian socialism. It's just that one party works more on the imperialistic, pro-war front, while the other dabbles more openly in socialism and UN treaties. The Republicans are the Trotskyites and the Democrats are more along the lines of fabian socialists, though both parties operate largely via incrementalism. Both are after the same outcome, which is the outcome of their controllers who control both parties. I can't think of anything regarding the current president that's conservative or traditional, other than for the fake image he likes to portray of himself. Bush has the biggest spending record of any of his predecessors. If it wasn't for his fake accent, cowboy hat, swagger, and religious mumbo-jumbo, he'd look almost as liberal as Ted Kennedy. And being pro-war has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. There are plenty of liberal/Democratic presidents who have gotten us into wars. Traditionally the Democrats have started wars and the Republicans ended them. Not anymore.
I'm slightly curious how King of The Hill is conservative, it's tongue in cheek. I'm more curious how the weight and education of Americans relates to their political allegiances. It seems like a rather moronic way to phrase a question about media attitudes influencing political perceptions.
Ummm....well fatties and idiots are more inclined to spend more time watching television, makes perfect sense to me.
I suppose that tenuous connection could be made, although as pointed out, it doesn't seem like exceptionally salient commentary. As for media influencing the attitudes of the viewer, yes, it does to some degree. Approaching the issue of more liberal attitudes, one could point out the fact that the young are more likely to hold liberal positions. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/w...ea07459caeed71&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Of course, these aren't the kinds of things that happen overnight. And I'd be hesitant to attribute that entire change in thought simply to media. Although I'm sure it plays a role.
